# The Homosexual Dilemma



## saintmichaeldefendthem

You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.

So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?

Yeah, you got it.

Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.

1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.

2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells

3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.

4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?

5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?







But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.

Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.

If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!

So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you. 

BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.


----------



## Carib Gyal

They're out there, etc.


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.



Forcing?  Who's forcing you to marry a gay guy?

Also, do you honestly think civil rights should be determined by popular opinion?



> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells



What special rights are they given that are not given to others?



> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.



Is that really such an issue and why exactly?



> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?



Neither is Teebowing but some are going to do it.  In the end, it's a 24 hour moment of attention and then how they play becomes more important - gay or straight or Christian.



> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?



It only pervades if you obsess over it and look for it everywhere.  I hardly notice it.



> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.



Yes.  How DARE those damn homos be open about what they are!  OMG.  They need to stay in the closet where they belong.

Now....can we do something about those annoying hetero's shoving their lifestyles in our faces?



> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.



Can you keep your heterosexuality private?



> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.



...and you say you don't hate homosexuals?  Want to rethink that?



> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.



Ugandans (under the guidance of American megachurches) tried to institute the death penalty for homosexuality.  Now it's just prison time, publishing their names so they can be lynched and imprisoning anyone who knowingly withholds information about known homosexuals.  Maybe that's what we should be doing, yessiree bubby!


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Are you the same Coyote I've come to know and love?


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Are you the same Coyote I've come to know and love?



umh....maybe?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you the same Coyote I've come to know and love?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> umh....maybe?
Click to expand...



Then you'll remember I have some close gay friends who I highly respect. You and I discussed them at length on other forums.  It isn't gay people I have a problem with, it's the assholes.


----------



## OnePercenter

I don't have a homosexual dilemma, I like to make fun of those that do.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

OnePercenter said:


> I don't have a homosexual dilemma, I like to make fun of those that do.



Maybe you're one of the aggressors.


----------



## Mr. H.

A family-run business went under because they chose not to bake a fucking cake for a gay wedding?

That's not only the Gay agenda at work, but the twisted brains of the Liberals who will not stand for dissent or disagreement.


----------



## JakeStarkey

*The Homosexual Dilemma exists only in the minds of those who dislike marriage equality, much like folks who disliked interracial marriage.

Tough for them back then and tough for you today because we are never going back.

Get over it and don't marry someone you don't love is the best advice you can get.*


----------



## JakeStarkey

Mr. H. said:


> A family-run business went under because they chose not to bake a fucking cake for a gay wedding?
> 
> That's not only the Gay agenda at work, but the twisted brains of the Liberals who will not stand for dissent or disagreement.



Choose to disobey the law at your own risk.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Seriously...

There are political and economic advantages built in to the system for people who team up to take on their lives.  If there weren't blatant discrimination involved, there would be no issue.

We, The People are obligated by The US Constitution to either stop giving tax, social insurance, and other advantages to partnerships all together or start recognizing all partnerships equally.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yup.


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> . The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.



Exempt when that didn't happen.

Like say....1967. Interracial marriage bans was the 'will of the people' by ridiculous margins, with support for such bans in the high 80s.. The USSC overturned such bans in a landmark case called Loving V. Virginia, overturning the law of Virginia and part of the constitution of several states in the South. 

And you know what happened? *Nothing.* No wars. There weren't even significant protests. And this was for a practice so popular that it wasn't until the mid 1990s that a majority of the nation supported interracial marriage.

Demonstrating neither your command of history nor your use of the word 'never' aren't exactly something worth emulating. 

Remember, and this point is fundamental; you have no idea what you're talking about. 



> Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?



Gays are people. That makes them important. Their rights are important. Their families and lives are important.

A better question would be....why would we ever think differently? 



> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.



I love how you put that in the passive voice.* What's been noted is that people like yourself either make vague threats of violence or try and justify such threats using (and this is quite loathsome).....Jesus Christ.*

As it as you that said 'Even Jesus went on a rampage'. This while trying to defend one your fellow opponents of gays who  threatened that if gays didn't 'sit down and shut the fuck up' that there would be a 'war' that would make 'hate crimes look like sunday brunch'. 

You're trying to pass the responsibility for your own hate, your own threats, your own justifications for loathsome violence against gays onto anyone but yourself. Gays. The media. You even tried to bring Jesus into this as some rationalization for such violence. Yeah, I've read his works. It *wasn't;*

"As I have loved you, love one another. Except the faggots'. 

*We were told to love everyone. *And the kind of violence and despicable behavior you're trying to justify isn't love. Nor is it inspired by Christ.
*
The responsibility for your justification of violence...is yours.* Nothing has been done to you. Nothing has been take from you. Extending rights to gays costs you nothing. Its not as if your marriage is suddenly less valid because a gay person is allowed to marry.

You're trying to portray yourself as some victim...when you've lost nothing. All so you can pass the buck on your own desire to hurt people to the people you're trying to justify violence against.

Um, no.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 
> Forcing?  Who's forcing you to marry a gay guy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I was saying, was it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, do you honestly think civil rights should be determined by popular opinion?
> A civil right?  No I don't believe in civil rights that are made up any more than I believe in Santa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 
> What special rights are they given that are not given to others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gay and transgender affirmative action, a right not to be offended that not everyone agrees with their lifestyle so openly on display, a right to walk around with a chip on their shoulder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 
> Is that really such an issue and why exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because California passed a law that makes that a reality for the millions of Americans who live there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 
> Neither is Teebowing but some are going to do it.  In the end, it's a 24 hour moment of attention and then how they play becomes more important - gay or straight or Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sports are seen as an escape from all the crap that goes on at work and in politics. In sports, the only endeavor of achievement is athletic perfection, and the only ones who are celebrated are those who attained it.  Why does sports have to be yet another tentacle in the gay agenda?
> 
> 
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> It only pervades if you obsess over it and look for it everywhere.  I hardly notice it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hard not to notice something that's everywhere, unless you're going along with it. For those of us who don't want to hear about it, it's different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Yes.  How DARE those damn homos be open about what they are!  OMG.  They need to stay in the closet where they belong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't address the dilemma. Perhaps you didn't even get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you keep your heterosexuality private?
Click to expand...


How is heterosexuality being shoved in your face? What laws are being passed to give special consideration to heterosexuals?  What heterosexual parades are marching down your street? Exactly.  We aren't even remotely as "loud" as homos. 



> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> 
> ...and you say you don't hate homosexuals?  Want to rethink that?



That's an expression of irritation, not hate.  I don't hate homosexuals, I hate the assholes. 



> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> 
> Ugandans (under the guidance of American megachurches) tried to institute the death penalty for homosexuality.  Now it's just prison time, publishing their names so they can be lynched and imprisoning anyone who knowingly withholds information about known homosexuals.  Maybe that's what we should be doing, yessiree bubby!



Maybe you're getting the first inkling of what a backlash looks like.  Putin, Uganda, none of this started happening until gay activists started getting pushy.  Get the dilemma now?


----------



## AVG-JOE

JakeStarkey said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A family-run business went under because they chose not to bake a fucking cake for a gay wedding?
> 
> That's not only the Gay agenda at work, but the twisted brains of the Liberals who will not stand for dissent or disagreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Choose to disobey the law at your own risk.
Click to expand...


If true, that would be a shameful wrong, in my humble opinion, but I tend to put the 'libertarian' in liberal.  I also believe that bikers should be able to smoke in biker-bars, but I digress.

Any private enterprise should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.  Obviously the Wal-Marts of the world would never be so stupid, and if Mom & Pop want to run the risk of public alienation by making a brew ha-ha out of the refusal, so be it.

If they were closed by a government for refusing to bake for a gay customer, that's different and unconstitutional in my humble opinion.


----------



## 80zephyr

AVG-JOE said:


> Seriously...
> 
> There are political and economic advantages built in to the system for people who team up to take on their lives.  If there weren't blatant discrimination involved, there would be no issue.
> 
> We, The People are obligated by The US Constitution to either stop giving tax, social insurance, and other advantages to partnerships all together or start recognizing all partnerships equally.



Limiting it to two is discriminatory.  I mean, why can't a bi-sexual marry both the man and the woman he/she loves?

Mark


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you the same Coyote I've come to know and love?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> umh....maybe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you'll remember I have some close gay friends who I highly respect. You and I discussed them at length on other forums.  It isn't gay people I have a problem with, it's the assholes.
Click to expand...



oh...I'm not the same Coyote then (I don't think)....maybe you remember Segap who also went by Coyote in places?

Anyway....assholes are assholes regardless of sexual orientation


----------



## Dogmaphobe

The homophobe dilemma -- "do I admit how often I dream of having something shoved in my face or don't ?I"


----------



## JoeB131

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism. Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.



Actually, the legalization of abortion had probably less public support than the legalization of gay marriage.  Besides the fact that marriage equality is supported by 50% of the population now, most people just realize this issue has no effect on their lives.  



saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells



Well, no, not really.  Frankly, most gay folks I work with, the issue really doesn't come up.  I had a boss I worked with for a year and a half and didn't know she was gay.  It wasn't anyone's business.  She was probably the only boss I've had who wasn't a total asshole.  



saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.



Probably most teenage girls find sharing a bathroom with a trannie less gross than sharing one with her Dad and teenage brothers.  



saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out". Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?



Since when is being a bible thumping idiot whose mother didn't have an abortion an accomplishment? BUt you guys kept pushing Tebow down our throats.  



saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life. Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?



Are you trying to tell me that there aren't a bunch of Christians and Jews in the media, right now? 



saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma. Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia. They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement. When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private. But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.



I think a lot of you guys would hate even if gays weren't asking for the same things you enjoy.  Of course, you homophobes are becoming an ever shrinking minority, only being able to mutter your hate in your own house because you'll get the stink-eye anywhere else.


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> How is heterosexuality being shoved in your face?



By the standard *you've* set, where the mere exist of gays in the media is homosexuality being 'shoved down your throat'?

Off the top of my head, the Bachelor and the Bachelorette. The Dating game. Any show that has straight people. Any mention of straight people in the media, news, press, or television.


----------



## Skylar

Dogmaphobe said:


> The homophobe dilemma -- "do I admit how often I dream of having something shoved in my face or don't ?I"



Yeah, it didn't go unnoticed how often he talks of 'gays' being 'shoved down his throat'. If he starts lamenting about Christians 'taking it up the ass from gays', I'm gonna be tempted to call bullshit.


----------



## AVG-JOE

80zephyr said:


> Limiting it to two is discriminatory.  I mean, why can't a bi-sexual marry both the man and the woman he/she loves?
> 
> Mark



Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.

Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.

The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands.  Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.

Treat all partnerships the same.  Easy-squeezy.


----------



## Cecilie1200

AVG-JOE said:


> Seriously...
> 
> There are political and economic advantages built in to the system for people who team up to take on their lives.  If there weren't blatant discrimination involved, there would be no issue.
> 
> We, The People are obligated by The US Constitution to either stop giving tax, social insurance, and other advantages to partnerships all together or start recognizing all partnerships equally.



Why?


----------



## Cecilie1200

AVG-JOE said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Limiting it to two is discriminatory.  I mean, why can't a bi-sexual marry both the man and the woman he/she loves?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.
> 
> Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.
> 
> The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands.  Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.
> 
> Treat all partnerships the same.  Easy-squeezy.
Click to expand...


Oh, I like that.  "Limiting it in a way that I like isn't discriminatory.  Only limits that I don't like are discriminatory."

Sorry, but that semantic shell game only works one people who are either stupid or who already agree with you and therefore WANT to believe it . . . so basically, only people who are stupid.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Why what?

Why are We, The Peeps obligated to treat everyone equally under the law?

'Cause The United States Constitution demands equal treatment under the law despite conditions on the ground since it was published.

Baby steps!  ​


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Skylar said:


> Yeah, it didn't go unnoticed how often he talks of 'gays' being 'shoved down his throat'. If he starts lamenting about Christians 'taking it up the ass from gays', I'm gonna be tempted to call bullshit.




Shoved in his face and then crammed down his throat.

It's a slippery slope if I ever saw one.


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> A civil right?  No I don't believe in civil rights that are made up any more than I believe in Santa.



Marriage is considered a right.  Is it a made up right? Should that be determined by popular opinion?  Anti-miscegenation laws were common until the Supreme Court overturned them in 1967 (COURTS not the "hearts and the minds").



> Gay and transgender affirmative action, a right not to be offended that not everyone agrees with their lifestyle so openly on display, a right to walk around with a chip on their shoulder.



What specific affirmative action are you talking about?

People have a freedom to walk around as they wish within the confines of the law without undue harrassment or assault.  Many people have chips on their shoulder.  So what?  Why single out homosexuals?



> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 
> Is that really such an issue and why exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because California passed a law that makes that a reality for the millions of Americans who live there.
Click to expand...


Again - WHY is that an issue?



> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> Neither is Teebowing but some are going to do it.  In the end, it's a 24 hour moment of attention and then how they play becomes more important - gay or straight or Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sports are seen as an escape from all the crap that goes on at work and in politics. In sports, the only endeavor of achievement is athletic perfection, and the only ones who are celebrated are those who attained it.  Why does sports have to be yet another tentacle in the gay agenda?
Click to expand...


Except sports really  isn't any of that anymore.  It's all about the politics of winning and making money.  One could easily ask, after all the PR about TeeBow - why does sports have to be yet another tentacle in the Christian Agenda?




> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> It only pervades if you obsess over it and look for it everywhere.  I hardly notice it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard not to notice something that's everywhere, unless you're going along with it. For those of us who don't want to hear about it, it's different.
Click to expand...


If you don't want to hear it, don't listen to it.  I don't like hearing all sorts of rightwing religious propaganda but ijf they want to talk about it, it's their right - not an agenda.



> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Yes.  How DARE those damn homos be open about what they are!  OMG.  They need to stay in the closet where they belong.
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't address the dilemma. Perhaps you didn't even get it.
Click to expand...


I get it.




> How is heterosexuality being shoved in your face? What laws are being passed to give special consideration to heterosexuals?  What heterosexual parades are marching down your street? Exactly.  We aren't even remotely as "loud" as homos.



All this "family values" stuff, everywhere I look I see heterosexuals holding hands, smooching on the park benches.  Look at the movies - it's FULL of heterosexuals doing their sexual stuff. 

What laws are being passed that give special consideration to homosexuals?

You are every bit as loud as homos when you're ranting about them.




> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ugandans (under the guidance of American megachurches) tried to institute the death penalty for homosexuality.  Now it's just prison time, publishing their names so they can be lynched and imprisoning anyone who knowingly withholds information about known homosexuals.  Maybe that's what we should be doing, yessiree bubby!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you're getting the first inkling of what a backlash looks like.  Putin, Uganda, *none of this started happening until gay activists started getting pushy*.  Get the dilemma now?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

Kind of sounds like people complaining about uppity pushy negros....


----------



## Howey

My homosexual agenda is to try to stay up til midnight tonight and wake up in the morning.


----------



## 80zephyr

AVG-JOE said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Limiting it to two is discriminatory.  I mean, why can't a bi-sexual marry both the man and the woman he/she loves?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.
> 
> Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.
> 
> The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands.  Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.
> 
> Treat all partnerships the same.  Easy-squeezy.
Click to expand...


So, if limiting marriage to two is not  discriminatory, then so is limiting marriage to one man and one woman. After all, everyone would live under the same law.

I mean, if we use your logic as a basis for our actions. Treat all partnerships the same.

Mark


----------



## Howey

Why is it homophobic heteros like to talk about something being "shoved down their throat"?


----------



## Coyote

80zephyr said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Limiting it to two is discriminatory.  I mean, why can't a bi-sexual marry both the man and the woman he/she loves?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.
> 
> Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.
> 
> The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands.  Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.
> 
> Treat all partnerships the same.  Easy-squeezy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if limiting marriage to two is not  discriminatory, then so is limiting marriage to one man and one woman. After all, everyone would live under the same law.
> 
> I mean, if we use your logic as a basis for our actions. Treat all partnerships the same.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


It's about treating all partnerships the same.

If everyone can only marry one person - there is no discrimmination.

If everyone BUT flat footed people can marry more than one partner at a time -- then it is discrimminatory.

If only men can marry women - then it is discrimminatory.  I men can marry men, men can marry women, and women can marry women then they are all being treated the same.


----------



## Tom Sweetnam

Only combat veterans kill themselves more often than gay men. And gay men kill themselves 5 times as often as the general populous. Somebody isn't happy, wouldn't you say?


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Limiting it to two is discriminatory.  I mean, why can't a bi-sexual marry both the man and the woman he/she loves?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.
> 
> Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.
> 
> The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands.  Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.
> 
> Treat all partnerships the same.  Easy-squeezy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if limiting marriage to two is not  discriminatory, then so is limiting marriage to one man and one woman. After all, everyone would live under the same law.
> 
> I mean, if we use your logic as a basis for our actions. Treat all partnerships the same.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's about treating all partnerships the same.
> 
> If everyone can only marry one person - there is no discrimmination.
> 
> If everyone BUT flat footed people can marry more than one partner at a time -- then it is discrimminatory.
Click to expand...


Like I said, I am treating them all the same, so there is no discrimination.

Mark


----------



## OnePercenter

Mr. H. said:


> A family-run business went under because they chose not to bake a fucking cake for a gay wedding?
> 
> That's not only the Gay agenda at work, but the twisted brains of the Liberals who will not stand for dissent or disagreement.



Because they violated law.


----------



## Coyote

80zephyr said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Limiting it to two is discriminatory.  I mean, why can't a bi-sexual marry both the man and the woman he/she loves?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.
> 
> Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.
> 
> The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands.  Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.
> 
> Treat all partnerships the same.  Easy-squeezy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if limiting marriage to two is not  discriminatory, then so is limiting marriage to one man and one woman. After all, everyone would live under the same law.
> 
> I mean, if we use your logic as a basis for our actions. Treat all partnerships the same.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's about treating all partnerships the same.
> 
> If everyone can only marry one person - there is no discrimmination.
> 
> If everyone BUT flat footed people can marry more than one partner at a time -- then it is discrimminatory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, I am treating them all the same, so there is no discrimination.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


I added to my post but you answered before I finished.

Here are the possible marriage options - consenting adults only.
a. Men can marry women.
b. Women can marry women.
c. Men can marry men.

All can marry only one partner - thus no discrimmination.

If we only allow a. - then we are discrimminating against b and c.


----------



## Mr. H.

OnePercenter said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A family-run business went under because they chose not to bake a fucking cake for a gay wedding?
> 
> That's not only the Gay agenda at work, but the twisted brains of the Liberals who will not stand for dissent or disagreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they violated law.
Click to expand...

Was it the "law" that shut them down? 

No- it was the Gay Agenda.


----------



## AVG-JOE

80zephyr said:


> So, if limiting marriage to two is not  discriminatory, then so is limiting marriage to one man and one woman. After all, everyone would live under the same law.
> 
> I mean, if we use your logic as a basis for our actions. Treat all partnerships the same.
> 
> Mark



I disagree. 

Beer?  

Limiting the government based benefits of marriage to any two people is way different than limiting the government based benefits of marriage to opposite sex couples only, especially when current reality is considered.

OUR government has no business excluding only some of the couples out there who've teamed up in long-term, monogamous relationships.

As a government with specific instruction to NOT align its policies with any belief set in particular, in THIS day and age, this discrimination makes us look stupid from space.

  No wonder we get so few visitors.​


----------



## rdean

These right wingers and their hate.  So predictable..


----------



## AVG-JOE

Tom Sweetnam said:


> Only combat veterans kill themselves more often than gay men. And gay men kill themselves 5 times as often as the general populous. Somebody isn't happy, wouldn't you say?


That's a reason to discriminate?!?  

Sounds to me like a reason for tolerance, but I'm just a silly liberal...

​


----------



## Coyote

AVG-JOE said:


> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only combat veterans kill themselves more often than gay men. And gay men kill themselves 5 times as often as the general populous. Somebody isn't happy, wouldn't you say?
> 
> 
> 
> That's a reason to discriminate?!?
> 
> Sounds to me like a reason for tolerance, but I'm just a silly liberal...
> 
> ​
Click to expand...


----------



## Howey

80zephyr said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Limiting it to two is discriminatory.  I mean, why can't a bi-sexual marry both the man and the woman he/she loves?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.
> 
> Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.
> 
> The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands.  Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.
> 
> Treat all partnerships the same.  Easy-squeezy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if limiting marriage to two is not  discriminatory, then so is limiting marriage to one man and one woman. After all, everyone would live under the same law.
> 
> I mean, if we use your logic as a basis for our actions. Treat all partnerships the same.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's about treating all partnerships the same.
> 
> If everyone can only marry one person - there is no discrimmination.
> 
> If everyone BUT flat footed people can marry more than one partner at a time -- then it is discrimminatory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, I am treating them all the same, so there is no discrimination.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

"Them"?


----------



## rdean

When you look at the gay contribution to the US and the confederate conservative contribution, you wonder why God gave all the talent to the gays.  He must love them more.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you the same Coyote I've come to know and love?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> umh....maybe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you'll remember I have some close gay friends who I highly respect. You and I discussed them at length on other forums.  It isn't gay people I have a problem with, it's the assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh...I'm not the same Coyote then (I don't think)....maybe you remember Segap who also went by Coyote in places?
> 
> Anyway....assholes are assholes regardless of sexual orientation
Click to expand...

Coyote and a martini? Ok, different coyote.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

AVG-JOE said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Limiting it to two is discriminatory.  I mean, why can't a bi-sexual marry both the man and the woman he/she loves?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.
> 
> Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.
> 
> The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands.  Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.
> 
> Treat all partnerships the same.  Easy-squeezy.
Click to expand...

Requiring marriage to a partner of the opposite sex was also applied equally, regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

AVG-JOE said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if limiting marriage to two is not  discriminatory, then so is limiting marriage to one man and one woman. After all, everyone would live under the same law.
> 
> I mean, if we use your logic as a basis for our actions. Treat all partnerships the same.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> Beer?
> 
> Limiting the government based benefits of marriage to any two people is way different than limiting the government based benefits of marriage to opposite sex couples only, especially when current reality is considered.
> 
> OUR government has no business excluding only some of the couples out there who've teamed up in long-term, monogamous relationships.
> 
> As a government with specific instruction to NOT align its policies with any belief set in particular, in THIS day and age, this discrimination makes us look stupid from space.
> 
> No wonder we get so few visitors.​
Click to expand...

Actually our state governments do under the constitution. It isn't an enumerated power of the federal government therefore it becomes a state prerogative. If you object to states regulating marriage by libertarian principle, that's another issue.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Tom Sweetnam said:


> Only combat veterans kill themselves more often than gay men. And gay men kill themselves 5 times as often as the general populous. Somebody isn't happy, wouldn't you say?


It seems they want to spread the misery and then claim they haven't offended in any way, as they're doing on this thread.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Howey said:


> My homosexual agenda is to try to stay up til midnight tonight and wake up in the morning.


My 11 year old is determined to make it this year. He actually drank coffee.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Howey said:


> Why is it homophobic heteros like to talk about something being "shoved down their throat"?


When I run into one, I'll ask.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Skylar said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> The homophobe dilemma -- "do I admit how often I dream of having something shoved in my face or don't ?I"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it didn't go unnoticed how often he talks of 'gays' being 'shoved down his throat'. If he starts lamenting about Christians 'taking it up the ass from gays', I'm gonna be tempted to call bullshit.
Click to expand...

But I didn't say that, did I? Do you often read things that weren't written? Read the OP again. This time use your reading glasses.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Howey said:


> Why is it homophobic heteros like to talk about something being "shoved down their throat"?


Who said that? Are you delusional too?


----------



## AVG-JOE

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Limiting it to two is discriminatory.  I mean, why can't a bi-sexual marry both the man and the woman he/she loves?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.
> 
> Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.
> 
> The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands.  Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.
> 
> Treat all partnerships the same.  Easy-squeezy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Requiring marriage to a partner of the opposite sex was also applied equally, regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.
Click to expand...



So that makes makes blatant discrimination in the tax code and other relationship based government benefits in this here and now, eh?

We're going to have to agree to disagree.  And I'll bet you a fake dollar that I'm the one on the right side of history here.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.


That's a lot of typing just to say you have an unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans, that  you're ignorant of the law, and that you wish to disadvantage gay Americans for no other reason than who they are.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

AVG-JOE said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Limiting it to two is discriminatory.  I mean, why can't a bi-sexual marry both the man and the woman he/she loves?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.
> 
> Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.
> 
> The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands.  Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.
> 
> Treat all partnerships the same.  Easy-squeezy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Requiring marriage to a partner of the opposite sex was also applied equally, regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So that makes makes blatant discrimination in the tax code and other relationship based government benefits in this here and now, eh?
> 
> We're going to have to agree to disagree.  And I'll bet you a fake dollar that I'm the one on the right side of history here.
Click to expand...

Disagree all you want. What I said is a fact. There is no discrimination in modern state marriage laws.


----------



## AVG-JOE

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if limiting marriage to two is not  discriminatory, then so is limiting marriage to one man and one woman. After all, everyone would live under the same law.
> 
> I mean, if we use your logic as a basis for our actions. Treat all partnerships the same.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> Beer?
> 
> Limiting the government based benefits of marriage to any two people is way different than limiting the government based benefits of marriage to opposite sex couples only, especially when current reality is considered.
> 
> OUR government has no business excluding only some of the couples out there who've teamed up in long-term, monogamous relationships.
> 
> As a government with specific instruction to NOT align its policies with any belief set in particular, in THIS day and age, this discrimination makes us look stupid from space.
> 
> No wonder we get so few visitors.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually our state governments do under the constitution. It isn't an enumerated power of the federal government therefore it becomes a state prerogative. If you object to states regulating marriage by libertarian principle, that's another issue.
Click to expand...


Right now, under the current administration, the recent Windsor ruling and the fall of DOMA have federal marriage benefits in the tax code and in the Social Security Act being given to same-sex couples who can prove that they were married legally in the state or country where the license was issued.  I don't necessarily object to states handling the issuance of marriage licenses and maintaining the data bases for such events, but the morality of it all is way above the pay grade of even state politicians.  As it should be.


----------



## AVG-JOE

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Disagree all you want. What I said is a fact. There is no discrimination in modern state marriage laws.



No.  What you said there is your opinion.  Same as me.  

Welcome to America, Bub.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing?  Who's forcing you to marry a gay guy?
Click to expand...


Straw Reasoning... thus invalid reasoning, therefore reasoning that is disqualified from consideration by reasonable people.

No one claimed that anyone if forcing anyone to marry anyone.  Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.  This is the consequence of the physiological design of the human species.  That an insignificant minority craves legitimacy through the pretense of marriage doesn't change that... and no American is ever going to tolerate that minority attempting to force them to accept their pretense as anything but... and your pretense that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality did not sue innocent people into bankruptcy, JUST BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT WHICH THEY DISAGREED, demonstrates that you're either a liar, or you're delusional.





> Also, do you honestly think civil rights should be determined by popular opinion?



Civil Rights?

Civil Rights are nothing BUT popular opinion.  Which is why they're not worth the paper they're written on.  

There are only natural human rights... endowed by God, resting in the authority of God; nature himself.  

And that you people are incapable of understanding that... is why you people are so prone toward foolishness and evil.


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Disagree all you want. What I said is a fact. There is no discrimination in modern state marriage laws.



What you said is your _opinion._ The reason your arguments are so often refuted, and so easily.....is that you can't tell the difference between the two.

Though you did get part of it right. In the 36 of 50 states where same sex marriage is recognize, there's no discrimination in modern state marriage laws.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

AVG-JOE said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if limiting marriage to two is not  discriminatory, then so is limiting marriage to one man and one woman. After all, everyone would live under the same law.
> 
> I mean, if we use your logic as a basis for our actions. Treat all partnerships the same.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> Beer?
> 
> Limiting the government based benefits of marriage to any two people is way different than limiting the government based benefits of marriage to opposite sex couples only, especially when current reality is considered.
> 
> OUR government has no business excluding only some of the couples out there who've teamed up in long-term, monogamous relationships.
> 
> As a government with specific instruction to NOT align its policies with any belief set in particular, in THIS day and age, this discrimination makes us look stupid from space.
> 
> No wonder we get so few visitors.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually our state governments do under the constitution. It isn't an enumerated power of the federal government therefore it becomes a state prerogative. If you object to states regulating marriage by libertarian principle, that's another issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right now, under the current administration, the recent Windsor ruling and the fall of DOMA have federal marriage benefits in the tax code and in the Social Security Act being given to same-sex couples who can prove that they were married legally in the state or country where the license was issued.  I don't necessarily object to states handling the issuance of marriage licenses and maintaining the data bases for such events, but the morality of it all is way above the pay grade of even state politicians.  As it should be.
Click to expand...

1. DOMA didn't fall, it's just not being enforced...kinda like federal marijuana laws.

2. Every law has a moral component and is an expression of somebody's view of morality. It promotes what somebody thinks should be promoted. It just so happens that most people think marriage should promote family and children which is why we have these marriage laws.

3. Under the constitution, states retain the prerogative to set marriage laws according to the values of their residents.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

AVG-JOE said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree all you want. What I said is a fact. There is no discrimination in modern state marriage laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  What you said there is your opinion.  Same as me.
> 
> Welcome to America, Bub.
Click to expand...


What he said if a fact of the irrefutable variety.

There is no discrimination in the natural marriage standard against the sexually abnormal.  PERIOD!

Nature requires that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman...  any homosexual is perfectly entitled to marry anyone he or she can talk into it, as long as whoever that is, is a member of the distinct gender.

Happens everyday ... .


----------



## AvgGuyIA

AVG-JOE said:


> Why what?
> 
> Why are We, The Peeps obligated to treat everyone equally under the law?
> 
> 'Cause The United States Constitution demands equal treatment under the law despite conditions on the ground since it was published.
> 
> Baby steps!  ​


It never use to.  This is a made up "right".


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.


Evidence fallacy. Confusing fact with opinion.  Thus invalid reasoning, therefore reasoning that is disqualified from consideration by reasonable people.

And of course, factually inaccurate. As in 36 states, marriage is also one man and one man or one woman and one woman. Ignoring this fact doesn't change it.

[quote
This is the consequence of the physiological design of the human species. 

What relevance does the physiological design of the species have to do with marriage? *Remember, you've said repeatedly that you're not arguing that marriage is about procreation. *Without procreation, what relevance does your point have to marriage, its purpose, or a valid basis for it?



> That an insignificant minority craves legitimacy through the pretense of marriage doesn't change that... and no American is ever going to tolerate that minority attempting to force them to accept their pretense as anything but... and your pretense that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality did not sue innocent people into bankruptcy, JUST BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT WHICH THEY DISAGREED, demonstrates that you're either a liar, or you're delusional.



Given that a majority of the nation supports gay marriage and gay marriage proponents outweigh opponents by a 12 to 19 points, your assessment of what Americans feel on the matter are of no consequence. As you don't know what you're talking about. 

A majority disagrees with you. And that majority is _growing. Get used to the idea._



> Civil Rights are nothing BUT popular opinion.  Which is why they're not worth the paper they're written on.



Factually incorrect. Civil rights may or may not be in line with popular opinion. Interracial marriage bans when it was recognized as unconstitutional was wildly popular. With support in the mid to high 80s. There was very little popular support for interracial marriage, despite the courts recognizing it was a right.

Demonstrating elegantly that civil rights can most definitely be something other than popular opinion. And of course, our law recognizes civil rights. Which might explain the rather horrid record your ilk have had in court.



> There are only natural human rights... endowed by God, resting in the authority of God; nature himself.


 And which rights did God 'endow'? And according to who? You can't say with anything more than empty opinion. See, plenty of people claim to speak for God. You included. 

Using the reasoning of religion, almost all religion is false. Given that by your own reasoning almost all people who claim to speak for God are wrong, what would be the odds that out of all the people in all the world, across the long span of what is, what has been and what will be......that *you* happened to be the guy to get it right? Especially when there's nothing that mandates that anyone did? 

The odds of your accuracy are exceedingly small. Rendering your citation of yourself as the conveyer of God's will unreliable. And of course, without reason or logic.

Oh, and for spice, your claims is a classic Appeal to Authority fallacy. Thus invalid reasoning, therefore reasoning that is disqualified from consideration by reasonable people.



> And that you people are incapable of understanding that... is why you people are so prone toward foolishness and evil.



More accurately, 'we people' don't accept you as speaking for God. Though I'll be happy to recognize you as the avatar of the Appeal to Authority fallacy. You yourself have said that the appeal to authority fallacy is valid only if its logic and reasoning are valid.

*And you can't logically or reasonably establish you claims. *Which is why you continue to fail.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> What he said if a fact of the irrefutable variety.



You're offering us your opinion. You are claiming that your opinions are facts. Evidence fallacy yet again, as you are equating mere opinion with fact.Thus invalid reasoning, therefore reasoning that is disqualified from consideration by reasonable people.



> There is no discrimination in the natural marriage standard against the sexually abnormal.  PERIOD!



Evidence fallacy again, were you equate your opinion with facts. See above for the disqualification for consideration.



> Nature requires that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman...



Nature requires reproduction. It doesn't require marriage. As demonstrated by thee fact that only people marry. And yet species everywhere, from little bugs to great big elephants continue on. If marriage were required by nature, no animal that didn't marry would exist. Yet with a lone exception, all animals exist without marriage. Worse, there's no particular indication that even the one animal that uses marriage requires it.

And of course, you don't offer us a logical or rational basis for your argument. You merely insist that an Authority mandates it must be so. That's an appeal to authority fallacy. With 'nature' as your authority. Thus invalid reasoning, therefore reasoning that is disqualified from consideration by reasonable people.



> any homosexual is perfectly entitled to marry anyone he or she can talk into it, as long as whoever that is, is a member of the distinct gender.



In 36 of 50 states, there's no such requirement. They can marry the consenting adult of their choice, regardless of gender. You can ignore this fact. But it doesn't change the fact that such marriages happens every day.


----------



## Skylar

AvgGuyIA said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why what?
> 
> Why are We, The Peeps obligated to treat everyone equally under the law?
> 
> 'Cause The United States Constitution demands equal treatment under the law despite conditions on the ground since it was published.
> 
> Baby steps!  ​
> 
> 
> 
> It never use to.  This is a made up "right".
Click to expand...


You the peeps are required to treat everyone equally_ in business _if your State mandates it be so. Its thus a statutory requirement drawn from the State's authority to regulate intra state commerce. 

In your personal life, you can treat people like shit to your heart's content.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

rdean said:


> When you look at the gay contribution to the US and the confederate conservative contribution, you wonder why God gave all the talent to the gays.  He must love them more.


Brokeback Mountain is a good example of how much gays contribute, right? These two shepherds are supposed to be guarding the sheep. Instead, they're having gay, faggoty butt sex while wolves are killing their sheep. Yet the whole movie was about how they're "victims". This kind of self delusion is at the heart of this thread.


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> 1. DOMA didn't fall, it's just not being enforced...kinda like federal marijuana laws.



Key provisions of DOMA were overturned by the Supreme Court in the Windsor decision for residents of States in which gay marriage is legally recognized. For those who live in States in which gay marriage is not legally recognized, its more ambiguous. I'd say you're probably right....DOMA simply isn't being enforced for those States.



> 2. Every law has a moral component and is an expression of somebody's view of morality.



And increasingly, its not your view. 

Get used to the idea.



> 3. Under the constitution, states retain the prerogative to set marriage laws according to the values of their residents.



The State retains the prerogative to set marriage laws *subject to certain constitutional guarantees.* No State marriage law can abrogate the privileges or immunities of federal citizens. Nor can any  marriage law not offer equal protection in the law for all federal citizens within that State's jurisdiction. Any State marriage law that does is invalid, as rights trump powers.

See the 14th amendment, section 1. And see the _Loving v. Virginia _ruling for an example of this in practice.


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you look at the gay contribution to the US and the confederate conservative contribution, you wonder why God gave all the talent to the gays.  He must love them more.
> 
> 
> 
> Brokeback Mountain is a good example of how much gays contribute, right? These two shepherds are supposed to be guarding the sheep. Instead, they're having gay, faggoty butt sex while wolves are killing their sheep. Yet the whole movie was about how they're "victims". This kind of self delusion is at the heart of this thread.
Click to expand...


You do realize that Brokeback Mountain is fictional, right?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“DOMA didn't fall, it's just not being enforced...kinda like federal marijuana laws.”

Incorrect

The CSA regulating marijuana use is Constitutional (_Gonzales v. Raich_ (2005)), DOMA, not – it in fact failed to pass Constitutional muster (_US v. Windsor_ (2013)).

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“Every law has a moral component and is an expression of somebody's view of morality. It promotes what somebody thinks should be promoted. It just so happens that most people think marriage should promote family and children which is why we have these marriage laws.”

Incorrect.

That something is perceived by the majority to be 'immoral' or 'traditional' is legally and Constitutionally invalid:

“Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack. Second, individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“Under the constitution, states retain the prerogative to set marriage laws according to the values of their residents.”

Under the Constitution, the states are required to afford equal protection of the law to all persons eligible to participate in marriage – same- or opposite-sex. Residents of the states do not have the authority to deny gay Americans access to marriage law predicated on something as subjective and as capricious as 'values.' A measure seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law “classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This [the states] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” (_Romer v. Evans _(1996)).


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

C_Clayton,

The Supreme Court struck down parts of DOMA and I'm not shedding any tears over it. DOMA is unconstitutional and a demonstration of how pro family religious groups can be just as contemptuous of the constitution, pushing their agenda whether it's legal or not.  It's rare that the Supreme Court strikes down an entire law, and the aftermath of striking down parts of a law is messy because there's still fragments.  We will have to deal with this if the Supreme Court rules against federal Obamacare exchanges being funded. A ruling against this will take out a major component of Obamacare but leave a lot intact.  Think of a game of Jenga and pieces are being excised from the foundation.  Anyway, the point I was making about DOMA is that the Eric Holder Justice Department announced they would no longer enforce it, this was before parts of it were struck down. 

And the point I was making about marijuana laws is that they are currently unenforced. Gonzalez v Raich affirmed again the federal government's right to enforce federal laws against marijuana regardless of state law.  This will prove problematic if we ever elect a president who takes seriously his duty to execute the laws of the United States.


----------



## ninja007

Skylar said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is heterosexuality being shoved in your face?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the standard *you've* set, where the mere exist of gays in the media is homosexuality being 'shoved down your throat'?
> 
> Off the top of my head, the Bachelor and the Bachelorette. The Dating game. Any show that has straight people. Any mention of straight people in the media, news, press, or television.
Click to expand...


Typical. 95% of the pop is straight. You act like the gayz should get half of the media.


----------



## ninja007




----------



## Skylar

ninja007 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is heterosexuality being shoved in your face?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the standard *you've* set, where the mere exist of gays in the media is homosexuality being 'shoved down your throat'?
> 
> Off the top of my head, the Bachelor and the Bachelorette. The Dating game. Any show that has straight people. Any mention of straight people in the media, news, press, or television.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical. 95% of the pop is straight. You act like the gayz should get half of the media.
Click to expand...


More accurately, I'm applying the standard being being set by Mikey for having someone's sexuality 'rubbed in your face'. 

If a football layer kissing his boyfriend when being drafted is having 'homosexuality shoved in your face', then a dude making out with a different women each week on prime time reality TV would certainly be the heterosexual equivalent.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

The faggots, and logic, won.  Exactly how long are you little homophobes going to beat this issue, forever?


----------



## NYcarbineer

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.



You're calling other people assholes?


----------



## NYcarbineer

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if limiting marriage to two is not  discriminatory, then so is limiting marriage to one man and one woman. After all, everyone would live under the same law.
> 
> I mean, if we use your logic as a basis for our actions. Treat all partnerships the same.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> Beer?
> 
> Limiting the government based benefits of marriage to any two people is way different than limiting the government based benefits of marriage to opposite sex couples only, especially when current reality is considered.
> 
> OUR government has no business excluding only some of the couples out there who've teamed up in long-term, monogamous relationships.
> 
> As a government with specific instruction to NOT align its policies with any belief set in particular, in THIS day and age, this discrimination makes us look stupid from space.
> 
> No wonder we get so few visitors.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually our state governments do under the constitution. It isn't an enumerated power of the federal government therefore it becomes a state prerogative. If you object to states regulating marriage by libertarian principle, that's another issue.
Click to expand...


Equal protection under the law is a right that the federal government has the power to enforce.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Civil Rights?
> 
> Civil Rights are nothing BUT popular opinion.  Which is why they're not worth the paper they're written on.
> 
> There are only natural human rights... endowed by God, resting in the authority of God; nature himself.
> 
> And that you people are incapable of understanding that... is why you people are so prone toward foolishness and evil.



Which God?  

The God of Abraham, as defined in The Torah, The New Testament and The Koran can take His Sharia Laws and His patriarchal Christian rules and shove them up His Divine ass.  This is America.

Rights are given and withheld by Monkeys with power, as in he who pays the military salary gets to establish what rights exist.

In the case of the USA, authority to give and withhold rights is established by The US Constitution, not a droll collection of ancient Arab stories and it surprises me not that the opposition to both Sharia Law and Christian Rules is growing as our population continues to diversify away from the 'Standard American WASP'.


----------



## Mac1958

.

There will be a time (who knows how long this will take) when homosexuality is not just accepted, but just not an issue.

It may not be that long:  My kids and their friends don't give a crap one way or the other, which is pretty much my outlook on the topic.

Once that happens, I'm assuming that "the gay agenda" (which appears to be "we'd like to be able to do the same stuff you do") won't be an irritant to most, because the tactics and behaviors currently displayed by the "gay community" and their supporters will (again, I'm assuming) recede.

.


----------



## AvgGuyIA

PaintMyHouse said:


> The faggots, and logic, won.  Exactly how long are you little homophobes going to beat this issue, forever?


Your "logic" follows that a man can marry a goat and should not be deprived of that "right".  It's what Society allows to occur that is driving this perversion of the marital institution so it follows that man should be able to marry an animal if Society deems it just.  It doesn't make it right.


----------



## AVG-JOE

AvgGuyIA said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why what?
> 
> Why are We, The Peeps obligated to treat everyone equally under the law?
> 
> 'Cause The United States Constitution demands equal treatment under the law despite conditions on the ground since it was published.
> 
> Baby steps!  ​
> 
> 
> 
> It never use to.  This is a made up "right".
Click to expand...


Wait a minute now...

You don't believe that ALL Americans should be treated equally by the justice system?

WTF, Dude?  That's the definition of elitism.  Please explain how we should define who is 'special' in 21st Century America.


----------



## ImGoing2Heaven

And Sodom fell
The Bible


----------



## AVG-JOE

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Brokeback Mountain is a good example of how much gays contribute, right? These two shepherds are supposed to be guarding the sheep. Instead, they're having gay, faggoty butt sex while wolves are killing their sheep. Yet the whole movie was about how they're "victims". This kind of self delusion is at the heart of this thread.



The hate-speech really reflects poorly off your Avatar, Bud.  Just saying...

As for the heart of the thread, it's all about the government treating everyone equally, the hate demonstrated above notwithstanding.  

If you don't like seeing gay people being affectionate with each other, don't look.


----------



## ImGoing2Heaven

AVG-JOE said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brokeback Mountain is a good example of how much gays contribute, right? These two shepherds are supposed to be guarding the sheep. Instead, they're having gay, faggoty butt sex while wolves are killing their sheep. Yet the whole movie was about how they're "victims". This kind of self delusion is at the heart of this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The hate-speech really reflects poorly off your Avatar, Bud.  Just saying...
> 
> As for the heart of the thread, it's all about the government treating everyone equally, the hate demonstrated above notwithstanding.
> 
> If you don't like seeing gay people being affectionate with each other, don't look.
Click to expand...

Or they can stop choosing to be gay.
Just saying...


----------



## AVG-JOE

ninja007 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is heterosexuality being shoved in your face?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the standard *you've* set, where the mere exist of gays in the media is homosexuality being 'shoved down your throat'?
> 
> Off the top of my head, the Bachelor and the Bachelorette. The Dating game. Any show that has straight people. Any mention of straight people in the media, news, press, or television.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical. 95% of the pop is straight. You act like the gayz should get half of the media.
Click to expand...


And one key job of the government is to protect minority rights.

Don't you just love it when the system begins to work as it was intended on paper?  ​


----------



## JakeStarkey

Neither argument above is rational in light of the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

Whether same sex attraction is genetic or chosen or a combination matters not at all.


----------



## 1751_Texan

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> .



1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.

*No one has forced you to a gay marriage. No one has forced you to accept gay marriage. Your opinion of gay marriage is not relevant to those that will marry.*

2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells

*There is absolutely no special right on homosexuality in the work place. There is not one law protecting homosexuals in the work place...NOT ONE.*

3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.

*There is not one incident in which any school child has to share the restroom with a transgendered child. You can not post one example of that policy in place in any school in America.*

4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?

*Irrelevant mumblings*

5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?

*Christians and Jews are worse. This thread is proof positive.*


----------



## AVG-JOE

ImGoing2Heaven said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brokeback Mountain is a good example of how much gays contribute, right? These two shepherds are supposed to be guarding the sheep. Instead, they're having gay, faggoty butt sex while wolves are killing their sheep. Yet the whole movie was about how they're "victims". This kind of self delusion is at the heart of this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The hate-speech really reflects poorly off your Avatar, Bud.  Just saying...
> 
> As for the heart of the thread, it's all about the government treating everyone equally, the hate demonstrated above notwithstanding.
> 
> If you don't like seeing gay people being affectionate with each other, don't look.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or they can stop choosing to be gay.
> Just saying...
Click to expand...

Why should ANYONE be forced to conform to your religious 'norms'?

Is freedom of thought no longer valued?  Is freedom of lifestyle only o.k. for people YOU deem to be 'normal'?

What a truly arrogant thing to say.  

Are you sure that you're Going2Heaven?  I heard that Love was the ticket in and the self-righteous need not apply.  

What IS love if not tolerance of each others beliefs and lifestyles?  

Love Thy Neighbor...​


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Limiting it to two is discriminatory.  I mean, why can't a bi-sexual marry both the man and the woman he/she loves?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.
> 
> Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.
> 
> The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands.  Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.
> 
> Treat all partnerships the same.  Easy-squeezy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if limiting marriage to two is not  discriminatory, then so is limiting marriage to one man and one woman. After all, everyone would live under the same law.
> 
> I mean, if we use your logic as a basis for our actions. Treat all partnerships the same.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's about treating all partnerships the same.
> 
> If everyone can only marry one person - there is no discrimmination.
> 
> If everyone BUT flat footed people can marry more than one partner at a time -- then it is discrimminatory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, I am treating them all the same, so there is no discrimination.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I added to my post but you answered before I finished.
> 
> Here are the possible marriage options - consenting adults only.
> a. Men can marry women.
> b. Women can marry women.
> c. Men can marry men.
> 
> All can marry only one partner - thus no discrimmination.
> 
> If we only allow a. - then we are discrimminating against b and c.
Click to expand...


Simply not true. If everyone is treated the same, there is no discrimination. If the law changed where a black could only marry a white, there would be no discrimination.

Everyone is treated equally.

Mark


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Limiting it to two is discriminatory.  I mean, why can't a bi-sexual marry both the man and the woman he/she loves?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.
> 
> Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.
> 
> The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands.  Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.
> 
> Treat all partnerships the same.  Easy-squeezy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Requiring marriage to a partner of the opposite sex was also applied equally, regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.
Click to expand...


Take that argument a step back in history:  Requiring marriage to a partner of the same race was also applied equally.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

ImGoing2Heaven said:


> And Sodom fell
> The Bible




The lesson being that all good fathers should all offer their underage daughters to be gang raped, and a day or two later,  impregnate them!


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Limiting it to two is discriminatory.  I mean, why can't a bi-sexual marry both the man and the woman he/she loves?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.
> 
> Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.
> 
> The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands.  Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.
> 
> Treat all partnerships the same.  Easy-squeezy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Requiring marriage to a partner of the opposite sex was also applied equally, regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take that argument a step back in history:  Requiring marriage to a partner of the same race was also applied equally.
Click to expand...


Virginia tried to argue there was no racial discrimination but there was.  The court determined:

"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You're in good company. A lot of Leftists miss that one.


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you the same Coyote I've come to know and love?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> umh....maybe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you'll remember I have some close gay friends who I highly respect. You and I discussed them at length on other forums.  It isn't gay people I have a problem with, it's the assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh...I'm not the same Coyote then (I don't think)....maybe you remember Segap who also went by Coyote in places?
> 
> Anyway....assholes are assholes regardless of sexual orientation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Coyote and a martini? Ok, different coyote.
Click to expand...


My drink of choice:


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

1751_Texan said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> *No one has forced you to a gay marriage. No one has forced you to accept gay marriage. Your opinion of gay marriage is not relevant to those that will marry.*
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> *There is absolutely no special right on homosexuality in the work place. There is not one law protecting homosexuals in the work place...NOT ONE.*
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> *There is not one incident in which any school child has to share the restroom with a transgendered child. You can not post one example of that policy in place in any school in America.*
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> *Irrelevant mumblings*
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> *Christians and Jews are worse. This thread is proof positive.*
Click to expand...


Are you a moderator?  Then quit posting in emboldened red. I won't respond to any post like yours. Please refer to USMB rules. It's moderators who post in emboldened red.


----------



## hjmick

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> *No one has forced you to a gay marriage. No one has forced you to accept gay marriage. Your opinion of gay marriage is not relevant to those that will marry.*
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> *There is absolutely no special right on homosexuality in the work place. There is not one law protecting homosexuals in the work place...NOT ONE.*
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> *There is not one incident in which any school child has to share the restroom with a transgendered child. You can not post one example of that policy in place in any school in America.*
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> *Irrelevant mumblings*
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> *Christians and Jews are worse. This thread is proof positive.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a moderator?  Then quit posting in emboldened red. I won't respond to any post like yours. Please refer to USMB rules. It's moderators who post in emboldened red.
Click to expand...


That's one way to avoid addressing facts you don't like...


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you the same Coyote I've come to know and love?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> umh....maybe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you'll remember I have some close gay friends who I highly respect. You and I discussed them at length on other forums.  It isn't gay people I have a problem with, it's the assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh...I'm not the same Coyote then (I don't think)....maybe you remember Segap who also went by Coyote in places?
> 
> Anyway....assholes are assholes regardless of sexual orientation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Coyote and a martini? Ok, different coyote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My drink of choice:
Click to expand...


OMG I miss him.  He was gay and freaking cool.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

hjmick said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> *No one has forced you to a gay marriage. No one has forced you to accept gay marriage. Your opinion of gay marriage is not relevant to those that will marry.*
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> *There is absolutely no special right on homosexuality in the work place. There is not one law protecting homosexuals in the work place...NOT ONE.*
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> *There is not one incident in which any school child has to share the restroom with a transgendered child. You can not post one example of that policy in place in any school in America.*
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> *Irrelevant mumblings*
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> *Christians and Jews are worse. This thread is proof positive.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a moderator?  Then quit posting in emboldened red. I won't respond to any post like yours. Please refer to USMB rules. It's moderators who post in emboldened red.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's one way to avoid addressing facts you don't like...
Click to expand...


If he edits his post, I'll respond to it.


----------



## whitehall

About 98% of pedophiles are male. Sexual fantasies of heterosexual pedophiles revolve around young girls. Yet the homosexual lobby insists that Americans should risk the physical and mental health of young boys by being forced by law to hire overt homosexuals to supervise boys. When the BSA won their victory in court the homosexual lobby put them on the hit list. The hypocrisy is stunning.


----------



## Coyote

80zephyr said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.
> 
> Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.
> 
> The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands.  Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.
> 
> Treat all partnerships the same.  Easy-squeezy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, if limiting marriage to two is not  discriminatory, then so is limiting marriage to one man and one woman. After all, everyone would live under the same law.
> 
> I mean, if we use your logic as a basis for our actions. Treat all partnerships the same.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's about treating all partnerships the same.
> 
> If everyone can only marry one person - there is no discrimmination.
> 
> If everyone BUT flat footed people can marry more than one partner at a time -- then it is discrimminatory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, I am treating them all the same, so there is no discrimination.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I added to my post but you answered before I finished.
> 
> Here are the possible marriage options - consenting adults only.
> a. Men can marry women.
> b. Women can marry women.
> c. Men can marry men.
> 
> All can marry only one partner - thus no discrimmination.
> 
> If we only allow a. - then we are discrimminating against b and c.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simply not true. If everyone is treated the same, there is no discrimination. If the law changed where a black could only marry a white, there would be no discrimination.
> 
> Everyone is treated equally.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Laws can be discriminatory in themselves - the example you gave above is one.

Laws should be as broad and inclusive as they can be without endangering people or the public.  That's how I see it.

You can't allow adults to marry children - it's clearly damaging to children and children can not legally consent or understand the ramifications of what is happening to them.  Incest is another area where there is potential damage if they choose to have children.  But on the issue of gender there is no damage to society or to the individuals themselves.

Marriage should be between two consenting human adults - that's broad, inclusive and non-discrimminatory.

Who is being discrimminated against there?  No one.

The next argument would be polygamy.  I personally don't care if a someone chooses multiple spouses - to me, it's an individual choice between consenting adults.  But I've heard reasonable arguments against it as well but that usually occurs in other countries.


----------



## 1751_Texan

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> *No one has forced you to a gay marriage. No one has forced you to accept gay marriage. Your opinion of gay marriage is not relevant to those that will marry.*
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> *There is absolutely no special right on homosexuality in the work place. There is not one law protecting homosexuals in the work place...NOT ONE.*
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> *There is not one incident in which any school child has to share the restroom with a transgendered child. You can not post one example of that policy in place in any school in America.*
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> *Irrelevant mumblings*
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> *Christians and Jews are worse. This thread is proof positive.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a moderator?  Then quit posting in emboldened red. I won't respond to any post like yours. Please refer to USMB rules. It's moderators who post in emboldened red.
Click to expand...


I can go back and change the color, that will not change the content.


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Limiting it to two is discriminatory.  I mean, why can't a bi-sexual marry both the man and the woman he/she loves?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.
> 
> Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.
> 
> The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands.  Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.
> 
> Treat all partnerships the same.  Easy-squeezy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Requiring marriage to a partner of the opposite sex was also applied equally, regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take that argument a step back in history:  Requiring marriage to a partner of the same race was also applied equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Virginia tried to argue there was no racial discrimination but there was.  The court determined:
> 
> "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."
> 
> Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> You're in good company. A lot of Leftists miss that one.
Click to expand...


Interesting.  Doesn't however change the fact that insisting that marriage and it's legal benefits be limited only to mixed-gender couples violates the Constitutional premise of equal treatment under the law, which is what has struck down a multitude of state bans.  

The other thing...the "hearts and minds" aspect...that is exactly what has been going on as well.  This wasn't pushed to the SC right off the bat - it has been going through state after state.  Polls show, overwelmingly - that support for same sex marriage has been growing with over 50% in favor.  To me, though - that's irrelevant because basic rights should never ever be determined by popular opinion.


----------



## Iceweasel

1751_Texan said:


> one has forced you to a gay marriage. No one has forced you to accept gay marriage. Your opinion of gay marriage is not relevant to those that will marry.


Gay marriage has been forced onto most states that have it by a radical minority. Most people support traditional marriage, as do the gays that use the argument that marriage can only be between two people. That is contrary to our system of laws and representative democracy. Gay marriage denies the special relationship man has with woman and pretends gender does not matter. In other words, it forces the government to propagandise a lie.



> There is absolutely no special right on homosexuality in the work place. There is not one law protecting homosexuals in the work place...NOT ONE.


Some states and cities do take away the ability of an employer to fire or not hire a homosexual. Since no sexual orientation law existed before it is a special right.



> There is not one incident in which any school child has to share the restroom with a transgendered child. You can not post one example of that policy in place in any school in America.


I don't know if it has happened yet but the attempt is being made.


> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> Christians and Jews are worse. This thread is proof positive.


Christians are routinely mocked in the media. Homosexuals are treated like they are hip, cool, someone to be admired for their abnormal sexuality.


----------



## toxicmedia

Coyote said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if limiting marriage to two is not  discriminatory, then so is limiting marriage to one man and one woman. After all, everyone would live under the same law.
> 
> I mean, if we use your logic as a basis for our actions. Treat all partnerships the same.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's about treating all partnerships the same.
> 
> If everyone can only marry one person - there is no discrimmination.
> 
> If everyone BUT flat footed people can marry more than one partner at a time -- then it is discrimminatory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, I am treating them all the same, so there is no discrimination.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I added to my post but you answered before I finished.
> 
> Here are the possible marriage options - consenting adults only.
> a. Men can marry women.
> b. Women can marry women.
> c. Men can marry men.
> 
> All can marry only one partner - thus no discrimmination.
> 
> If we only allow a. - then we are discrimminating against b and c.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simply not true. If everyone is treated the same, there is no discrimination. If the law changed where a black could only marry a white, there would be no discrimination.
> 
> Everyone is treated equally.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws can be discriminatory in themselves - the example you gave above is one.
> 
> Laws should be as broad and inclusive as they can be without endangering people or the public.  That's how I see it.
> 
> You can't allow adults to marry children - it's clearly damaging to children and children can not legally consent or understand the ramifications of what is happening to them.  Incest is another area where there is potential damage if they choose to have children.  But on the issue of gender there is no damage to society or to the individuals themselves.
> 
> Marriage should be between two consenting human adults - that's broad, inclusive and non-discrimminatory.
> 
> Who is being discrimminated against there?  No one.
> 
> The next argument would be polygamy.  I personally don't care if a someone chooses multiple spouses - to me, it's an individual choice between consenting adults.  But I've heard reasonable arguments against it as well but that usually occurs in other countries.
Click to expand...

IMO.....

Marriage between two adult humans shouldn't be prohibited unless it puts on or more of the particiapants in an inferior financial or emotional state.

Kind of like a formal legal version of ..."if there is anyone who can show just cause why the couple should not be wed, speak now or forever hold your peace"

So for plural marriage...the sister wives are put in a financial, as well as emotional inferior state, to the patriarch. Attention, and financial resources are divided. So in a plural marriage with 3 wives, and 1 husband, the wives only get 1/3 of the attention from the husband, and 1/3 of his financial support.

Children, horses, developmentally disabled people, and so on...cannot avoid being in an emotional inferior state to an adult human over 18.

I haven't found any drawbacks at all to what I've called the "inferior state" clause.

It's my baby. And my only real attempt at amatuerish legal stuff


----------



## hjmick

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> *No one has forced you to a gay marriage. No one has forced you to accept gay marriage. Your opinion of gay marriage is not relevant to those that will marry.*
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> *There is absolutely no special right on homosexuality in the work place. There is not one law protecting homosexuals in the work place...NOT ONE.*
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> *There is not one incident in which any school child has to share the restroom with a transgendered child. You can not post one example of that policy in place in any school in America.*
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> *Irrelevant mumblings*
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> *Christians and Jews are worse. This thread is proof positive.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a moderator?  Then quit posting in emboldened red. I won't respond to any post like yours. Please refer to USMB rules. It's moderators who post in emboldened red.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's one way to avoid addressing facts you don't like...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he edits his post, I'll respond to it.
Click to expand...


----------



## 1751_Texan

whitehall said:


> About 98% of pedophiles are male. Sexual fantasies of heterosexual pedophiles revolve around young girls. Yet the homosexual lobby insists that Americans should risk the physical and mental health of young boys by being forced by law to hire overt homosexuals to supervise boys. When the BSA won their victory in court the homosexual lobby put them on the hit list. The hypocrisy is stunning.



that is not correct...I don't know where you gleaned your data from but a pedophile is both categorized in the adult sexual behavior and the fascination of his sexual attractions[children].

Pedophiles that are heterosexual in there adult sexuality are not only attracted to "girls". Pedophiles can be attracted to one gender or both. Their attraction classifies their pedophilia not their adult sexual encounters.


----------



## Iceweasel

Coyote said:


> Interesting.  Doesn't however change the fact that insisting that marriage and it's legal benefits be limited only to mixed-gender couples violates the Constitutional premise of equal treatment under the law, which is what has struck down a multitude of state bans.


States don't rule on the Constitution. If they do they are way out of line. You are confusing sexual preferences with race, gender or religion. Since when have sexual relationships been a Constitutional right? States have always defined marriage, they did so by representative government. If sexual relationships were a Constitutional issue no state would have ever defined marriage. 


> The other thing...the "hearts and minds" aspect...that is exactly what has been going on as well.  This wasn't pushed to the SC right off the bat - it has been going through state after state.  Polls show, overwelmingly - that support for same sex marriage has been growing with over 50% in favor.  To me, though - that's irrelevant because basic rights should never ever be determined by popular opinion.


What basic right are you talking about? Are homosexuals being denied the right to vote?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

1751_Texan said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> *No one has forced you to a gay marriage. No one has forced you to accept gay marriage. Your opinion of gay marriage is not relevant to those that will marry.*
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> *There is absolutely no special right on homosexuality in the work place. There is not one law protecting homosexuals in the work place...NOT ONE.*
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> *There is not one incident in which any school child has to share the restroom with a transgendered child. You can not post one example of that policy in place in any school in America.*
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> *Irrelevant mumblings*
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> *Christians and Jews are worse. This thread is proof positive.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a moderator?  Then quit posting in emboldened red. I won't respond to any post like yours. Please refer to USMB rules. It's moderators who post in emboldened red.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can go back and change the color, that will not change the content.
Click to expand...


Yet you haven't. You're not a moderator and don't need to be using red. It's a reasonable request.


----------



## Coyote

Iceweasel said:


> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> one has forced you to a gay marriage. No one has forced you to accept gay marriage. Your opinion of gay marriage is not relevant to those that will marry.
> 
> 
> 
> *Gay marriage has been forced onto most states that have it by a radical minority.* Most people support traditional marriage, as do the gays that use the argument that marriage can only be between two people. *That is contrary to our system of laws and representative democracy*. Gay marriage denies the special relationship man has with woman and pretends gender does not matter. In other words, it forces the government to propagandise a lie.
Click to expand...



At one time the suffragets were considered a "radical minority" and vociferously and even violently resisted.

At one time those who fought for civil rights for negros was considered a "radical minority" and vociferously and even violently resisted.

People felt their rights - constitutionally protected rights - were being "forced" upon society.

Are you suggesting that this was contrary to our system of laws and representative democracy?


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Limiting it to two is discriminatory.  I mean, why can't a bi-sexual marry both the man and the woman he/she loves?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.
> 
> Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.
> 
> The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands.  Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.
> 
> Treat all partnerships the same.  Easy-squeezy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Requiring marriage to a partner of the opposite sex was also applied equally, regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take that argument a step back in history:  Requiring marriage to a partner of the same race was also applied equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Virginia tried to argue there was no racial discrimination but there was.  The court determined:
> 
> "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."
> 
> Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> You're in good company. A lot of Leftists miss that one.
Click to expand...


Just as you are trying to argue that there is no gender discrimination...but there is (courts are determining). Just like in the 1960s with anti miscegenation laws, courts are finding anti gay marriage laws unconstitutional.  

You claim in your OP

" Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war."

And then went on to cite an instance where the will of the people was overturned and *there was no war.  *I want you to pay particular attention to the date that YOU provided. 1967 is when Loving v Virginia was overturned. Now I want you to look at Gallup polls regarding interracial marriage. Tell us what you note?


----------



## Coyote

Iceweasel said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  Doesn't however change the fact that insisting that marriage and it's legal benefits be limited only to mixed-gender couples violates the Constitutional premise of equal treatment under the law, which is what has struck down a multitude of state bans.
> 
> 
> 
> States don't rule on the Constitution. If they do they are way out of line. You are confusing sexual preferences with race, gender or religion. Since when have sexual relationships been a Constitutional right? States have always defined marriage, they did so by representative government. If sexual relationships were a Constitutional issue no state would have ever defined marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> The other thing...the "hearts and minds" aspect...that is exactly what has been going on as well.  This wasn't pushed to the SC right off the bat - it has been going through state after state.  Polls show, overwelmingly - that support for same sex marriage has been growing with over 50% in favor.  To me, though - that's irrelevant because basic rights should never ever be determined by popular opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What basic right are you talking about? Are homosexuals being denied the right to vote?
Click to expand...



I'm not confusing anything.  Sexual preference is whether you choose missionary position or doggie style.  Sexual orientation is considered to be hard wired.  The only choice is whether to act on it or be celebite.  Oddly, outside of religious orders - no one demands that heterosexuals abstain from their orientation.

Marriage is a recognized right.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Limiting it to two is discriminatory.  I mean, why can't a bi-sexual marry both the man and the woman he/she loves?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.
> 
> Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.
> 
> The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands.  Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.
> 
> Treat all partnerships the same.  Easy-squeezy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Requiring marriage to a partner of the opposite sex was also applied equally, regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take that argument a step back in history:  Requiring marriage to a partner of the same race was also applied equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Virginia tried to argue there was no racial discrimination but there was.  The court determined:
> 
> "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."
> 
> Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> You're in good company. A lot of Leftists miss that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting.  Doesn't however change the fact that insisting that marriage and it's legal benefits be limited only to mixed-gender couples violates the Constitutional premise of equal treatment under the law, which is what has struck down a multitude of state bans.
> 
> The other thing...the "hearts and minds" aspect...that is exactly what has been going on as well.  This wasn't pushed to the SC right off the bat - it has been going through state after state.  Polls show, overwelmingly - that support for same sex marriage has been growing with over 50% in favor.  To me, though - that's irrelevant because basic rights should never ever be determined by popular opinion.
Click to expand...


Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well.  If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine. 

And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me.  I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture.  Double standard perhaps?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.
> 
> Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.
> 
> The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands.  Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.
> 
> Treat all partnerships the same.  Easy-squeezy.
> 
> 
> 
> Requiring marriage to a partner of the opposite sex was also applied equally, regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take that argument a step back in history:  Requiring marriage to a partner of the same race was also applied equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Virginia tried to argue there was no racial discrimination but there was.  The court determined:
> 
> "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."
> 
> Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> You're in good company. A lot of Leftists miss that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting.  Doesn't however change the fact that insisting that marriage and it's legal benefits be limited only to mixed-gender couples violates the Constitutional premise of equal treatment under the law, which is what has struck down a multitude of state bans.
> 
> The other thing...the "hearts and minds" aspect...that is exactly what has been going on as well.  This wasn't pushed to the SC right off the bat - it has been going through state after state.  Polls show, overwelmingly - that support for same sex marriage has been growing with over 50% in favor.  To me, though - that's irrelevant because basic rights should never ever be determined by popular opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well.  If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.
> 
> And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me.  I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture.  Double standard perhaps?
Click to expand...

They are racist, you are homophobic.  Clear enough for you?


----------



## Seawytch

Iceweasel said:


> Gay marriage has been forced onto most states that have it by a radical minority. Most people support traditional marriage, as do the gays that use the argument that marriage can only be between two people. That is contrary to our system of laws and representative democracy. Gay marriage denies the special relationship man has with woman and pretends gender does not matter. In other words, it forces the government to propagandise a lie.




Interracial marriage was forced onto most states by a radical minority. Most people were opposed to interracial marriage (only 20% supported it in 1967). Your arguments sound an awful lot like theirs...

_State v. Jackson. Missouri_ (1883): "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites." 

 Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924: The law's stated purpose was to prevent "abominable mixture and spurious issue." It "forbade miscegenation on the grounds that racial mixing was scientifically unsound and would 'pollute' America with mixed-blood offspring." 

Senator James R. Doolittle (D-WI), 1863: "By the laws of Massachusetts intermarriages between these races are forbidden as criminal. Why forbidden? Simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong." 

_Scott v. Sandford_ (1857), Chief Justice Taney: "Intermarriages between white persons and negroes or mulattoes were regarded as unnatural and immoral." 

_Lonas v. State_ (1871): Attorneys argued that intermarriage was "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce the human race in any of the types in which it was created." Tennessee's court agreed, saying that "any effort to intermerge the individuality of the races as a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us." 

From a submitted briefing to the Court on _Loving v. Virginia_: "I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist said. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."​


> Some states and cities do take away the ability of an employer to fire or not hire a homosexual. Since no sexual orientation law existed before it is a special right.




Some states do take away the ability of an employer to fire or not hire based on religion, race, gender, country of origin, etc. Kinda renders your "special" argument moot. 




> Christians are routinely mocked in the media. Homosexuals are treated like they are hip, cool, someone to be admired for their abnormal sexuality.



And of course you can provide examples of all this Christian "mocking" in the media, right?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

ninja007 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is heterosexuality being shoved in your face?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the standard *you've* set, where the mere exist of gays in the media is homosexuality being 'shoved down your throat'?
> 
> Off the top of my head, the Bachelor and the Bachelorette. The Dating game. Any show that has straight people. Any mention of straight people in the media, news, press, or television.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical. 95% of the pop is straight. You act like the gayz should get half of the media.
Click to expand...


This is my point.  They are pushy, "in your face" and want to flaunt themselves everywhere and I mean EVERYWHERE.  It's the way gays today think they're more important than anything else going on in this country, that their private lifestyle must be everyone's business, whether we like it or not.  And they continue to peacock their way into every TV show, professional sports, and every other venue of popularity.  And my question remains, what if Christians acted like this?  I'm sure we'd be considered insufferable assholes.  Amazing how that same standard doesn't apply to boorish gays.


----------



## ninja007

AVG-JOE said:


> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is heterosexuality being shoved in your face?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the standard *you've* set, where the mere exist of gays in the media is homosexuality being 'shoved down your throat'?
> 
> Off the top of my head, the Bachelor and the Bachelorette. The Dating game. Any show that has straight people. Any mention of straight people in the media, news, press, or television.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical. 95% of the pop is straight. You act like the gayz should get half of the media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And one key job of the government is to protect minority rights.
> 
> Don't you just love it when the system begins to work as it was intended on paper?  ​
Click to expand...


not at the price of someone else (whites).


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> And my question remains, what if Christians acted like this?  I'm sure we'd be considered insufferable assholes


They do, and you are, even here.


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.
> 
> Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.
> 
> The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands.  Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.
> 
> Treat all partnerships the same.  Easy-squeezy.
> 
> 
> 
> Requiring marriage to a partner of the opposite sex was also applied equally, regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take that argument a step back in history:  Requiring marriage to a partner of the same race was also applied equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Virginia tried to argue there was no racial discrimination but there was.  The court determined:
> 
> "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."
> 
> Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> You're in good company. A lot of Leftists miss that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting.  Doesn't however change the fact that insisting that marriage and it's legal benefits be limited only to mixed-gender couples violates the Constitutional premise of equal treatment under the law, which is what has struck down a multitude of state bans.
> 
> The other thing...the "hearts and minds" aspect...that is exactly what has been going on as well.  This wasn't pushed to the SC right off the bat - it has been going through state after state.  Polls show, overwelmingly - that support for same sex marriage has been growing with over 50% in favor.  To me, though - that's irrelevant because basic rights should never ever be determined by popular opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well.  If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.
> 
> And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me.  I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture.  Double standard perhaps?
Click to expand...


You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender. 

What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.


----------



## 80zephyr

AVG-JOE said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if limiting marriage to two is not  discriminatory, then so is limiting marriage to one man and one woman. After all, everyone would live under the same law.
> 
> I mean, if we use your logic as a basis for our actions. Treat all partnerships the same.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> Beer?
> 
> Limiting the government based benefits of marriage to any two people is way different than limiting the government based benefits of marriage to opposite sex couples only, especially when current reality is considered.
> 
> OUR government has no business excluding only some of the couples out there who've teamed up in long-term, monogamous relationships.
> 
> As a government with specific instruction to NOT align its policies with any belief set in particular, in THIS day and age, this discrimination makes us look stupid from space.
> 
> No wonder we get so few visitors.​
Click to expand...


Our government policies were set up to help families raise children. It is the only reason these laws exist. Since gays cannot have children, having the government give them the same benefits is unreasonable.

Government discriminates every day. Tell me, is it discrimination if I have to pay taxes to provide for some one elses welfare?

Of course it is.

Mark


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Seawytch said:


> What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.


He doesn't see the forest for the trees, just his I Got Mine, like most Americans.  It's why he's not concerned about the slaughter of Native Americans.  It didn't happen to him and now he has a truck and a TV so life is all good, if those faggots would just get back in the closet that is.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

ImGoing2Heaven said:


> And Sodom fell
> The Bible



Sodom was destroyed, according to the angels, "because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah was great before the Lord". 

Yes, amazing how militant, belligerent homosexuality is not new and people protested their unrelenting intrusion. And back then it was more than just obnoxiousness, gangs of homosexuality were attacking outlying towns and villages well beyond the cities.  They were a force of oppression.  As Ecclesiastes says, "there is nothing new under the sun" and it's true.  Gays in American and Europe today are well on track to being the very kind of people in the ancient cities who were destroyed by a righteous God to give reprieve to their neighbors in Southern Canaan.  There's a link that can't be denied.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> ImGoing2Heaven said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Sodom fell
> The Bible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sodom was destroyed, according to the angels, "because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah was great before the Lord".
> 
> Yes, amazing how militant, belligerent homosexuality is not new and people protested their unrelenting intrusion. And back then it was more than just obnoxiousness, gangs of homosexuality were attacking outlying towns and villages well beyond the cities.  They were a force of oppression.  As Ecclesiastes says, "there is nothing new under the sun" and it's true.  Gays in American and Europe today are well on track to being the very kind of people in the ancient cities who were destroyed by a righteous God to give reprieve to their neighbors in Southern Canaan.  There's a link that can't be denied.
Click to expand...

Case in point, asshole Christian at work.


----------



## 1751_Texan

Iceweasel said:


> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> one has forced you to a gay marriage. No one has forced you to accept gay marriage. Your opinion of gay marriage is not relevant to those that will marry.
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage has been forced onto most states that have it by a radical minority. Most people support traditional marriage, as do the gays that use the argument that marriage can only be between two people. That is contrary to our system of laws and representative democracy. Gay marriage denies the special relationship man has with woman and pretends gender does not matter. In other words, it forces the government to propagandise a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no special right on homosexuality in the work place. There is not one law protecting homosexuals in the work place...NOT ONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some states and cities do take away the ability of an employer to fire or not hire a homosexual. Since no sexual orientation law existed before it is a special right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is not one incident in which any school child has to share the restroom with a transgendered child. You can not post one example of that policy in place in any school in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know if it has happened yet but the attempt is being made.
> 
> 
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> Christians and Jews are worse. This thread is proof positive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christians are routinely mocked in the media. Homosexuals are treated like they are hip, cool, someone to be admired for their abnormal sexuality.
Click to expand...


Gay marriage has been forced onto most states that have it by a radical minority. Most people support traditional marriage, as do the gays that use the argument that marriage can only be between two people. That is contrary to our system of laws and representative democracy. Gay marriage denies the special relationship man has with woman and pretends gender does not matter. In other words, it forces the government to propagandise a lie.
*Texan:*that is incorrect, It was states that wrote ban laws that have been affirmed Unconstitutional. No one forced the states to write those laws. the Attorneys General of each of those states did the states a disservice by allowing those states to follow through in their unconstitutional legislation...no one forced that states to do that.

Some states and cities do take away the ability of an employer to fire or not hire a homosexual. Since no sexual orientation law existed before it is a special right.
I stand corrected there 21 states that do not allow an employer to fire an employee just for being gay. 

Christians are routinely mocked in the media. Homosexuals are treated like they are hip, cool, someone to be admired for their abnormal sexuality.
Everyone is mocked...Why should Christians be treated more sacrosanct than they are now? Christians are one of the protected classes...but no where in the Constitution does it say they must be free of Mockery.


----------



## 80zephyr

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Requiring marriage to a partner of the opposite sex was also applied equally, regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take that argument a step back in history:  Requiring marriage to a partner of the same race was also applied equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Virginia tried to argue there was no racial discrimination but there was.  The court determined:
> 
> "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."
> 
> Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> You're in good company. A lot of Leftists miss that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting.  Doesn't however change the fact that insisting that marriage and it's legal benefits be limited only to mixed-gender couples violates the Constitutional premise of equal treatment under the law, which is what has struck down a multitude of state bans.
> 
> The other thing...the "hearts and minds" aspect...that is exactly what has been going on as well.  This wasn't pushed to the SC right off the bat - it has been going through state after state.  Polls show, overwelmingly - that support for same sex marriage has been growing with over 50% in favor.  To me, though - that's irrelevant because basic rights should never ever be determined by popular opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well.  If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.
> 
> And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me.  I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture.  Double standard perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.
> 
> What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.
Click to expand...


What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.

Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.

Mark


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.


Legally they are the same thing, what is the compelling state interest?  Oh, we don't have one.  Well, that's into the can then.

And stop signing your name.  It's annoying and nobody gives a fuck whether you live or die let alone what your goddamned name is.  This isn't a letter to mommy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

80zypher can't understand the logic is the issue, or the constitution, for that matter.


----------



## 80zephyr

Howey said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Limiting it to two is discriminatory.  I mean, why can't a bi-sexual marry both the man and the woman he/she loves?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.
> 
> Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.
> 
> The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands.  Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.
> 
> Treat all partnerships the same.  Easy-squeezy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if limiting marriage to two is not  discriminatory, then so is limiting marriage to one man and one woman. After all, everyone would live under the same law.
> 
> I mean, if we use your logic as a basis for our actions. Treat all partnerships the same.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's about treating all partnerships the same.
> 
> If everyone can only marry one person - there is no discrimmination.
> 
> If everyone BUT flat footed people can marry more than one partner at a time -- then it is discrimminatory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, I am treating them all the same, so there is no discrimination.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Them"?
Click to expand...


Yes. Them. They are being treated EXACTLY THE SAME as anyone.

Mark


----------



## Seawytch

80zephyr said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take that argument a step back in history:  Requiring marriage to a partner of the same race was also applied equally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia tried to argue there was no racial discrimination but there was.  The court determined:
> 
> "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."
> 
> Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> You're in good company. A lot of Leftists miss that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting.  Doesn't however change the fact that insisting that marriage and it's legal benefits be limited only to mixed-gender couples violates the Constitutional premise of equal treatment under the law, which is what has struck down a multitude of state bans.
> 
> The other thing...the "hearts and minds" aspect...that is exactly what has been going on as well.  This wasn't pushed to the SC right off the bat - it has been going through state after state.  Polls show, overwelmingly - that support for same sex marriage has been growing with over 50% in favor.  To me, though - that's irrelevant because basic rights should never ever be determined by popular opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well.  If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.
> 
> And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me.  I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture.  Double standard perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.
> 
> What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
> 
> Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


How are gender and race different when it comes to the discrimination experienced?

Can you name a state or locality that prohibits civil marriage on an inability to procreate? Can you name a single person in the history of history that was denied a civil marriage license because of an inability or unwillingness to procreate? Are you aware that there are over a million children living in same sex homes? 

I'm sorry but saying "been there done that" does not excuse your wishing to put an arbitrary restriction on gay couples that is not put on straight couples.


----------



## Mac1958

.

I strongly suspect this has been covered, but if marriage is only for reproduction, does that mean people over 50 or 60 can't get married?

And would that mean they're gay?

.


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> Legally they are the same thing, what is the compelling state interest?  Oh, we don't have one.  Well, that's into the can then.
> 
> And stop signing your name.  It's annoying and nobody gives a fuck whether you live or die let alone what your goddamned name is.  This isn't a letter to mommy.
Click to expand...



The states compelling interest in to deal in reality, not cave to a whimsical whim of the electorate. Two men can never be married, no matter how much they wish they could be. That the government would try to change biological law to fit our wishes is insane.

Might as well call a man and a tree married. It won't make them so.

And BTW, the state has no "compelling interest" to limiting marriage to just two people.

Oh, by the way, my name is...

Mark


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> ImGoing2Heaven said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Sodom fell
> The Bible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sodom was destroyed, according to the angels, "because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah was great before the Lord".
> 
> Yes, amazing how militant, belligerent homosexuality is not new and people protested their unrelenting intrusion. And back then it was more than just obnoxiousness, gangs of homosexuality were attacking outlying towns and villages well beyond the cities.  They were a force of oppression.  As Ecclesiastes says, "there is nothing new under the sun" and it's true.  Gays in American and Europe today are well on track to being the very kind of people in the ancient cities who were destroyed by a righteous God to give reprieve to their neighbors in Southern Canaan.  There's a link that can't be denied.
Click to expand...



Amazing how Christians have so mangled the allegory in that story in order to bash gays...especially when the "hero" of the story, Lott, offered up his virgin daughters to be raped by an angry mob, then he went and fucked those same daughters himself in the hills. 

And gays get the bad rap out of that story.


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is heterosexuality being shoved in your face?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the standard *you've* set, where the mere exist of gays in the media is homosexuality being 'shoved down your throat'?
> 
> Off the top of my head, the Bachelor and the Bachelorette. The Dating game. Any show that has straight people. Any mention of straight people in the media, news, press, or television.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical. 95% of the pop is straight. You act like the gayz should get half of the media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is my point.  They are pushy, "in your face" and want to flaunt themselves everywhere and I mean EVERYWHERE.  It's the way gays today think they're more important than anything else going on in this country, that their private lifestyle must be everyone's business, whether we like it or not.  And they continue to peacock their way into every TV show, professional sports, and every other venue of popularity.  And my question remains, what if Christians acted like this?  I'm sure we'd be considered insufferable assholes.  Amazing how that same standard doesn't apply to boorish gays.
Click to expand...


Far less so than heterosexuality. On the Bachelor, a guy makes out with a different girl every week. On Jersey Shore, there's a hook up every episode. TV is filled with shows about heterosexual dating, relationships, family, sex, etc. _Yet if a football player kisses is boyfriend for one second, homosexuality is 'pushed in your face' and 'pushy'?_

That's ludicriously inconsistent. 

*You simply respond differently to the displays of heterosexuality than you do homosexuality.* And your personal enmity to gays doesn't translate into our dilemma. This is your issue.


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take that argument a step back in history:  Requiring marriage to a partner of the same race was also applied equally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia tried to argue there was no racial discrimination but there was.  The court determined:
> 
> "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."
> 
> Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> You're in good company. A lot of Leftists miss that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting.  Doesn't however change the fact that insisting that marriage and it's legal benefits be limited only to mixed-gender couples violates the Constitutional premise of equal treatment under the law, which is what has struck down a multitude of state bans.
> 
> The other thing...the "hearts and minds" aspect...that is exactly what has been going on as well.  This wasn't pushed to the SC right off the bat - it has been going through state after state.  Polls show, overwelmingly - that support for same sex marriage has been growing with over 50% in favor.  To me, though - that's irrelevant because basic rights should never ever be determined by popular opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well.  If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.
> 
> And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me.  I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture.  Double standard perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.
> 
> What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
> 
> Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't it be....under the law?   You cannot discriminate based on race......you cannot discriminate based on gender.   And if Marriage "is for reproduction"...why isn't reproduction a requirement for legal, civil marriage?


----------



## Seawytch

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> Legally they are the same thing, what is the compelling state interest?  Oh, we don't have one.  Well, that's into the can then.
> 
> And stop signing your name.  It's annoying and nobody gives a fuck whether you live or die let alone what your goddamned name is.  This isn't a letter to mommy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The states compelling interest in to deal in reality, not cave to a whimsical whim of the electorate. Two men can never be married, no matter how much they wish they could be. That the government would try to change biological law to fit our wishes is insane.
> 
> Might as well call a man and a tree married. It won't make them so.
> 
> Oh, by the way, my name is...
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...



Two men are marrying...probably as we speak and your *opinion *on the matter does not change the *reality*. Denying reality does not make that reality go away...it just makes you delusional.


----------



## 80zephyr

JakeStarkey said:


> 80zypher can't understand the logic is the issue, or the constitution, for that matter.



Which logic am I missing? Are you really trying to say that if all people are treated equally, they are being discriminated against?

Mark


----------



## ninja007

Skylar said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is heterosexuality being shoved in your face?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the standard *you've* set, where the mere exist of gays in the media is homosexuality being 'shoved down your throat'?
> 
> Off the top of my head, the Bachelor and the Bachelorette. The Dating game. Any show that has straight people. Any mention of straight people in the media, news, press, or television.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical. 95% of the pop is straight. You act like the gayz should get half of the media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is my point.  They are pushy, "in your face" and want to flaunt themselves everywhere and I mean EVERYWHERE.  It's the way gays today think they're more important than anything else going on in this country, that their private lifestyle must be everyone's business, whether we like it or not.  And they continue to peacock their way into every TV show, professional sports, and every other venue of popularity.  And my question remains, what if Christians acted like this?  I'm sure we'd be considered insufferable assholes.  Amazing how that same standard doesn't apply to boorish gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Far less so than heterosexuality. On the Bachelor, a guy makes out with a different girl every week. On Jersey Shore, there's a hook up every episode. *TV is filled with shows about heterosexual dating, *relationships, family, sex, etc. _Yet if a football player kisses is boyfriend for one second, homosexuality is 'pushed in your face' and 'pushy'?_
> 
> That's ludicriously inconsistent.
> 
> *You simply respond differently to the displays of heterosexuality than you do homosexuality.* And your personal enmity to gays doesn't translate into our dilemma. This is your issue.
Click to expand...


thats because the gayz are only 3-4% of the pop.


----------



## Seawytch

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> I strongly suspect this has been covered, but if marriage is only for reproduction, does that mean people over 50 or 60 can't get married?
> 
> And would that mean they're gay?
> 
> .




No Mac, it simply means they are anti gay bigots that wish to apply a standard to gays that they would not apply to heterosexuals. It seems like it's really them that want the "special rights" and aren't feeling so "special" because gays get them too.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia tried to argue there was no racial discrimination but there was.  The court determined:
> 
> "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."
> 
> Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> You're in good company. A lot of Leftists miss that one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  Doesn't however change the fact that insisting that marriage and it's legal benefits be limited only to mixed-gender couples violates the Constitutional premise of equal treatment under the law, which is what has struck down a multitude of state bans.
> 
> The other thing...the "hearts and minds" aspect...that is exactly what has been going on as well.  This wasn't pushed to the SC right off the bat - it has been going through state after state.  Polls show, overwelmingly - that support for same sex marriage has been growing with over 50% in favor.  To me, though - that's irrelevant because basic rights should never ever be determined by popular opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well.  If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.
> 
> And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me.  I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture.  Double standard perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.
> 
> What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
> 
> Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are gender and race different when it comes to the discrimination experienced?
> 
> Can you name a state or locality that prohibits civil marriage on an inability to procreate? Can you name a single person in the history of history that was denied a civil marriage license because of an inability or unwillingness to procreate? Are you aware that there are over a million children living in same sex homes?
> 
> I'm sorry but saying "been there done that" does not excuse your wishing to put an arbitrary restriction on gay couples that is not put on straight couples.
Click to expand...


They are not arbitrary restrictions.  Children have always been adopted only by families that meet a certain criteria, that provide the maximum benefit to the child.  Child protection services being picky about who gets to adopt children has never been called into question before the rainbow brigade decided they wanted to complete their picture of "marriage" by bringing kids into their insane, kooky world. Every gay cohabitation home is insufficient when compared to a mother father home because it intentionally OMITS a mother or a father.  If they're even on the list of potential adoption candidates, they should be dead last.  But instead, true to their evil, Leftist form, they are insisting on affirmative action, so they can gain preference over homes that the children benefit from more.

How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?


----------



## Seawytch

ninja007 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is heterosexuality being shoved in your face?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the standard *you've* set, where the mere exist of gays in the media is homosexuality being 'shoved down your throat'?
> 
> Off the top of my head, the Bachelor and the Bachelorette. The Dating game. Any show that has straight people. Any mention of straight people in the media, news, press, or television.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical. 95% of the pop is straight. You act like the gayz should get half of the media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is my point.  They are pushy, "in your face" and want to flaunt themselves everywhere and I mean EVERYWHERE.  It's the way gays today think they're more important than anything else going on in this country, that their private lifestyle must be everyone's business, whether we like it or not.  And they continue to peacock their way into every TV show, professional sports, and every other venue of popularity.  And my question remains, what if Christians acted like this?  I'm sure we'd be considered insufferable assholes.  Amazing how that same standard doesn't apply to boorish gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Far less so than heterosexuality. On the Bachelor, a guy makes out with a different girl every week. On Jersey Shore, there's a hook up every episode. *TV is filled with shows about heterosexual dating, *relationships, family, sex, etc. _Yet if a football player kisses is boyfriend for one second, homosexuality is 'pushed in your face' and 'pushy'?_
> 
> That's ludicriously inconsistent.
> 
> *You simply respond differently to the displays of heterosexuality than you do homosexuality.* And your personal enmity to gays doesn't translate into our dilemma. This is your issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thats because the gayz are only 3-4% of the pop.
Click to expand...


Like Jews...


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> Legally they are the same thing, what is the compelling state interest?  Oh, we don't have one.  Well, that's into the can then.
> 
> And stop signing your name.  It's annoying and nobody gives a fuck whether you live or die let alone what your goddamned name is.  This isn't a letter to mommy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The states compelling interest in to deal in reality, not cave to a whimsical whim of the electorate. Two men can never be married, no matter how much they wish they could be. That the government would try to change biological law to fit our wishes is insane.
Click to expand...


Two men obviously can be married, as is demonstrated daily in 36 of 50 states. You're coming from the assumption that the only valid basis of marriage is procreation. Yet as the millions upon millions of infertile couples who are either allowed to marry or stay married demonstrate, there is clearly a valid basis that has nothing to do with the ability to have kids.

Worse, the standard by which you insist we exclude gays -the ability to procreate- isn't a requirement of *any* couple. No one is required to be able to have kids in order to get married. Not in any state. You're argument is so ludicriously invalid, that in some states certain couples have to prove they *can't* procreate before they're allowed to marry.

The exact opposite of your belief. 

So the 'biological basis' argument is essentially worthless. As if there are millions and millions of exceptions for straights, there can be a few million more for gays.


----------



## 80zephyr

Seawytch said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia tried to argue there was no racial discrimination but there was.  The court determined:
> 
> "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."
> 
> Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> You're in good company. A lot of Leftists miss that one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  Doesn't however change the fact that insisting that marriage and it's legal benefits be limited only to mixed-gender couples violates the Constitutional premise of equal treatment under the law, which is what has struck down a multitude of state bans.
> 
> The other thing...the "hearts and minds" aspect...that is exactly what has been going on as well.  This wasn't pushed to the SC right off the bat - it has been going through state after state.  Polls show, overwelmingly - that support for same sex marriage has been growing with over 50% in favor.  To me, though - that's irrelevant because basic rights should never ever be determined by popular opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well.  If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.
> 
> And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me.  I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture.  Double standard perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.
> 
> What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
> 
> Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are gender and race different when it comes to the discrimination experienced?
> 
> Can you name a state or locality that prohibits civil marriage on an inability to procreate? Can you name a single person in the history of history that was denied a civil marriage license because of an inability or unwillingness to procreate? Are you aware that there are over a million children living in same sex homes?
> 
> I'm sorry but saying "been there done that" does not excuse your wishing to put an arbitrary restriction on gay couples that is not put on straight couples.
Click to expand...


Because marriage, by its very nature, is for reproduction. Now, we understand that people can marry without having children, but that it is the exception to the basis for the existence of marriage. That is doesn't happen every time doesn't change that fact.


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> *Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want,* which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well.  If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.



No it does not, and few would argue it does.  Rights are not unlimited but their application evolves as society evolves and becomes more inclusive.  Basic rights were denied to both women and blacks in a way that was NOT considered discrimminatory until recent times.

What is the right in question?  It's the right to marry.  It says nothing about who or even how many.  Who determines what marriage means and *who gets to decide who is allowed that right*?  Our Constitution?  Public opinion?  The same public opinion that supported antimiscegenation laws, poll taxes, literacy tests and prevented women from voting?

It would seem to me the main limitation on any of our rights is that it does not infringe on another person's rights, cause harm to another or affect public welfare.

Does any form of marriage do any of the above?  In a strictly unemotional look, consider:

Same sex marriage *between consenting adults* does not infringe on another person's rights nor does it cause harm to another nor does it affect public welfare.  Marriage is shown to be a stabilizing element, increasing a couples stability, economic prosperity and reducing anti-social and criminal behavior.  It would seem same sex marriage would offer benefits over detriments.

The typical aguement against it is the Slippery Slope Fallacy:  if we allow same sex marriage then xyz marriage will become the legal

Marriage between an adult and an animal:  animals, like children *can not consent*.  Sex with other animals is widely considered abusive to the animal.  It causes harm to another.

Marriage between an adult and a child:  children *can not consent*. Marriages of adults and children in countries where this occurs are typically abusive and hugely damaging to the child.  Pedophilia is hugely damaging to a child.

Marriage between two children:  again, children *can not consent*.  Children are not mature enough to comprehend the long term consequences of marriage and such marriages are often forced by adults in countries where this occurs.  It infringes on the rights of the children and it's damaging to public welfare.

The definition of marriage is changing - with over half the population now supporting same-sex marriage and equality of benefits and no one able to make a convincing argument against it outside of a religious perspective.



> And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me.  I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture.  Double standard perhaps?



Perhaps ...  it's not just whites that are racist unfortunately...


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  Doesn't however change the fact that insisting that marriage and it's legal benefits be limited only to mixed-gender couples violates the Constitutional premise of equal treatment under the law, which is what has struck down a multitude of state bans.
> 
> The other thing...the "hearts and minds" aspect...that is exactly what has been going on as well.  This wasn't pushed to the SC right off the bat - it has been going through state after state.  Polls show, overwelmingly - that support for same sex marriage has been growing with over 50% in favor.  To me, though - that's irrelevant because basic rights should never ever be determined by popular opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well.  If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.
> 
> And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me.  I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture.  Double standard perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.
> 
> What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
> 
> Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are gender and race different when it comes to the discrimination experienced?
> 
> Can you name a state or locality that prohibits civil marriage on an inability to procreate? Can you name a single person in the history of history that was denied a civil marriage license because of an inability or unwillingness to procreate? Are you aware that there are over a million children living in same sex homes?
> 
> I'm sorry but saying "been there done that" does not excuse your wishing to put an arbitrary restriction on gay couples that is not put on straight couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not arbitrary restrictions.  Children have always been adopted only by families that meet a certain criteria, that provide the maximum benefit to the child.  Child protection services being picky about who gets to adopt children has never been called into question before the rainbow brigade decided they wanted to complete their picture of "marriage" by bringing kids into their insane, kooky world. Every gay cohabitation home is insufficient when compared to a mother father home because it intentionally OMITS a mother or a father.  If they're even on the list of potential adoption candidates, they should be dead last.  But instead, true to their evil, Leftist form, they are insisting on affirmative action, so they can gain preference over homes that the children benefit from more.
> 
> How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?
Click to expand...



Saying that gays who cannot procreate with each other cannot marry but sterile or infertile couples that cannot procreate with each other do get to get married is setting an arbitrary standard. 

Children still are being adopted by families that meet a certain criteria...and being gay does not preclude you in most states. 

You have your opinion on children and gays, but it is just your opinion and is not supported by facts and evidence. The facts are that our children are at no disadvantage to yours and studies show that gender is only a factor in parenting in one area...and I guarantee you won't be able to guess what it is.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ImGoing2Heaven said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Sodom fell
> The Bible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sodom was destroyed, according to the angels, "because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah was great before the Lord".
> 
> Yes, amazing how militant, belligerent homosexuality is not new and people protested their unrelenting intrusion. And back then it was more than just obnoxiousness, gangs of homosexuality were attacking outlying towns and villages well beyond the cities.  They were a force of oppression.  As Ecclesiastes says, "there is nothing new under the sun" and it's true.  Gays in American and Europe today are well on track to being the very kind of people in the ancient cities who were destroyed by a righteous God to give reprieve to their neighbors in Southern Canaan.  There's a link that can't be denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how Christians have so mangled the allegory in that story in order to bash gays...especially when the "hero" of the story, Lott, offered up his virgin daughters to be raped by an angry mob, then he went and fucked those same daughters himself in the hills.
> 
> And gays get the bad rap out of that story.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the reminder that the homosexual Canaanite culture was so decadent that offering up women as a commodity was a common way of settling differences. Oh, and by the way, Lots daughters got him drunk so they could have children by him.  Yes the culture is that depraved when pervasive homosexuality becomes dominant. I'm glad we agree.


----------



## Mac1958

Seawytch said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> I strongly suspect this has been covered, but if marriage is only for reproduction, does that mean people over 50 or 60 can't get married?
> 
> And would that mean they're gay?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Mac, it simply means they are anti gay bigots that wish to apply a standard to gays that they would not apply to heterosexuals. It seems like it's really them that want the "special rights" and aren't feeling so "special" because gays get them too.
Click to expand...


Well, I think gays should have to suffer like the rest of us.



.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> Because marriage, by its very nature, is for reproduction. Now, we understand that people can marry without having children, but that it is the exception to the basis for the existence of marriage. That is doesn't happen every time doesn't change that fact.


That is entirely untrue, and it if were true, and it isn't, millions upon millions of people could not get married, and they can, as long as they are male and female, the only contract on the books that requires such a thing.


----------



## ninja007

Seawytch said:


> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the standard *you've* set, where the mere exist of gays in the media is homosexuality being 'shoved down your throat'?
> 
> Off the top of my head, the Bachelor and the Bachelorette. The Dating game. Any show that has straight people. Any mention of straight people in the media, news, press, or television.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical. 95% of the pop is straight. You act like the gayz should get half of the media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is my point.  They are pushy, "in your face" and want to flaunt themselves everywhere and I mean EVERYWHERE.  It's the way gays today think they're more important than anything else going on in this country, that their private lifestyle must be everyone's business, whether we like it or not.  And they continue to peacock their way into every TV show, professional sports, and every other venue of popularity.  And my question remains, what if Christians acted like this?  I'm sure we'd be considered insufferable assholes.  Amazing how that same standard doesn't apply to boorish gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Far less so than heterosexuality. On the Bachelor, a guy makes out with a different girl every week. On Jersey Shore, there's a hook up every episode. *TV is filled with shows about heterosexual dating, *relationships, family, sex, etc. _Yet if a football player kisses is boyfriend for one second, homosexuality is 'pushed in your face' and 'pushy'?_
> 
> That's ludicriously inconsistent.
> 
> *You simply respond differently to the displays of heterosexuality than you do homosexuality.* And your personal enmity to gays doesn't translate into our dilemma. This is your issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thats because the gayz are only 3-4% of the pop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like Jews...
Click to expand...


being a Jew isn't a choice.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well.  If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.
> 
> And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me.  I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture.  Double standard perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.
> 
> What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
> 
> Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are gender and race different when it comes to the discrimination experienced?
> 
> Can you name a state or locality that prohibits civil marriage on an inability to procreate? Can you name a single person in the history of history that was denied a civil marriage license because of an inability or unwillingness to procreate? Are you aware that there are over a million children living in same sex homes?
> 
> I'm sorry but saying "been there done that" does not excuse your wishing to put an arbitrary restriction on gay couples that is not put on straight couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not arbitrary restrictions.  Children have always been adopted only by families that meet a certain criteria, that provide the maximum benefit to the child.  Child protection services being picky about who gets to adopt children has never been called into question before the rainbow brigade decided they wanted to complete their picture of "marriage" by bringing kids into their insane, kooky world. Every gay cohabitation home is insufficient when compared to a mother father home because it intentionally OMITS a mother or a father.  If they're even on the list of potential adoption candidates, they should be dead last.  But instead, true to their evil, Leftist form, they are insisting on affirmative action, so they can gain preference over homes that the children benefit from more.
> 
> How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Saying that gays who cannot procreate with each other cannot marry but sterile or infertile couples that cannot procreate with each other do get to get married is setting an arbitrary standard.
> 
> Children still are being adopted by families that meet a certain criteria...and being gay does not preclude you in most states.
> 
> You have your opinion on children and gays, but it is just your opinion and is not supported by facts and evidence. The facts are that our children are at no disadvantage to yours and studies show that gender is only a factor in parenting in one area...and I guarantee you won't be able to guess what it is.
Click to expand...

Infertile couples still offer a mother father home for children to be adopted into and should therefore be given preference over any home that lacks a mother or a father.  Why is this so hard to understand?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ImGoing2Heaven said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Sodom fell
> The Bible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sodom was destroyed, according to the angels, "because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah was great before the Lord".
> 
> Yes, amazing how militant, belligerent homosexuality is not new and people protested their unrelenting intrusion. And back then it was more than just obnoxiousness, gangs of homosexuality were attacking outlying towns and villages well beyond the cities.  They were a force of oppression.  As Ecclesiastes says, "there is nothing new under the sun" and it's true.  Gays in American and Europe today are well on track to being the very kind of people in the ancient cities who were destroyed by a righteous God to give reprieve to their neighbors in Southern Canaan.  There's a link that can't be denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how Christians have so mangled the allegory in that story in order to bash gays...especially when the "hero" of the story, Lott, offered up his virgin daughters to be raped by an angry mob, then he went and fucked those same daughters himself in the hills.
> 
> And gays get the bad rap out of that story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the reminder that the homosexual Canaanite culture was so decadent that offering up women as a commodity was a common way of settling differences. Oh, and by the way, Lots daughters got him drunk so they could have children by him.  Yes the culture is that depraved when pervasive homosexuality becomes dominant. I'm glad we agree.
Click to expand...

Lots daughters fucking daddy was because of the faggots?  You are reaching new heights of utter stupidity today little Christian.


----------



## 80zephyr

AVG-JOE said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree all you want. What I said is a fact. There is no discrimination in modern state marriage laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  What you said there is your opinion.  Same as me.
> 
> Welcome to America, Bub.
Click to expand...


That's where you are wrong. In realistic terms, there can not be discrimination when all people are treated the same.

If marriage is allowed only between one man and one woman, then EVERYONE lives under the same law. That is not an opinion. It is logic.

And you can disagree if you want, but logic says you are wrong.

Mark


----------



## Seawytch

80zephyr said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  Doesn't however change the fact that insisting that marriage and it's legal benefits be limited only to mixed-gender couples violates the Constitutional premise of equal treatment under the law, which is what has struck down a multitude of state bans.
> 
> The other thing...the "hearts and minds" aspect...that is exactly what has been going on as well.  This wasn't pushed to the SC right off the bat - it has been going through state after state.  Polls show, overwelmingly - that support for same sex marriage has been growing with over 50% in favor.  To me, though - that's irrelevant because basic rights should never ever be determined by popular opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well.  If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.
> 
> And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me.  I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture.  Double standard perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.
> 
> What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
> 
> Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are gender and race different when it comes to the discrimination experienced?
> 
> Can you name a state or locality that prohibits civil marriage on an inability to procreate? Can you name a single person in the history of history that was denied a civil marriage license because of an inability or unwillingness to procreate? Are you aware that there are over a million children living in same sex homes?
> 
> I'm sorry but saying "been there done that" does not excuse your wishing to put an arbitrary restriction on gay couples that is not put on straight couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because marriage, by its very nature, is for reproduction. Now, we understand that people can marry without having children, but that it is the exception to the basis for the existence of marriage. That is doesn't happen every time doesn't change that fact.
Click to expand...


If that were true then my 90 year old grandfather would have been prevented from marrying his 80 year old girlfriend. My sterilized brother would have been prevented from marrying his sterilized wife. 

What doesn't change is the fact that you want to treat gay couples differently than straight couples. You want to set a standard for gays that you would not set for straights. That's discrimination and that makes you an anti gay bigot. It's okay, you've got company.


----------



## ninja007

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well.  If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.
> 
> And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me.  I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture.  Double standard perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.
> 
> What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
> 
> Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are gender and race different when it comes to the discrimination experienced?
> 
> Can you name a state or locality that prohibits civil marriage on an inability to procreate? Can you name a single person in the history of history that was denied a civil marriage license because of an inability or unwillingness to procreate? Are you aware that there are over a million children living in same sex homes?
> 
> I'm sorry but saying "been there done that" does not excuse your wishing to put an arbitrary restriction on gay couples that is not put on straight couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not arbitrary restrictions.  Children have always been adopted only by families that meet a certain criteria, that provide the maximum benefit to the child.  Child protection services being picky about who gets to adopt children has never been called into question before the rainbow brigade decided they wanted to complete their picture of "marriage" by bringing kids into their insane, kooky world. Every gay cohabitation home is insufficient when compared to a mother father home because it intentionally OMITS a mother or a father.  If they're even on the list of potential adoption candidates, they should be dead last.  But instead, true to their evil, Leftist form, they are insisting on affirmative action, so they can gain preference over homes that the children benefit from more.
> 
> How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Saying that gays who cannot procreate with each other cannot marry but sterile or infertile couples that cannot procreate with each other do get to get married is setting an arbitrary standard.
> 
> Children still are being adopted by families that meet a certain criteria...and being gay does not preclude you in most states.
> 
> You have your opinion on children and gays, but it is just your opinion and is not supported by facts and evidence. *The facts are that our children are at no disadvantage to yours* and studies show that gender is only a factor in parenting in one area...and I guarantee you won't be able to guess what it is.
Click to expand...


BS. Every (unbiased) study shows it is worse for children with gay parents.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.
> 
> What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
> 
> Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are gender and race different when it comes to the discrimination experienced?
> 
> Can you name a state or locality that prohibits civil marriage on an inability to procreate? Can you name a single person in the history of history that was denied a civil marriage license because of an inability or unwillingness to procreate? Are you aware that there are over a million children living in same sex homes?
> 
> I'm sorry but saying "been there done that" does not excuse your wishing to put an arbitrary restriction on gay couples that is not put on straight couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not arbitrary restrictions.  Children have always been adopted only by families that meet a certain criteria, that provide the maximum benefit to the child.  Child protection services being picky about who gets to adopt children has never been called into question before the rainbow brigade decided they wanted to complete their picture of "marriage" by bringing kids into their insane, kooky world. Every gay cohabitation home is insufficient when compared to a mother father home because it intentionally OMITS a mother or a father.  If they're even on the list of potential adoption candidates, they should be dead last.  But instead, true to their evil, Leftist form, they are insisting on affirmative action, so they can gain preference over homes that the children benefit from more.
> 
> How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Saying that gays who cannot procreate with each other cannot marry but sterile or infertile couples that cannot procreate with each other do get to get married is setting an arbitrary standard.
> 
> Children still are being adopted by families that meet a certain criteria...and being gay does not preclude you in most states.
> 
> You have your opinion on children and gays, but it is just your opinion and is not supported by facts and evidence. The facts are that our children are at no disadvantage to yours and studies show that gender is only a factor in parenting in one area...and I guarantee you won't be able to guess what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Infertile couples still offer a mother father home for children to be adopted into and should therefore be given preference over any home that lacks a mother or a father.  Why is this so hard to understand?
Click to expand...

You really do live in Leave It To Beaver land.

Oh June, Wally is home...


----------



## ninja007

Analysis New Study Did Not Prove That Gay Parents Are Better


----------



## Coyote

80zephyr said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take that argument a step back in history:  Requiring marriage to a partner of the same race was also applied equally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia tried to argue there was no racial discrimination but there was.  The court determined:
> 
> "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."
> 
> Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> You're in good company. A lot of Leftists miss that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting.  Doesn't however change the fact that insisting that marriage and it's legal benefits be limited only to mixed-gender couples violates the Constitutional premise of equal treatment under the law, which is what has struck down a multitude of state bans.
> 
> The other thing...the "hearts and minds" aspect...that is exactly what has been going on as well.  This wasn't pushed to the SC right off the bat - it has been going through state after state.  Polls show, overwelmingly - that support for same sex marriage has been growing with over 50% in favor.  To me, though - that's irrelevant because basic rights should never ever be determined by popular opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well.  If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.
> 
> And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me.  I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture.  Double standard perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.
> 
> What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
> 
> *Marriage is for reproduction*, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


But I will, because it's pertinent.

Marriage today is for many things and reproduction is not the only thing and insisting on that would deprive many of marriage.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

ninja007 said:


> BS. Every study shows it is worse for children with gay parents.


No, they don't, but you need them to because otherwise you are just another run-of-the-mill faggot hater.  It's all about the children you say, only it isn't, it's about your fear of the dreaded "others"...


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> They are not arbitrary restrictions.



Obviously, they are. *As there's no requirement of marriage that these restrictions serve.* If for example every straight couple that couldn't have kids was prevented from marrying then applying similar restrictions to gays wouldn't be arbitrary. As the ability to procreate would be intrinsic to the union. But no one is required to meet such a standard. Rendering it essentially irrelevant to the union. 

Thus, restricting someone's access to marriage because they can't meet a standard that *doesn't exist *and *applies to no one *is the epitome of arbitrary. 



> Children have always been adopted only by families that meet a certain criteria, that provide the maximum benefit to the child.  Child protection services being picky about who gets to adopt children has never been called into question before the rainbow brigade decided they wanted to complete their picture of "marriage" by bringing kids into their insane, kooky world. Every gay cohabitation home is insufficient when compared to a mother father home because it intentionally OMITS a mother or a father.



But why? You can't give us a logical or rational reason, as the children of same sex couples are as healthy and well adjusted as from straight couples. Yet you imagine harm for which no evidence actually exists....because you believe homosexuality is wrong. This is the problem with your entire argument; you have no rational basis. You have a belief based in your religion but lacking any objective rational or logical reason. For someone who doesn't share the same religious beliefs, your claims are essentially gibberish. 



> How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?



That's between each individual and God. You don't play any role in that. Rendering your attempts to impose your religion upon people that don't believe it a little pointless.


----------



## Seawytch

80zephyr said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree all you want. What I said is a fact. There is no discrimination in modern state marriage laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  What you said there is your opinion.  Same as me.
> 
> Welcome to America, Bub.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's where you are wrong. In realistic terms, there can not be discrimination when all people are treated the same.
> 
> If marriage is allowed only between one man and one woman, then EVERYONE lives under the same law. That is not an opinion. It is logic.
> 
> And you can disagree if you want, but logic says you are wrong.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Are you aware that your argument was used before?

As Reconstruction collapsed in the late 1870s, legislators, policymakers, and, above all, judges began to marshal the arguments they needed to justify the reinstatement--and subsequent expansion--of miscegenation law.

Here are four of the arguments they used:

1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.

2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.

3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and

4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."

On this fourth point--the supposed "unnaturality" of interracial marriage--judges formed a virtual chorus. Here, for example, is the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878:

The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.

*The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.*

- See more at: History News Network Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Coyote said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia tried to argue there was no racial discrimination but there was.  The court determined:
> 
> "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."
> 
> Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> You're in good company. A lot of Leftists miss that one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  Doesn't however change the fact that insisting that marriage and it's legal benefits be limited only to mixed-gender couples violates the Constitutional premise of equal treatment under the law, which is what has struck down a multitude of state bans.
> 
> The other thing...the "hearts and minds" aspect...that is exactly what has been going on as well.  This wasn't pushed to the SC right off the bat - it has been going through state after state.  Polls show, overwelmingly - that support for same sex marriage has been growing with over 50% in favor.  To me, though - that's irrelevant because basic rights should never ever be determined by popular opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well.  If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.
> 
> And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me.  I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture.  Double standard perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.
> 
> What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
> 
> *Marriage is for reproduction*, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But I will, because it's pertinent.
> 
> Marriage today is for many things and reproduction is not the only thing and insisting on that would deprive many of marriage.
Click to expand...

Sex isn't even for reproduction, usually, but somehow marriage is?  Morons here, total fucking morons.


----------



## Coyote

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> Legally they are the same thing, what is the compelling state interest?  Oh, we don't have one.  Well, that's into the can then.
> 
> And stop signing your name.  It's annoying and nobody gives a fuck whether you live or die let alone what your goddamned name is.  This isn't a letter to mommy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The states compelling interest in to deal in reality, not cave to a whimsical whim of the electorate. Two men can never be married, no matter how much they wish they could be. That the government would try to change biological law to fit our wishes is insane.
> 
> Might as well call a man and a tree married. It won't make them so.
> 
> And BTW, the state has no "compelling interest" to limiting marriage to just two people.
> 
> Oh, by the way, my name is...
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Marriage is not biological law.  It's a human construct.


----------



## Seawytch

ninja007 said:


> Analysis New Study Did Not Prove That Gay Parents Are Better



I did not say better, I said at no disadvantage. There is no difference in outcomes between the children raised by intact gay families and intact straight families.


----------



## ninja007

PaintMyHouse said:


> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS. Every study shows it is worse for children with gay parents.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't, but you need them to because otherwise you are just another run-of-the-mill faggot hater.  It's all about the children you say, only it isn't, it's about your fear of the dreaded "others"...
Click to expand...


i don't fear the gayz, only for the children who grow up confused and pressured to be gay when they are straight.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> No it does not, and few would argue it does.  Rights are not unlimited but their application evolves as society evolves and becomes more inclusive.  Basic rights were denied to both women and blacks in a way that was NOT considered discrimminatory until recent times.
> 
> What is the right in question?  It's the right to marry.



Let's stop right there because your train just went off the tracks. Who is being denied the right to marry?  It's only tortured Leftist "logic" that says if somebody can't marry whoever they want, a person of the same gender, a brother, aunt, or a horse or a goat, that they're being denied the right to marry.  What kind of nonsense is that?  No culture in human history has said it's ok to marry whoever one wants. There's always been taboos for the protection and perpetuation of a strong society. So no, the right to marry is not being denied just because you can't marry whoever you want.  And trying to read that "right" into the 14th Amendment, to marry whoever you want, flies off the tether of any legal precedent.


----------



## ninja007

Seawytch said:


> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Analysis New Study Did Not Prove That Gay Parents Are Better
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say better, I said at no disadvantage. There is no difference in outcomes between the children raised by intact gay families and intact straight families.
Click to expand...



of course there is. Plain as day.


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence fallacy. Confusing fact with opinion.  Thus invalid reasoning, therefore reasoning that is disqualified from consideration by reasonable people.
> 
> And of course, factually inaccurate. As in 36 states, marriage is also one man and one man or one woman and one woman. Ignoring this fact doesn't change it.
> 
> [quote
> This is the consequence of the physiological design of the human species.
> 
> What relevance does the physiological design of the species have to do with marriage? *Remember, you've said repeatedly that you're not arguing that marriage is about procreation. *Without procreation, what relevance does your point have to marriage, its purpose, or a valid basis for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That an insignificant minority craves legitimacy through the pretense of marriage doesn't change that... and no American is ever going to tolerate that minority attempting to force them to accept their pretense as anything but... and your pretense that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality did not sue innocent people into bankruptcy, JUST BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT WHICH THEY DISAGREED, demonstrates that you're either a liar, or you're delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that a majority of the nation supports gay marriage and gay marriage proponents outweigh opponents by a 12 to 19 points, your assessment of what Americans feel on the matter are of no consequence. As you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> A majority disagrees with you. And that majority is _growing. Get used to the idea._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Civil Rights are nothing BUT popular opinion.  Which is why they're not worth the paper they're written on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Factually incorrect. Civil rights may or may not be in line with popular opinion. Interracial marriage bans when it was recognized as unconstitutional was wildly popular. With support in the mid to high 80s. There was very little popular support for interracial marriage, despite the courts recognizing it was a right.
> 
> Demonstrating elegantly that civil rights can most definitely be something other than popular opinion. And of course, our law recognizes civil rights. Which might explain the rather horrid record your ilk have had in court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are only natural human rights... endowed by God, resting in the authority of God; nature himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And which rights did God 'endow'? And according to who? You can't say with anything more than empty opinion. See, plenty of people claim to speak for God. You included.
> 
> Using the reasoning of religion, almost all religion is false. Given that by your own reasoning almost all people who claim to speak for God are wrong, what would be the odds that out of all the people in all the world, across the long span of what is, what has been and what will be......that *you* happened to be the guy to get it right? Especially when there's nothing that mandates that anyone did?
> 
> The odds of your accuracy are exceedingly small. Rendering your citation of yourself as the conveyer of God's will unreliable. And of course, without reason or logic.
> 
> Oh, and for spice, your claims is a classic Appeal to Authority fallacy. Thus invalid reasoning, therefore reasoning that is disqualified from consideration by reasonable people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that you people are incapable of understanding that... is why you people are so prone toward foolishness and evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More accurately, 'we people' don't accept you as speaking for God. Though I'll be happy to recognize you as the avatar of the Appeal to Authority fallacy. You yourself have said that the appeal to authority fallacy is valid only if its logic and reasoning are valid.
> 
> *And you can't logically or reasonably establish you claims. *Which is why you continue to fail.
Click to expand...


Amazing that you use the "majority of people" argument. Tell me, before this "majority" would it have been alright for me to tell you that the "majority" don't want gay marriage and that you should just STFU?

If not, why do you use it to bludgeon others?

Mark


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  Doesn't however change the fact that insisting that marriage and it's legal benefits be limited only to mixed-gender couples violates the Constitutional premise of equal treatment under the law, which is what has struck down a multitude of state bans.
> 
> The other thing...the "hearts and minds" aspect...that is exactly what has been going on as well.  This wasn't pushed to the SC right off the bat - it has been going through state after state.  Polls show, overwelmingly - that support for same sex marriage has been growing with over 50% in favor.  To me, though - that's irrelevant because basic rights should never ever be determined by popular opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well.  If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.
> 
> And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me.  I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture.  Double standard perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.
> 
> What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
> 
> Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are gender and race different when it comes to the discrimination experienced?
> 
> Can you name a state or locality that prohibits civil marriage on an inability to procreate? Can you name a single person in the history of history that was denied a civil marriage license because of an inability or unwillingness to procreate? Are you aware that there are over a million children living in same sex homes?
> 
> I'm sorry but saying "been there done that" does not excuse your wishing to put an arbitrary restriction on gay couples that is not put on straight couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not arbitrary restrictions.  Children have always been adopted only by families that meet a certain criteria, that provide the maximum benefit to the child.  Child protection services being picky about who gets to adopt children has never been called into question before the rainbow brigade decided they wanted to complete their picture of "marriage" by bringing kids into their insane, kooky world. Every gay cohabitation home is insufficient when compared to a mother father home because it intentionally OMITS a mother or a father.  If they're even on the list of potential adoption candidates, they should be dead last.  But instead, true to their evil, Leftist form, they are insisting on affirmative action, so they can gain preference over homes that the children benefit from more.
> 
> How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?
Click to expand...


A just God would not condemn people soley on the basis of sexual orientation, he would see into their hearts.


----------



## ninja007

Kids of gay parents fare worse study finds but research draws fire from experts - CBS News


A Major Study Reveals What Happens to Children Raised by Same-Sex Couples - Mic


----------



## Skylar

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> I strongly suspect this has been covered, but if marriage is only for reproduction, does that mean people over 50 or 60 can't get married?
> 
> And would that mean they're gay?
> 
> .



You're applying the same rules consistently. And that's where you make your mistake. As you assume that the 'procreation' issue is the actual basis of argument. As the inconsistencies demonstrate, it isn't. Its a proxy issue.

Many opponents believe that homosexuality is morally wrong because they're religion tells them it is. That's it. That's the actual basis. The 'procreation' argument is just the hypocrisy that is offered in its place since the 'homosexuality is morally wrong' argument is just arbitrary belief. And consistently indefensible. 

If they actually believed the procreation argument....then yeah, 50 and 60 year olds wouldn't be able to marry, even if they were straight. No infertile straight couple could be married. And if any sexually unproductive activity was also immoral, they'd have to condemn their own grandparents every time they had sex, as nanna and pop-pop have no more chance of producing children at their age than a gay couple. 

But they don't. Because they don't believe their own bullshit. Its a smoke screen for an irrational and logically basis enmity toward gays.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

I have news for you little faggot haters, children are not part of this discussion over rights.  I don't give a fuck if it is worse for the children, we don't do what is best for the child in this country because if we did we wouldn't let so many biological but unfit parents raise them.  This is about rights and equality.  Take your concerns for the children and start doing something about the homes where they are being bounced off the walls and fucked like whores.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Analysis New Study Did Not Prove That Gay Parents Are Better
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say better, I said at no disadvantage. There is no difference in outcomes between the children raised by intact gay families and intact straight families.
Click to expand...


Uh huh....









*'They took turns raping me': New claims of child sex abuse revealed as gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go to trial *

Read more: Gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go on trial to fight allegations Daily Mail Online 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## Coyote

ninja007 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.
> 
> What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
> 
> Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are gender and race different when it comes to the discrimination experienced?
> 
> Can you name a state or locality that prohibits civil marriage on an inability to procreate? Can you name a single person in the history of history that was denied a civil marriage license because of an inability or unwillingness to procreate? Are you aware that there are over a million children living in same sex homes?
> 
> I'm sorry but saying "been there done that" does not excuse your wishing to put an arbitrary restriction on gay couples that is not put on straight couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not arbitrary restrictions.  Children have always been adopted only by families that meet a certain criteria, that provide the maximum benefit to the child.  Child protection services being picky about who gets to adopt children has never been called into question before the rainbow brigade decided they wanted to complete their picture of "marriage" by bringing kids into their insane, kooky world. Every gay cohabitation home is insufficient when compared to a mother father home because it intentionally OMITS a mother or a father.  If they're even on the list of potential adoption candidates, they should be dead last.  But instead, true to their evil, Leftist form, they are insisting on affirmative action, so they can gain preference over homes that the children benefit from more.
> 
> How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Saying that gays who cannot procreate with each other cannot marry but sterile or infertile couples that cannot procreate with each other do get to get married is setting an arbitrary standard.
> 
> Children still are being adopted by families that meet a certain criteria...and being gay does not preclude you in most states.
> 
> You have your opinion on children and gays, but it is just your opinion and is not supported by facts and evidence. *The facts are that our children are at no disadvantage to yours* and studies show that gender is only a factor in parenting in one area...and I guarantee you won't be able to guess what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BS. Every (unbiased) study shows it is worse for children with gay parents.
Click to expand...


What "unbiased" studies?


----------



## ninja007

10 Reasons Why Homosexual Marriage is Harmful and Must be Opposed


----------



## PaintMyHouse

ninja007 said:


> Kids of gay parents fare worse study finds but research draws fire from experts - CBS News
> A Major Study Reveals What Happens to Children Raised by Same-Sex Couples - Mic


It Doesn't FUCKING matter.  It has nothing, repeat, nothing to do with Marriage Equality.  Got it now?


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Analysis New Study Did Not Prove That Gay Parents Are Better
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say better, I said at no disadvantage. There is no difference in outcomes between the children raised by intact gay families and intact straight families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *'They took turns raping me': New claims of child sex abuse revealed as gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go to trial *
> 
> Read more: Gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go on trial to fight allegations Daily Mail Online
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Click to expand...



You can always find examples of pedo abuse among both hetero and homo.


----------



## bodecea

ninja007 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is heterosexuality being shoved in your face?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the standard *you've* set, where the mere exist of gays in the media is homosexuality being 'shoved down your throat'?
> 
> Off the top of my head, the Bachelor and the Bachelorette. The Dating game. Any show that has straight people. Any mention of straight people in the media, news, press, or television.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical. 95% of the pop is straight. You act like the gayz should get half of the media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is my point.  They are pushy, "in your face" and want to flaunt themselves everywhere and I mean EVERYWHERE.  It's the way gays today think they're more important than anything else going on in this country, that their private lifestyle must be everyone's business, whether we like it or not.  And they continue to peacock their way into every TV show, professional sports, and every other venue of popularity.  And my question remains, what if Christians acted like this?  I'm sure we'd be considered insufferable assholes.  Amazing how that same standard doesn't apply to boorish gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Far less so than heterosexuality. On the Bachelor, a guy makes out with a different girl every week. On Jersey Shore, there's a hook up every episode. *TV is filled with shows about heterosexual dating, *relationships, family, sex, etc. _Yet if a football player kisses is boyfriend for one second, homosexuality is 'pushed in your face' and 'pushy'?_
> 
> That's ludicriously inconsistent.
> 
> *You simply respond differently to the displays of heterosexuality than you do homosexuality.* And your personal enmity to gays doesn't translate into our dilemma. This is your issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thats because the gayz are only 3-4% of the pop.
Click to expand...

So?


----------



## Skylar

ninja007 said:


> Kids of gay parents fare worse study finds but research draws fire from experts - CBS News
> 
> 
> A Major Study Reveals What Happens to Children Raised by Same-Sex Couples - Mic



Wow. This from your own source:



> A major study conducted by University of Melbourne researchers has concluded that same-sex parents actually raise children slightly better than straight couples.
> 
> A Major Study Reveals What Happens to Children Raised by Same-Sex Couples - Mic


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  Doesn't however change the fact that insisting that marriage and it's legal benefits be limited only to mixed-gender couples violates the Constitutional premise of equal treatment under the law, which is what has struck down a multitude of state bans.
> 
> The other thing...the "hearts and minds" aspect...that is exactly what has been going on as well.  This wasn't pushed to the SC right off the bat - it has been going through state after state.  Polls show, overwelmingly - that support for same sex marriage has been growing with over 50% in favor.  To me, though - that's irrelevant because basic rights should never ever be determined by popular opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well.  If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.
> 
> And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me.  I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture.  Double standard perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.
> 
> What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
> 
> Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are gender and race different when it comes to the discrimination experienced?
> 
> Can you name a state or locality that prohibits civil marriage on an inability to procreate? Can you name a single person in the history of history that was denied a civil marriage license because of an inability or unwillingness to procreate? Are you aware that there are over a million children living in same sex homes?
> 
> I'm sorry but saying "been there done that" does not excuse your wishing to put an arbitrary restriction on gay couples that is not put on straight couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not arbitrary restrictions.  Children have always been adopted only by families that meet a certain criteria, that provide the maximum benefit to the child.  Child protection services being picky about who gets to adopt children has never been called into question before the rainbow brigade decided they wanted to complete their picture of "marriage" by bringing kids into their insane, kooky world.* Every gay cohabitation home is insufficient when compared to a mother father home because it intentionally OMITS a mother or a father*.  If they're even on the list of potential adoption candidates, they should be dead last.  But instead, true to their evil, Leftist form, they are insisting on affirmative action, so they can gain preference over homes that the children benefit from more.
> 
> How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?
Click to expand...

Wrong answer.


----------



## Seawytch

ninja007 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Analysis New Study Did Not Prove That Gay Parents Are Better
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say better, I said at no disadvantage. There is no difference in outcomes between the children raised by intact gay families and intact straight families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> of course there is. Plain as day.
Click to expand...



Your opinion does not equal actual fact. Studies by reputable organizations have found no difference in outcomes. Studies of adopted families found no difference in outcomes. Our children are at no disadvantage to  yours...which is irrelevant to a discussion on civil marriage since marriage is not required to procreate and procreation is not required to civilly marry.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Analysis New Study Did Not Prove That Gay Parents Are Better
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say better, I said at no disadvantage. There is no difference in outcomes between the children raised by intact gay families and intact straight families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *'They took turns raping me': New claims of child sex abuse revealed as gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go to trial *
> 
> Read more: Gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go on trial to fight allegations Daily Mail Online
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can always find examples of pedo abuse among both hetero and homo.
Click to expand...


And yet in the short time that gay couples have been adopting, several of these horror stories have popped up. Statistics are already coming out indicating that a child is far more likely to be abused by a gay couple than their heterosexual counterparts. Since homo marriage and adoption are relatively new, the swift manner in which these horror stories are popping up doesn't set a promising trend.


----------



## Skylar

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Analysis New Study Did Not Prove That Gay Parents Are Better
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say better, I said at no disadvantage. There is no difference in outcomes between the children raised by intact gay families and intact straight families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *'They took turns raping me': New claims of child sex abuse revealed as gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go to trial *
> 
> Read more: Gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go on trial to fight allegations Daily Mail Online
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can always find examples of pedo abuse among both hetero and homo.
Click to expand...


And we can produce heterosexual parents who abuse their kids until the cows come home. But argument by anecdote is a fallacy for a reason.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Analysis New Study Did Not Prove That Gay Parents Are Better
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say better, I said at no disadvantage. There is no difference in outcomes between the children raised by intact gay families and intact straight families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *'They took turns raping me': New claims of child sex abuse revealed as gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go to trial *
> 
> Read more: Gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go on trial to fight allegations Daily Mail Online
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Click to expand...

It doesn't fucking matter.  We aren't dissolving straight marriage because daddy fucked little Susan from 11 onward.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

*Homosexual Couple Adopted Boy and Molested Him from Infancy*
The Thinking Housewife rsaquo Homosexual Couple Adopted Boy and Molested Him from Infancy


----------



## JakeStarkey

80zephyr said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 80zypher can't understand the logic is the issue, or the constitution, for that matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which logic am I missing? Are you really trying to say that if all people are treated equally, they are being discriminated against?  Mark
Click to expand...


A person in Illinois has the same innate right to marry the person he chooses as does anyone in Utah.

Opposition to marriage equality is opposition to innate rights and the Constitution.

If you don't like homosexual marriage, then don't marry one of your own sex.  No one cares, son.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

ninja007 said:


> 10 Reasons Why Homosexual Marriage is Harmful and Must be Opposed


Hey little faggot hater, you've lost.  How long be you let that sink in?


----------



## ninja007

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Analysis New Study Did Not Prove That Gay Parents Are Better
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say better, I said at no disadvantage. There is no difference in outcomes between the children raised by intact gay families and intact straight families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *'They took turns raping me': New claims of child sex abuse revealed as gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go to trial *
> 
> Read more: Gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go on trial to fight allegations Daily Mail Online
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can always find examples of pedo abuse among both hetero and homo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet in the short time that gay couples have been adopting, several of these horror stories have popped up. Statistics are already coming out indicating that a child is far more likely to be abused by a gay couple than their heterosexual counterparts. Since homo marriage and adoption are relatively new, the swift manner in which these horror stories are popping up doesn't set a promising trend.
Click to expand...


not surprising since almost all homosexuals were abused as children themselves.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> *Homosexual Couple Adopted Boy and Molested Him from Infancy*
> The Thinking Housewife rsaquo Homosexual Couple Adopted Boy and Molested Him from Infancy


It doesn't fucking matter, literally.


----------



## 80zephyr

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:
> 
> “DOMA didn't fall, it's just not being enforced...kinda like federal marijuana laws.”
> 
> Incorrect
> 
> The CSA regulating marijuana use is Constitutional (_Gonzales v. Raich_ (2005)), DOMA, not – it in fact failed to pass Constitutional muster (_US v. Windsor_ (2013)).
> 
> SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:
> 
> “Every law has a moral component and is an expression of somebody's view of morality. It promotes what somebody thinks should be promoted. It just so happens that most people think marriage should promote family and children which is why we have these marriage laws.”
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> That something is perceived by the majority to be 'immoral' or 'traditional' is legally and Constitutionally invalid:
> 
> “Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack. Second, individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons.”
> 
> LAWRENCE V. TEXAS
> 
> SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:
> 
> “Under the constitution, states retain the prerogative to set marriage laws according to the values of their residents.”
> 
> Under the Constitution, the states are required to afford equal protection of the law to all persons eligible to participate in marriage – same- or opposite-sex. Residents of the states do not have the authority to deny gay Americans access to marriage law predicated on something as subjective and as capricious as 'values.' A measure seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law “classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This [the states] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” (_Romer v. Evans _(1996)).



You said this:

*That something is perceived by the majority to be 'immoral' or 'traditional' is legally and Constitutionally invalid:*


Your wrong. Laws are made with moral components every day. Tell me, when the nation decided to change adulthood from 21 to 18, was that a moral decision, or was it based on some fact that we missed?

Who says that you can't buy a pistol, at 20, when the law states you have to be 21, and at 18 the "law" sys you are an adult?

There are dozens of laws that are written the same way.

If morals were not part of our laws, we would let children marry at 7. They are not adults you say? Know why? Because our sense of morality set age limits on these types of things.

Are drug laws valid? I mean, taking heroin isn't hurting anyone if you don't overdose. Why do these laws exist? 

Mark


----------



## Coyote

ninja007 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS. Every study shows it is worse for children with gay parents.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't, but you need them to because otherwise you are just another run-of-the-mill faggot hater.  It's all about the children you say, only it isn't, it's about your fear of the dreaded "others"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i don't fear the gayz, *only for the children who grow up confused and pressured to be gay* when they are straight.
Click to expand...


Funny thing that, it doesn't seem to be the case.  Loving parents accept what their children are.  

Gay Parents As Good As Straight Ones BU Today Boston University


----------



## ninja007

PaintMyHouse said:


> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 10 Reasons Why Homosexual Marriage is Harmful and Must be Opposed
> 
> 
> 
> Hey little faggot hater, you've lost.  How long be you let that sink in?
Click to expand...


I haven't lost anything.....unfortunately it is the children who will lose.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

*Gay man gets 40-year sentence for molesting boy he adopted from Russia*

_Warning: The following story may be disturbing and offensive to some readers. Reader discretion is advised._

UPDATE: The Australian Broadcasting Corporation published an article praising the gay adoption by Mark Newton in 2010. I have posted the full textin this post and saved off a PDF. The article has since been pulled.

The Sydney Morning Herald reports on the latest example of gay adoption gone awry – this time from Australia. (H/T Mysterious S.)

Excerpt:

Standing before an American court convicted of the most heinous of child sex crimes, the double lives of Australian citizen Mark J. Newton and his long-term boyfriend Peter Truong were laid bare.

[…]Moments later Newton was sentenced to 40 years in prison for sexually abusing the boy he and Truong, 36 from Queensland, had ‘‘adopted’’ after paying a Russian woman $8000 to be their surrogate in 2005.

Police believe the pair had adopted the boy ‘‘for the sole purpose of exploitation’’. The abuse began just days after his birth and over six years the couple travelled the world, offering him up for sex with at least eight men, recording the abuse and uploading the footage to an international syndicate known as the Boy Lovers Network.

[…]Evidence before the court revealed the abuse began before the couple returned to Australia. One video is said to show Newton performing a sex act on the boy when he was less than two weeks old.

Judge Barker said the pair brainwashed the child to believe the sexual abuse was normal. Newton was also said to have trained the boy to deny any inappropriate behaviour if he was ever questioned by authorities.

Newton and Truong came to the attention of police in August 2011 after their connections to three men arrested over the possession of child exploitation material came to light. The couple had visited the three men in the US, New Zealand and Germany with their son.

[…]Newton and Truong claimed they were being targeted because they were homosexual.

This story comes on the heels of the new Labour Party leader Kevin Rudd’s promise to legalize gay marriage.

Gay man gets 40-year sentence for molesting boy he adopted from Russia Wintery Knight


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:
> 
> “DOMA didn't fall, it's just not being enforced...kinda like federal marijuana laws.”
> 
> Incorrect
> 
> The CSA regulating marijuana use is Constitutional (_Gonzales v. Raich_ (2005)), DOMA, not – it in fact failed to pass Constitutional muster (_US v. Windsor_ (2013)).
> 
> SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:
> 
> “Every law has a moral component and is an expression of somebody's view of morality. It promotes what somebody thinks should be promoted. It just so happens that most people think marriage should promote family and children which is why we have these marriage laws.”
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> That something is perceived by the majority to be 'immoral' or 'traditional' is legally and Constitutionally invalid:
> 
> “Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack. Second, individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons.”
> 
> LAWRENCE V. TEXAS
> 
> SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:
> 
> “Under the constitution, states retain the prerogative to set marriage laws according to the values of their residents.”
> 
> Under the Constitution, the states are required to afford equal protection of the law to all persons eligible to participate in marriage – same- or opposite-sex. Residents of the states do not have the authority to deny gay Americans access to marriage law predicated on something as subjective and as capricious as 'values.' A measure seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law “classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This [the states] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” (_Romer v. Evans _(1996)).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said this:
> 
> *That something is perceived by the majority to be 'immoral' or 'traditional' is legally and Constitutionally invalid:*
> 
> 
> Your wrong. Laws are made with moral components every day. Tell me, when the nation decided to change adulthood from 21 to 18, was that a moral decision, or was it based on some fact that we missed?
> 
> Who says that you can't buy a pistol, at 20, when the law states you have to be 21, and at 18 the "law" sys you are an adult?
> 
> There are dozens of laws that are written the same way.
> 
> If morals were not part of our laws, we would let children marry at 7. They are not adults you say? Know why? Because our sense of morality set age limits on these types of things.
> 
> Are drug laws valid? I mean, taking heroin isn't hurting anyone if you don't overdose. Why do these laws exist?
Click to expand...

Equality is a Moral thing dumbass.


----------



## ninja007

Coyote said:


> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS. Every study shows it is worse for children with gay parents.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't, but you need them to because otherwise you are just another run-of-the-mill faggot hater.  It's all about the children you say, only it isn't, it's about your fear of the dreaded "others"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i don't fear the gayz, *only for the children who grow up confused and pressured to be gay* when they are straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny thing that, it doesn't seem to be the case.  Loving parents accept what their children are.
> 
> Gay Parents As Good As Straight Ones BU Today Boston University
Click to expand...


gay parents will be more likely to sex. abuse, as they were sex. abused themselves.


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Analysis New Study Did Not Prove That Gay Parents Are Better
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say better, I said at no disadvantage. There is no difference in outcomes between the children raised by intact gay families and intact straight families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *'They took turns raping me': New claims of child sex abuse revealed as gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go to trial *
> 
> Read more: Gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go on trial to fight allegations Daily Mail Online
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can always find examples of pedo abuse among both hetero and homo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet in the short time that gay couples have been adopting, several of these horror stories have popped up. Statistics are already coming out indicating that a child is far more likely to be abused by a gay couple than their heterosexual counterparts. Since homo marriage and adoption are relatively new, the swift manner in which these horror stories are popping up doesn't set a promising trend.
Click to expand...


And in the longer time that straights have been adopting, we've gotten even MORE horror stories. You're using a classic fallacy of logic: argument by anecdote. Where you're appealing to emotion by finding a very limited number of examples that you then extrapolate to be the norm for a larger population. Without any accompanying evidence that such extrapolations are rational or justified.

That's why its a fallacy.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

ninja007 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 10 Reasons Why Homosexual Marriage is Harmful and Must be Opposed
> 
> 
> 
> Hey little faggot hater, you've lost.  How long be you let that sink in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't lost anything.....unfortunately it is the children who will lose.
Click to expand...

No, you've lost in a huge way because those still pissing into the wind on this are few and far between.  You've been left in the past, the nation has grown beyond your mentality, and you hate it.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

*Gay Activist Frank Lombard Adopted and Molested 5-year-old Boy*

Gay Activist Frank Lombard Adopted and Molested 5-year-old Boy Victims of Gay Bullying


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it does not, and few would argue it does.  Rights are not unlimited but their application evolves as society evolves and becomes more inclusive.  Basic rights were denied to both women and blacks in a way that was NOT considered discrimminatory until recent times.
> 
> What is the right in question?  It's the right to marry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's stop right there because your train just went off the tracks. Who is being denied the right to marry?  It's only tortured Leftist "logic" that says if somebody can't marry whoever they want, a person of the same gender, a brother, aunt, or a horse or a goat, that they're being denied the right to marry.  What kind of nonsense is that?
Click to expand...


No one is arguing for an unlimited right to marry - strawman.



> No culture in human history has said it's ok to marry whoever one wants. There's always been taboos for the protection and perpetuation of a strong society. So no, the right to marry is not being denied just because you can't marry whoever you want.  And trying to read that "right" into the 14th Amendment, to marry whoever you want, flies off the tether of any legal precedent.



The right to marry is between two consenting adults (not incestual).  Expanding that right to same sex couples does not weaken society in any way.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

ninja007 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS. Every study shows it is worse for children with gay parents.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't, but you need them to because otherwise you are just another run-of-the-mill faggot hater.  It's all about the children you say, only it isn't, it's about your fear of the dreaded "others"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i don't fear the gayz, *only for the children who grow up confused and pressured to be gay* when they are straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny thing that, it doesn't seem to be the case.  Loving parents accept what their children are.
> 
> Gay Parents As Good As Straight Ones BU Today Boston University
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gay parents will be more likely to sex. abuse, as they were sex. abused themselves.
Click to expand...

It doesn't fucking matter.  It's not about children.


----------



## Skylar

ninja007 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS. Every study shows it is worse for children with gay parents.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't, but you need them to because otherwise you are just another run-of-the-mill faggot hater.  It's all about the children you say, only it isn't, it's about your fear of the dreaded "others"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i don't fear the gayz, *only for the children who grow up confused and pressured to be gay* when they are straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny thing that, it doesn't seem to be the case.  Loving parents accept what their children are.
> 
> Gay Parents As Good As Straight Ones BU Today Boston University
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gay parents will be more likely to sex. abuse, as they were sex. abused themselves.
Click to expand...


There's no evidence that gays were more sexually abused their straight counter parts. With overwheling evidence contradicting that. Girls are the victims of the overwhelming majority of sexual abuse. But women do almost none of the abusing. 

So your claims are doubly wrong. Its like the fallacy parade today. 

Can you see why your arguments might not be compelling to someone who doesn't already agree with you?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> *Gay Activist Frank Lombard Adopted and Molested 5-year-old Boy*
> 
> Gay Activist Frank Lombard Adopted and Molested 5-year-old Boy Victims of Gay Bullying


It doesn't fucking matter, it's not about the children.


----------



## JakeStarkey

"Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the 1barren1 couples argument. Been there, done that."  Y*up, that is a losing argument for the haters of marriage equality.  The barren couples argument is more than competent to dismiss the reproduction cant.*

"Children have always been adopted only by families that meet a certain criteria, that provide the maximum benefit to the child."  *The laws have varied by state to state, and 'certain criteria' is your statement only.  I believe that children most benefit with two parents in the house.*

"How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?"  *That, of course, is between God and each person.  It has nothing to do with you.  I believe "a just God" will have no issue with marriage equality, only with those who abused such people.*


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Analysis New Study Did Not Prove That Gay Parents Are Better
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say better, I said at no disadvantage. There is no difference in outcomes between the children raised by intact gay families and intact straight families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *'They took turns raping me': New claims of child sex abuse revealed as gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go to trial *
> 
> Read more: Gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go on trial to fight allegations Daily Mail Online
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can always find examples of pedo abuse among both hetero and homo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet in the short time that gay couples have been adopting, several of these horror stories have popped up. Statistics are already coming out indicating that a child is far more likely to be abused by a gay couple than their heterosexual counterparts. Since homo marriage and adoption are relatively new, the swift manner in which these horror stories are popping up doesn't set a promising trend.
Click to expand...


Try using actual studies instead of anecdotal stories. 

Parenting and Child Development in Adoptive Families: Does Parental Sexual Orientation Matter?

This study researched preschool-aged children who had been adopted as babies in heterosexual adoptions and same-sex adoptions, including both lesbian and gay adoptive parents. It went beyond earlier studies by researching outside evaluations of teachers and caregivers, as well as reports by the parents.

As with other studies, this study found that the children from same-sex adoptions were as well-adjusted as those from heterosexual adoptions. 

The study did find that, as with any family, the outcomes of the children hinged on: parenting abilities overall; the stresses in the family; and the satisfaction of the parents' relationship. And, *the study found that heterosexual and same-sex adoptive parents exhibited these success factors equally.*​


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> The faggots, and logic, won.  Exactly how long are you little homophobes going to beat this issue, forever?



Probably. Since you and yours beat it forever and worn down Americans finally gave in. So tell me, why didn't you just give up when most Americans didn't agree with you?

Mark


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it does not, and few would argue it does.  Rights are not unlimited but their application evolves as society evolves and becomes more inclusive.  Basic rights were denied to both women and blacks in a way that was NOT considered discrimminatory until recent times.
> 
> What is the right in question?  It's the right to marry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's stop right there because your train just went off the tracks. Who is being denied the right to marry?  It's only tortured Leftist "logic" that says if somebody can't marry whoever they want, a person of the same gender, a brother, aunt, or a horse or a goat, that they're being denied the right to marry.  What kind of nonsense is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is arguing for an unlimited right to marry - strawman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No culture in human history has said it's ok to marry whoever one wants. There's always been taboos for the protection and perpetuation of a strong society. So no, the right to marry is not being denied just because you can't marry whoever you want.  And trying to read that "right" into the 14th Amendment, to marry whoever you want, flies off the tether of any legal precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to marry is between two consenting adults (not incestual).  Expanding that right to same sex couples does not weaken society in any way.
Click to expand...


"Between two consenting adults", see you're already applying your own arbitrary opinion on what criteria should decide who somebody can marry.  And you're drifting away from the legal argument because you don't have on that merits consideration.  You insist that gay "marriage" doesn't weaken society, but again, it's just an opinion.  And if these things are decided by opinion, which they should, then most Americans disagree with you and have passed laws requiring marriage be between a man and a woman.  Hence the state marriage laws.

What I want to know is why the Left is so terrified of democracy?  If you think you're right, prevail upon your fellow man to convince them.  But using Leftist hack ideologue judges to legislate from the bench sans any sound legal argument is the path you've chosen and the reason that people are starting to hate gay people like they never have before in this country.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> The faggots, and logic, won.  Exactly how long are you little homophobes going to beat this issue, forever?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably. Since you and yours beat it forever and worn down Americans finally gave in. So tell me, why didn't you just give up when most Americans didn't agree with you?
Click to expand...

Because Equality is an American Value.  Homophobia, like yours, is just an American Tradition.


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Analysis New Study Did Not Prove That Gay Parents Are Better
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say better, I said at no disadvantage. There is no difference in outcomes between the children raised by intact gay families and intact straight families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *'They took turns raping me': New claims of child sex abuse revealed as gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go to trial *
> 
> Read more: Gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go on trial to fight allegations Daily Mail Online
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can always find examples of pedo abuse among both hetero and homo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet in the short time that gay couples have been adopting, *several of these horror stories have popped up*. Statistics are already coming out indicating that a child is far more likely to be abused by a gay couple than their heterosexual counterparts. Since homo marriage and adoption are relatively new, the swift manner in which these horror stories are popping up doesn't set a promising trend.
Click to expand...


Of course they do, because adoption by gay couples is in the public light.  Yet look at all the horror stories about adoption by hetero couples.  All it says is you will have bad players in both groups and there needs to be some means of weeding them out.

What statistics?


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Limiting it to two is discriminatory.  I mean, why can't a bi-sexual marry both the man and the woman he/she loves?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.
> 
> Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.
> 
> The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands.  Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.
> 
> Treat all partnerships the same.  Easy-squeezy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Requiring marriage to a partner of the opposite sex was also applied equally, regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take that argument a step back in history:  Requiring marriage to a partner of the same race was also applied equally.
Click to expand...


Nope. Any man couldn't marry any woman. Now, they can. And since marriage is for reproduction, all discrimination stopped after racial intermarriage was allowed.

Mark


----------



## Seawytch

ninja007 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Analysis New Study Did Not Prove That Gay Parents Are Better
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say better, I said at no disadvantage. There is no difference in outcomes between the children raised by intact gay families and intact straight families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *'They took turns raping me': New claims of child sex abuse revealed as gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go to trial *
> 
> Read more: Gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go on trial to fight allegations Daily Mail Online
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can always find examples of pedo abuse among both hetero and homo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet in the short time that gay couples have been adopting, several of these horror stories have popped up. Statistics are already coming out indicating that a child is far more likely to be abused by a gay couple than their heterosexual counterparts. Since homo marriage and adoption are relatively new, the swift manner in which these horror stories are popping up doesn't set a promising trend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not surprising since almost all homosexuals were abused as children themselves.
Click to expand...


This is another falsehood spread by anti gay bigots. 

From the American Psychiatric Association:

*What causes Homosexuality/Heterosexuality/Bisexuality?*
No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice. Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. *Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual.*
*
*


----------



## ninja007

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Analysis New Study Did Not Prove That Gay Parents Are Better
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say better, I said at no disadvantage. There is no difference in outcomes between the children raised by intact gay families and intact straight families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *'They took turns raping me': New claims of child sex abuse revealed as gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go to trial *
> 
> Read more: Gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go on trial to fight allegations Daily Mail Online
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can always find examples of pedo abuse among both hetero and homo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet in the short time that gay couples have been adopting, *several of these horror stories have popped up*. Statistics are already coming out indicating that a child is far more likely to be abused by a gay couple than their heterosexual counterparts. Since homo marriage and adoption are relatively new, the swift manner in which these horror stories are popping up doesn't set a promising trend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they do, because adoption by gay couples is in the public light.  Yet look at all the horror stories about adoption by hetero couples.  All it says is you will have bad players in both groups and there needs to be some means of weeding them out.
> 
> What statistics?
Click to expand...


of course, because heterosexuals do 95% of the adopting. duh.


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> The faggots, and logic, won.  Exactly how long are you little homophobes going to beat this issue, forever?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably. Since you and yours beat it forever and worn down Americans finally gave in. So tell me, why didn't you just give up when most Americans didn't agree with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because Equality is an American Value.  Homophobia, like yours, is just an American Tradition.
Click to expand...


Typical leftist. Disagree, and out comes a label. Won't work for me, I won't be shouted down for being right.

Mark


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Analysis New Study Did Not Prove That Gay Parents Are Better
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say better, I said at no disadvantage. There is no difference in outcomes between the children raised by intact gay families and intact straight families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *'They took turns raping me': New claims of child sex abuse revealed as gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go to trial *
> 
> Read more: Gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go on trial to fight allegations Daily Mail Online
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can always find examples of pedo abuse among both hetero and homo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet in the short time that gay couples have been adopting, *several of these horror stories have popped up*. Statistics are already coming out indicating that a child is far more likely to be abused by a gay couple than their heterosexual counterparts. Since homo marriage and adoption are relatively new, the swift manner in which these horror stories are popping up doesn't set a promising trend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they do, because adoption by gay couples is in the public light.  Yet look at all the horror stories about adoption by hetero couples.  All it says is you will have bad players in both groups and there needs to be some means of weeding them out.
> 
> What statistics?
Click to expand...


Homosexuals represent less than 3% but are involved in nearly 1/3 of all sex abuse cases against children

MALE HOMOSEXUALS COMMIT A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF CHILD SEX ABUSE CASES
Homosexual apologists admit that some homosexuals sexually molest children, but they deny that homosexuals are more likely to commit such offenses. After all, they argue, the majority of child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature. While this is correct in terms of absolute numbers, this argument ignores the fact that homosexuals comprise only a very small percentage of the population.

The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. To demonstrate this it is necessary to connect several statistics related to the problem of child sex abuse: 1) men are almost always the perpetrator; 2) up to one-third or more of child sex abuse cases are committed against boys; 3) less than three percent of the population are homosexuals. Thus, a tiny percentage of the population (homosexual men), commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation.

Men Account for Almost All Sexual Abuse of Children Cases
An essay on adult sex offenders in the book _Sexual Offending Against Children _reported:"It is widely believed that the vast majority of sexual abuse is perpetrated by males and that female sex offenders only account for a tiny proportion of offences. Indeed, with 3,000 adult male sex offenders in prison in England and Wales at any one time, the corresponding figure for female sex offenders is 12!"[1]

Family Research Council


----------



## ninja007

Seawytch said:


> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say better, I said at no disadvantage. There is no difference in outcomes between the children raised by intact gay families and intact straight families.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *'They took turns raping me': New claims of child sex abuse revealed as gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go to trial *
> 
> Read more: Gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go on trial to fight allegations Daily Mail Online
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can always find examples of pedo abuse among both hetero and homo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet in the short time that gay couples have been adopting, several of these horror stories have popped up. Statistics are already coming out indicating that a child is far more likely to be abused by a gay couple than their heterosexual counterparts. Since homo marriage and adoption are relatively new, the swift manner in which these horror stories are popping up doesn't set a promising trend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not surprising since almost all homosexuals were abused as children themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is another falsehood spread by anti gay bigots.
> 
> From the American Psychiatric Association:
> 
> *What causes Homosexuality/Heterosexuality/Bisexuality?*
> No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice. Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. *Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual.
> *
Click to expand...


b.s. its clear as day. An abused child has more chance of becoming gay because they were abused by a same sex parent- they get confused and depressed and angry; then they grow up and inflict that pain on their child, cycle never stops. They try to recreate it also with their homo partner. One is the alpha, one is the lesser.


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Analysis New Study Did Not Prove That Gay Parents Are Better
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say better, I said at no disadvantage. There is no difference in outcomes between the children raised by intact gay families and intact straight families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *'They took turns raping me': New claims of child sex abuse revealed as gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go to trial *
> 
> Read more: Gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go on trial to fight allegations Daily Mail Online
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can always find examples of pedo abuse among both hetero and homo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet in the short time that gay couples have been adopting, *several of these horror stories have popped up*. Statistics are already coming out indicating that a child is far more likely to be abused by a gay couple than their heterosexual counterparts. Since homo marriage and adoption are relatively new, the swift manner in which these horror stories are popping up doesn't set a promising trend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they do, because adoption by gay couples is in the public light.  Yet look at all the horror stories about adoption by hetero couples.  All it says is you will have bad players in both groups and there needs to be some means of weeding them out.
> 
> What statistics?
Click to expand...


Lets say it is happening. Do you really believe anyone in America will own up to it with statistics, or will they hide it like the church hid pedophile priests?

Mark


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> The faggots, and logic, won.  Exactly how long are you little homophobes going to beat this issue, forever?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably. Since you and yours beat it forever and worn down Americans finally gave in. So tell me, why didn't you just give up when most Americans didn't agree with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because Equality is an American Value.  Homophobia, like yours, is just an American Tradition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical leftist. Disagree, and out comes a label. Won't work for me, I won't be shouted down for being right.
Click to expand...

You aren't right dummy, and the courts, and now the American people, grew up a bit and agree with me.  So now what, you scream but you're all wrong while you get left in the past?


----------



## ninja007

THINK. child is abused by same sex parent; gets confused of their sexuality, grows up wanting to explore, fix that terrible experience from their childhood and repeat it. NOT that hard to figure out.


----------



## Seawytch

80zephyr said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Limiting it to two is discriminatory.  I mean, why can't a bi-sexual marry both the man and the woman he/she loves?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.
> 
> Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.
> 
> The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands.  Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.
> 
> Treat all partnerships the same.  Easy-squeezy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Requiring marriage to a partner of the opposite sex was also applied equally, regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take that argument a step back in history:  Requiring marriage to a partner of the same race was also applied equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Any man couldn't marry any woman. Now, they can. And since marriage is for reproduction, all discrimination stopped after racial intermarriage was allowed.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Right...we ended marriage discrimination based on race in 1967 (but the prevailing argument that it wasn't discrimination held out for 85 years) and now we are ending it based on gender in 2014-15. I don't want to marry a man just as Mildred Loving didn't want to marry a black person. The discrimination is exactly the same, the justification of the bigots is exactly the same...only the targets have changed. The outcomes will be the same though...the bigots lose.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say better, I said at no disadvantage. There is no difference in outcomes between the children raised by intact gay families and intact straight families.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *'They took turns raping me': New claims of child sex abuse revealed as gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go to trial *
> 
> Read more: Gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go on trial to fight allegations Daily Mail Online
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can always find examples of pedo abuse among both hetero and homo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet in the short time that gay couples have been adopting, *several of these horror stories have popped up*. Statistics are already coming out indicating that a child is far more likely to be abused by a gay couple than their heterosexual counterparts. Since homo marriage and adoption are relatively new, the swift manner in which these horror stories are popping up doesn't set a promising trend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they do, because adoption by gay couples is in the public light.  Yet look at all the horror stories about adoption by hetero couples.  All it says is you will have bad players in both groups and there needs to be some means of weeding them out.
> 
> What statistics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals represent less than 3% but are involved in nearly 1/3 of all sex abuse cases against children
> 
> MALE HOMOSEXUALS COMMIT A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF CHILD SEX ABUSE CASES
> Homosexual apologists admit that some homosexuals sexually molest children, but they deny that homosexuals are more likely to commit such offenses. After all, they argue, the majority of child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature. While this is correct in terms of absolute numbers, this argument ignores the fact that homosexuals comprise only a very small percentage of the population.
> 
> The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. To demonstrate this it is necessary to connect several statistics related to the problem of child sex abuse: 1) men are almost always the perpetrator; 2) up to one-third or more of child sex abuse cases are committed against boys; 3) less than three percent of the population are homosexuals. Thus, a tiny percentage of the population (homosexual men), commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation.
> 
> Men Account for Almost All Sexual Abuse of Children Cases
> An essay on adult sex offenders in the book _Sexual Offending Against Children _reported:"It is widely believed that the vast majority of sexual abuse is perpetrated by males and that female sex offenders only account for a tiny proportion of offences. Indeed, with 3,000 adult male sex offenders in prison in England and Wales at any one time, the corresponding figure for female sex offenders is 12!"[1]
> 
> Family Research Council
Click to expand...

It doesn't fucking matter, it's not about the children.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

ninja007 said:


> THINK. child is abused by same sex parent; gets confused of their sexuality, grows up wanting to explore, fix that terrible experience from their childhood and repeat it. NOT that hard to figure out.


It doesn't fucking matter, it's not about the children.


----------



## Nyvin

ninja007 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *'They took turns raping me': New claims of child sex abuse revealed as gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go to trial *
> 
> Read more: Gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go on trial to fight allegations Daily Mail Online
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can always find examples of pedo abuse among both hetero and homo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet in the short time that gay couples have been adopting, several of these horror stories have popped up. Statistics are already coming out indicating that a child is far more likely to be abused by a gay couple than their heterosexual counterparts. Since homo marriage and adoption are relatively new, the swift manner in which these horror stories are popping up doesn't set a promising trend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not surprising since almost all homosexuals were abused as children themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is another falsehood spread by anti gay bigots.
> 
> From the American Psychiatric Association:
> 
> *What causes Homosexuality/Heterosexuality/Bisexuality?*
> No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice. Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. *Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> b.s. its clear as day. An abused child has more chance of becoming gay because they were abused by a same sex parent- they get confused and depressed and angry; then they grow up and inflict that pain on their child, cycle never stops. They try to recreate it also with their homo partner. One is the alpha, one is the lesser.
Click to expand...


There is no scientific evidence to back this up at all.


----------



## Seawytch

Just an "FYI" to folks just reading and lurking...the Family Research Council is not a credible source for anything resembling a scientific study. Neither is NARTH or Focus on the Family. I think it's apparent you can dismiss anything from "looneybird".


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it does not, and few would argue it does.  Rights are not unlimited but their application evolves as society evolves and becomes more inclusive.  Basic rights were denied to both women and blacks in a way that was NOT considered discrimminatory until recent times.
> 
> What is the right in question?  It's the right to marry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's stop right there because your train just went off the tracks. Who is being denied the right to marry?  It's only tortured Leftist "logic" that says if somebody can't marry whoever they want, a person of the same gender, a brother, aunt, or a horse or a goat, that they're being denied the right to marry.  What kind of nonsense is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is arguing for an unlimited right to marry - strawman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No culture in human history has said it's ok to marry whoever one wants. There's always been taboos for the protection and perpetuation of a strong society. So no, the right to marry is not being denied just because you can't marry whoever you want.  And trying to read that "right" into the 14th Amendment, to marry whoever you want, flies off the tether of any legal precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to marry is between two consenting adults (not incestual).  Expanding that right to same sex couples does not weaken society in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Between two consenting adults", see you're already applying your own arbitrary opinion on what criteria should decide who somebody can marry.  And you're drifting away from the legal argument because you don't have on that merits consideration.  You insist that gay "marriage" doesn't weaken society, but again, it's just an opinion.  And if these things are decided by opinion, which they should, then most Americans disagree with you and have passed laws requiring marriage be between a man and a woman.  Hence the state marriage laws.
Click to expand...


*I stated at the beginning that no rights are unlimited*, including marriage and that it can not infringe on the rights or well being of others or the public.  That's pretty much the same with all rights, it's not my arbritrary opinion.  

Children can't consent and can be harmed.
Animals can't consent and can be harmed.
Incest potentially affects public welfare when children are produced.

Legally - marriage is a right.  Legally - it's definition is open to challange.  There is no difference between denying marriage equality based on race and denying marriage equality based on gender.  Why should rights be decided upon by public opinion?  That is very dangerous.




> What I want to know is why the Left is so terrified of democracy?  If you think you're right, prevail upon your fellow man to convince them.  But using Leftist hack ideologue judges to legislate from the bench sans any sound legal argument is the path you've chosen and the reason that people are starting to hate gay people like they never have before in this country.



We have a Constitution to protect us from the extremes of democracy and prevent mob rule.  It was not public opinion that gained blacks their civil rights or the women the vote - it was ultimately the courts.  Public opinion lies in the lynch mobs as readily as it does the concerted efforts to change legislation.

I would never intrust my rights to public opinion.


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if limiting marriage to two is not  discriminatory, then so is limiting marriage to one man and one woman. After all, everyone would live under the same law.
> 
> I mean, if we use your logic as a basis for our actions. Treat all partnerships the same.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's about treating all partnerships the same.
> 
> If everyone can only marry one person - there is no discrimmination.
> 
> If everyone BUT flat footed people can marry more than one partner at a time -- then it is discrimminatory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, I am treating them all the same, so there is no discrimination.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I added to my post but you answered before I finished.
> 
> Here are the possible marriage options - consenting adults only.
> a. Men can marry women.
> b. Women can marry women.
> c. Men can marry men.
> 
> All can marry only one partner - thus no discrimmination.
> 
> If we only allow a. - then we are discrimminating against b and c.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simply not true. If everyone is treated the same, there is no discrimination. If the law changed where a black could only marry a white, there would be no discrimination.
> 
> Everyone is treated equally.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws can be discriminatory in themselves - the example you gave above is one.
> 
> Laws should be as broad and inclusive as they can be without endangering people or the public.  That's how I see it.
> 
> You can't allow adults to marry children - it's clearly damaging to children and children can not legally consent or understand the ramifications of what is happening to them.  Incest is another area where there is potential damage if they choose to have children.  But on the issue of gender there is no damage to society or to the individuals themselves.
> 
> Marriage should be between two consenting human adults - that's broad, inclusive and non-discrimminatory.
> 
> Who is being discrimminated against there?  No one.
> 
> The next argument would be polygamy.  I personally don't care if a someone chooses multiple spouses - to me, it's an individual choice between consenting adults.  But I've heard reasonable arguments against it as well but that usually occurs in other countries.
Click to expand...


The laws for marriage were as broad as they logically could be. A man is not "married" to another man, so there was no discrimination.

Mark


----------



## Coyote

ninja007 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS. Every study shows it is worse for children with gay parents.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't, but you need them to because otherwise you are just another run-of-the-mill faggot hater.  It's all about the children you say, only it isn't, it's about your fear of the dreaded "others"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i don't fear the gayz, *only for the children who grow up confused and pressured to be gay* when they are straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny thing that, it doesn't seem to be the case.  Loving parents accept what their children are.
> 
> Gay Parents As Good As Straight Ones BU Today Boston University
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gay parents will be more likely to sex. abuse, as they were sex. abused themselves.
Click to expand...


Do you have any unbiased sources that prove this claim?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

80zephyr said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say better, I said at no disadvantage. There is no difference in outcomes between the children raised by intact gay families and intact straight families.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *'They took turns raping me': New claims of child sex abuse revealed as gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go to trial *
> 
> Read more: Gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go on trial to fight allegations Daily Mail Online
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can always find examples of pedo abuse among both hetero and homo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet in the short time that gay couples have been adopting, *several of these horror stories have popped up*. Statistics are already coming out indicating that a child is far more likely to be abused by a gay couple than their heterosexual counterparts. Since homo marriage and adoption are relatively new, the swift manner in which these horror stories are popping up doesn't set a promising trend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they do, because adoption by gay couples is in the public light.  Yet look at all the horror stories about adoption by hetero couples.  All it says is you will have bad players in both groups and there needs to be some means of weeding them out.
> 
> What statistics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets say it is happening. Do you really believe anyone in America will own up to it with statistics, or will they hide it like the church hid pedophile priests?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


I've written more in length about how sexual child abuse is hidden because human nature doesn't want to admit it happens.  What if the Catholic Church acted like the faggot brigade? What if instead of admitting we screwed up, that kids are being abused by priests and offending priests are being protected, we tried to shout down every accusation, point out that kids are also being molested in Baptist churches or Jehovah Witness and insist we don't have a problem with abusing children?

But  the Catholic Church did not act like the faggot brigade.  We owned up and took responsibility and made changes and now children are safer in the Catholic Church than most other sectors of society. 

As long as the faggot brigade screams and hollers, kicks and stomps, and denies the children that are abused by gay couples, the problem will go on. They won't have a productive discussion of the problem complete with strategies to stop it from happening further.  The Catholic Church developed a culture that protects children and notifies authorities if anything wrong happens. The gays have developed a culture of secrecy, denial, and silence that will ensure the perpetuity of sexual child abuse.


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> *Gay Activist Frank Lombard Adopted and Molested 5-year-old Boy*
> 
> Gay Activist Frank Lombard Adopted and Molested 5-year-old Boy Victims of Gay Bullying



Do you really want to go down this road?  I mean, I could post article after article of horrific adoption abuses by heterosexuals if you really want to do this...


----------



## 80zephyr

Seawytch said:


> Just an "FYI" to folks just reading and lurking...the Family Research Council is not a credible source for anything resembling a scientific study. Neither is NARTH or Focus on the Family. I think it's apparent you can dismiss anything from "looneybird".



And so it goes. I personally believe that most leftist sources lie, and are not to be believed. But, rather than "kill the messenger", maybe we should see what a link says and refute it with one of our own.

Unless you think debate is just using links YOU believe to be correct.

Mark


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *'They took turns raping me': New claims of child sex abuse revealed as gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go to trial *
> 
> Read more: Gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go on trial to fight allegations Daily Mail Online
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can always find examples of pedo abuse among both hetero and homo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet in the short time that gay couples have been adopting, *several of these horror stories have popped up*. Statistics are already coming out indicating that a child is far more likely to be abused by a gay couple than their heterosexual counterparts. Since homo marriage and adoption are relatively new, the swift manner in which these horror stories are popping up doesn't set a promising trend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they do, because adoption by gay couples is in the public light.  Yet look at all the horror stories about adoption by hetero couples.  All it says is you will have bad players in both groups and there needs to be some means of weeding them out.
> 
> What statistics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets say it is happening. Do you really believe anyone in America will own up to it with statistics, or will they hide it like the church hid pedophile priests?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've written more in length about how sexual child abuse is hidden because human nature doesn't want to admit it happens.  What if the Catholic Church acted like the faggot brigade? What if instead of admitting we screwed up, that kids are being abused by priests and offending priests are being protected, we tried to shout down every accusation, point out that kids are also being molested in Baptist churches or Jehovah Witness and insist we don't have a problem with abusing children?
> 
> But  the Catholic Church did not act like the faggot brigade.  We owned up and took responsibility and made changes and now children are safer in the Catholic Church than most other sectors of society.
> 
> As long as the faggot brigade screams and hollers, kicks and stomps, and denies the children that are abused by gay couples, the problem will go on. They won't have a productive discussion of the problem complete with strategies to stop it from happening further.  The Catholic Church developed a culture that protects children and notifies authorities if anything wrong happens. The gays have developed a culture of secrecy, denial, and silence that will ensure the perpetuity of sexual child abuse.
Click to expand...

It doesn't fucking matter, it's not about the children.


----------



## Coyote

80zephyr said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Limiting it to two is discriminatory.  I mean, why can't a bi-sexual marry both the man and the woman he/she loves?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.
> 
> Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.
> 
> The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands.  Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.
> 
> Treat all partnerships the same.  Easy-squeezy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Requiring marriage to a partner of the opposite sex was also applied equally, regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take that argument a step back in history:  Requiring marriage to a partner of the same race was also applied equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Any man couldn't marry any woman. Now, they can. And since marriage is for reproduction, all discrimination stopped after racial intermarriage was allowed.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Except marriage is no longer for reproduction - that is outdated.


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> *Gay Activist Frank Lombard Adopted and Molested 5-year-old Boy*
> 
> Gay Activist Frank Lombard Adopted and Molested 5-year-old Boy Victims of Gay Bullying




If you want to compare anecdotal examples of sexual abuse by adoptive parents, hetero couples are a sadly fertile field;



> Sandusky's adopted son speaks out on abusive childhood
> 
> Jerry Sandusky s adopted son speaks out on abusive childhood FOX Sports



And again....



> *MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO)* — After 20 years, a woman is accusing her foster parent of sexually abusing her when she was a child.
> 
> The Scott County Attorney’s office has charged 59-year-old Daniel Alvin Hennen with six counts of criminal sexual conduct. He is now out on bond.
> 
> Convicted Child Molester Charged With Abusing Another Foster Child CBS Minnesota



And again....



> An Open Letter From Dylan Farrow
> 
> What’s your favorite Woody Allen movie? Before you answer, you should know: when I was seven years old, Woody Allen took me by the hand and led me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor of our house. He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother’s electric train set. Then he sexually assaulted me. He talked to me while he did it, whispering that I was a good girl, that this was our secret, promising that we’d go to Paris and I’d be a star in his movies.
> 
> http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/an-open-letter-from-dylan-farrow/?_r=0



And again....



> Irish woman who was adopted as a child by paedophile says nuns condemned her to years of sexual abuse
> 
> Woman adopted by paedophile says nuns condemned her to years of sexual abuse Daily Mail Online



And again (I can do this all day)...



> *Bridger Valley woman moves on after father finally admits to sexual assault*
> 
> Tammy Brunow married Brunow when Ramirez was about 2, and Brunow adopted her when she was 10, Ramirez said.
> 
> “I told the officer and my mother how long it had been going on. She was kind of taken aback,” she said. “I asked her if she was mad at me, and she said no.”
> 
> But Brunow was in jail for days. Ramirez remembers her mom crying a lot in her bedroom.
> 
> Bridger Valley woman moves on after father finally admits to sexual assault



And again....



> *Officials respond to case of a sex offender allowed to be foster parent*
> 
> Officials respond to case of a sex offender allowed to be foster parent WHEC.com



Now by your standards of argument by anecdote, straights should never be allowed to adopt. But if we rightly recognize that argument by anecdote is a logical fallacy and logically invalid, then these horrible cases aren't necessarily indicative of straight adoptive parents in general.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it does not, and few would argue it does.  Rights are not unlimited but their application evolves as society evolves and becomes more inclusive.  Basic rights were denied to both women and blacks in a way that was NOT considered discrimminatory until recent times.
> 
> What is the right in question?  It's the right to marry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's stop right there because your train just went off the tracks. Who is being denied the right to marry?  It's only tortured Leftist "logic" that says if somebody can't marry whoever they want, a person of the same gender, a brother, aunt, or a horse or a goat, that they're being denied the right to marry.  What kind of nonsense is that?  No culture in human history has said it's ok to marry whoever one wants. There's always been taboos for the protection and perpetuation of a strong society. So no, the right to marry is not being denied just because you can't marry whoever you want.  And trying to read that "right" into the 14th Amendment, to marry whoever you want, flies off the tether of any legal precedent.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

The Constitution in fact protects the right to marry:

'Although _Loving_ arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

More recent decisions have established that the right to marry is part of the fundamental "right of privacy" implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.' 

FindLaw Cases and Codes

To seek to deny same-sex couples the right to access marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause as well.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Coyote said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Limiting it to two is discriminatory.  I mean, why can't a bi-sexual marry both the man and the woman he/she loves?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.
> 
> Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.
> 
> The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands.  Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.
> 
> Treat all partnerships the same.  Easy-squeezy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Requiring marriage to a partner of the opposite sex was also applied equally, regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take that argument a step back in history:  Requiring marriage to a partner of the same race was also applied equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Any man couldn't marry any woman. Now, they can. And since marriage is for reproduction, all discrimination stopped after racial intermarriage was allowed.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except marriage is no longer for reproduction - that is outdated.
Click to expand...

It's not only outdated, it's not even true.  Marriage was never about reproduction.  Until recently it wasn't even about love let alone children.


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it does not, and few would argue it does.  Rights are not unlimited but their application evolves as society evolves and becomes more inclusive.  Basic rights were denied to both women and blacks in a way that was NOT considered discrimminatory until recent times.
> 
> What is the right in question?  It's the right to marry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's stop right there because your train just went off the tracks. Who is being denied the right to marry?  It's only tortured Leftist "logic" that says if somebody can't marry whoever they want, a person of the same gender, a brother, aunt, or a horse or a goat, that they're being denied the right to marry.  What kind of nonsense is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is arguing for an unlimited right to marry - strawman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No culture in human history has said it's ok to marry whoever one wants. There's always been taboos for the protection and perpetuation of a strong society. So no, the right to marry is not being denied just because you can't marry whoever you want.  And trying to read that "right" into the 14th Amendment, to marry whoever you want, flies off the tether of any legal precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to marry is between two consenting adults (not incestual).  Expanding that right to same sex couples does not weaken society in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Between two consenting adults", see you're already applying your own arbitrary opinion on what criteria should decide who somebody can marry.  And you're drifting away from the legal argument because you don't have on that merits consideration.  You insist that gay "marriage" doesn't weaken society, but again, it's just an opinion.  And if these things are decided by opinion, which they should, then most Americans disagree with you and have passed laws requiring marriage be between a man and a woman.  Hence the state marriage laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I stated at the beginning that no rights are unlimited*, including marriage and that it can not infringe on the rights or well being of others or the public.  That's pretty much the same with all rights, it's not my arbritrary opinion.
> 
> Children can't consent and can be harmed.
> Animals can't consent and can be harmed.
> Incest potentially affects public welfare when children are produced.
> 
> Legally - marriage is a right.  Legally - it's definition is open to challange.  There is no difference between denying marriage equality based on race and denying marriage equality based on gender.  Why should rights be decided upon by public opinion?  That is very dangerous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I want to know is why the Left is so terrified of democracy?  If you think you're right, prevail upon your fellow man to convince them.  But using Leftist hack ideologue judges to legislate from the bench sans any sound legal argument is the path you've chosen and the reason that people are starting to hate gay people like they never have before in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have a Constitution to protect us from the extremes of democracy and prevent mob rule.  It was not public opinion that gained blacks their civil rights or the women the vote - it was ultimately the courts.  Public opinion lies in the lynch mobs as readily as it does the concerted efforts to change legislation.
> 
> I would never intrust my rights to public opinion.
Click to expand...


Marriage by every meaningful metric, is the coupling of the two genders. Everything else is simply make believe.

Mark


----------



## Seawytch

ninja007 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *'They took turns raping me': New claims of child sex abuse revealed as gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go to trial *
> 
> Read more: Gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go on trial to fight allegations Daily Mail Online
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can always find examples of pedo abuse among both hetero and homo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet in the short time that gay couples have been adopting, several of these horror stories have popped up. Statistics are already coming out indicating that a child is far more likely to be abused by a gay couple than their heterosexual counterparts. Since homo marriage and adoption are relatively new, the swift manner in which these horror stories are popping up doesn't set a promising trend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not surprising since almost all homosexuals were abused as children themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is another falsehood spread by anti gay bigots.
> 
> From the American Psychiatric Association:
> 
> *What causes Homosexuality/Heterosexuality/Bisexuality?*
> No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice. Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. *Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> b.s. its clear as day. An abused child has more chance of becoming gay because they were abused by a same sex parent- they get confused and depressed and angry; then they grow up and inflict that pain on their child, cycle never stops. They try to recreate it also with their homo partner. One is the alpha, one is the lesser.
Click to expand...


No, that is not true at all. There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support your claim. How you "feel" about it is not science. 

I was never abused. My spouse was never abused. In all my 32 years as a gay women I've known exactly one person who had ever been abused and she knew she was gay before he started abusing her. She actually thinks he started abusing her because she was the "tomboy". Out of four girls, she's the only one grandpa "diddled" with. 

Get your head out of anti gay sites and go look at some actual scientific studies done by reputable organizations.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS. Every study shows it is worse for children with gay parents.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't, but you need them to because otherwise you are just another run-of-the-mill faggot hater.  It's all about the children you say, only it isn't, it's about your fear of the dreaded "others"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i don't fear the gayz, *only for the children who grow up confused and pressured to be gay* when they are straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny thing that, it doesn't seem to be the case.  Loving parents accept what their children are.
> 
> Gay Parents As Good As Straight Ones BU Today Boston University
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gay parents will be more likely to sex. abuse, as they were sex. abused themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any unbiased sources that prove this claim?
Click to expand...


There's plenty of bias in all the sources that try to deny that gays abusing children is a problem.  Let's not pretend that your sources are unbiased.  The Family Research Council is one of the few groups willing to address the problem and not pretend it doesn't exist.  They cite references for all their claims and they approach the issue scientifically. Since there are no unbiased sources anywhere on this issue, we have to go by who has an interest in protecting the reputation of the gay community no matter what as opposed to who has an interest in protecting children by highlighting venues where they are disproportionately exposed to abuse. 

Facts are facts, no matter what site is showing them.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can always find examples of pedo abuse among both hetero and homo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet in the short time that gay couples have been adopting, several of these horror stories have popped up. Statistics are already coming out indicating that a child is far more likely to be abused by a gay couple than their heterosexual counterparts. Since homo marriage and adoption are relatively new, the swift manner in which these horror stories are popping up doesn't set a promising trend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not surprising since almost all homosexuals were abused as children themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is another falsehood spread by anti gay bigots.
> 
> From the American Psychiatric Association:
> 
> *What causes Homosexuality/Heterosexuality/Bisexuality?*
> No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice. Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. *Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> b.s. its clear as day. An abused child has more chance of becoming gay because they were abused by a same sex parent- they get confused and depressed and angry; then they grow up and inflict that pain on their child, cycle never stops. They try to recreate it also with their homo partner. One is the alpha, one is the lesser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is not true at all. There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support your claim. How you "feel" about it is not science.
> 
> I was never abused. My spouse was never abused. In all my 32 years as a gay women I've known exactly one person who had ever been abused and she knew she was gay before he started abusing her. She actually thinks he started abusing her because she was the "tomboy". Out of four girls, she's the only one grandpa "diddled" with.
> 
> Get your head out of anti gay sites and go look at some actual scientific studies done by reputable organizations.
Click to expand...


You talk about science and then leap into anecdotal evidence.  Do you have any idea how idiotic you sound?


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Gay Activist Frank Lombard Adopted and Molested 5-year-old Boy*
> 
> Gay Activist Frank Lombard Adopted and Molested 5-year-old Boy Victims of Gay Bullying
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really want to go down this road?  I mean, I could post article after article of horrific adoption abuses by heterosexuals if you really want to do this...
Click to expand...


I would much rather post statistics studying entire sectors of the population.

Mark


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it does not, and few would argue it does.  Rights are not unlimited but their application evolves as society evolves and becomes more inclusive.  Basic rights were denied to both women and blacks in a way that was NOT considered discrimminatory until recent times.
> 
> What is the right in question?  It's the right to marry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's stop right there because your train just went off the tracks. Who is being denied the right to marry?  It's only tortured Leftist "logic" that says if somebody can't marry whoever they want, a person of the same gender, a brother, aunt, or a horse or a goat, that they're being denied the right to marry.  What kind of nonsense is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is arguing for an unlimited right to marry - strawman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No culture in human history has said it's ok to marry whoever one wants. There's always been taboos for the protection and perpetuation of a strong society. So no, the right to marry is not being denied just because you can't marry whoever you want.  And trying to read that "right" into the 14th Amendment, to marry whoever you want, flies off the tether of any legal precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to marry is between two consenting adults (not incestual).  Expanding that right to same sex couples does not weaken society in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Between two consenting adults", see you're already applying your own arbitrary opinion on what criteria should decide who somebody can marry.  And you're drifting away from the legal argument because you don't have on that merits consideration.  You insist that gay "marriage" doesn't weaken society, but again, it's just an opinion.  And if these things are decided by opinion, which they should, then most Americans disagree with you and have passed laws requiring marriage be between a man and a woman.  Hence the state marriage laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I stated at the beginning that no rights are unlimited*, including marriage and that it can not infringe on the rights or well being of others or the public.  That's pretty much the same with all rights, it's not my arbritrary opinion.
> 
> Children can't consent and can be harmed.
> Animals can't consent and can be harmed.
> Incest potentially affects public welfare when children are produced.
> 
> Legally - marriage is a right.  Legally - it's definition is open to challange.  There is no difference between denying marriage equality based on race and denying marriage equality based on gender.  Why should rights be decided upon by public opinion?  That is very dangerous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I want to know is why the Left is so terrified of democracy?  If you think you're right, prevail upon your fellow man to convince them.  But using Leftist hack ideologue judges to legislate from the bench sans any sound legal argument is the path you've chosen and the reason that people are starting to hate gay people like they never have before in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have a Constitution to protect us from the extremes of democracy and prevent mob rule.  It was not public opinion that gained blacks their civil rights or the women the vote - it was ultimately the courts.  Public opinion lies in the lynch mobs as readily as it does the concerted efforts to change legislation.
> 
> I would never intrust my rights to public opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage by every meaningful metric, is the coupling of the two genders. Everything else is simply make believe.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Well the courts and the American People disagree, so now what, you just keep pissing into the wind the rest of your days?


----------



## GreenBean

JakeStarkey said:


> *The Homosexual Dilemma exists only in the minds of those who dislike marriage equality, much like folks who disliked interracial marriage.
> 
> Tough for them back then and tough for you today because we are never going back.
> 
> Get over it and don't marry someone you don't love is the best advice you can get.*



The Liberal machine has long sought to undermine the family structure - it is an obstacle on their path to absolute and complete control .  Pushing sexual perversion - Homosexuality, transgenderism, transsexualism, pederasty and assorted sexual dysphoria , gender dysphoria, transvestism, analloerotic disorders and abnormal erotic fixations on society - forced acceptance and forced propagandizing to the younger generation is absolutely unacceptable.


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say better, I said at no disadvantage. There is no difference in outcomes between the children raised by intact gay families and intact straight families.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *'They took turns raping me': New claims of child sex abuse revealed as gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go to trial *
> 
> Read more: Gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go on trial to fight allegations Daily Mail Online
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can always find examples of pedo abuse among both hetero and homo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet in the short time that gay couples have been adopting, *several of these horror stories have popped up*. Statistics are already coming out indicating that a child is far more likely to be abused by a gay couple than their heterosexual counterparts. Since homo marriage and adoption are relatively new, the swift manner in which these horror stories are popping up doesn't set a promising trend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they do, because adoption by gay couples is in the public light.  Yet look at all the horror stories about adoption by hetero couples.  All it says is you will have bad players in both groups and there needs to be some means of weeding them out.
> 
> What statistics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals represent less than 3% but are involved in nearly 1/3 of all sex abuse cases against children
> 
> MALE HOMOSEXUALS COMMIT A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF CHILD SEX ABUSE CASES
> Homosexual apologists admit that some homosexuals sexually molest children, but they deny that homosexuals are more likely to commit such offenses. After all, they argue, the majority of child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature. While this is correct in terms of absolute numbers, this argument ignores the fact that homosexuals comprise only a very small percentage of the population.
> 
> The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. To demonstrate this it is necessary to connect several statistics related to the problem of child sex abuse: 1) men are almost always the perpetrator; 2) up to one-third or more of child sex abuse cases are committed against boys; 3) less than three percent of the population are homosexuals. Thus, a tiny percentage of the population (homosexual men), commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation.
> 
> Men Account for Almost All Sexual Abuse of Children Cases
> An essay on adult sex offenders in the book _Sexual Offending Against Children _reported:"It is widely believed that the vast majority of sexual abuse is perpetrated by males and that female sex offenders only account for a tiny proportion of offences. Indeed, with 3,000 adult male sex offenders in prison in England and Wales at any one time, the corresponding figure for female sex offenders is 12!"[1]
> 
> Family Research Council
Click to expand...


Family Research Council?  Seriously?

First of all - Pedophilia, if that is what you are referring to - is it's own category.  Offenders are neither hetero nor homo but are attracted to prebuscent children and do not typically have or are able to sustain normal relationships with adults.

Second of all - "Men Account for Almost All Sexual Abuse of Children Cases" - well...sounds like you are making an argument that adoption should be limited to single women or lesbian couples only then


----------



## Coyote

ninja007 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *'They took turns raping me': New claims of child sex abuse revealed as gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go to trial *
> 
> Read more: Gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go on trial to fight allegations Daily Mail Online
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can always find examples of pedo abuse among both hetero and homo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet in the short time that gay couples have been adopting, several of these horror stories have popped up. Statistics are already coming out indicating that a child is far more likely to be abused by a gay couple than their heterosexual counterparts. Since homo marriage and adoption are relatively new, the swift manner in which these horror stories are popping up doesn't set a promising trend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not surprising since almost all homosexuals were abused as children themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is another falsehood spread by anti gay bigots.
> 
> From the American Psychiatric Association:
> 
> *What causes Homosexuality/Heterosexuality/Bisexuality?*
> No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice. Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. *Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> b.s. its clear as day. An abused child has more chance of becoming gay because they were abused by a same sex parent- they get confused and depressed and angry; then they grow up and inflict that pain on their child, cycle never stops. They try to recreate it also with their homo partner. One is the alpha, one is the lesser.
Click to expand...


Aren't you the font of knowledge....got a source to support all these claims?


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.
> 
> Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.
> 
> The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands.  Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.
> 
> Treat all partnerships the same.  Easy-squeezy.
> 
> 
> 
> Requiring marriage to a partner of the opposite sex was also applied equally, regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take that argument a step back in history:  Requiring marriage to a partner of the same race was also applied equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Any man couldn't marry any woman. Now, they can. And since marriage is for reproduction, all discrimination stopped after racial intermarriage was allowed.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except marriage is no longer for reproduction - that is outdated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not only outdated, it's not even true.  Marriage was never about reproduction.  Until recently it wasn't even about love let alone children.
Click to expand...


If you were correct, history would be replete with men marrying men and women marrying women. Know what I think? I think arguments like this are simply one more way that the left lies about history to make what they want more palatable to the "sheep".

Mark


----------



## Coyote

ninja007 said:


> *THINK*. child is abused by same sex parent; gets confused of their sexuality, grows up wanting to explore, fix that terrible experience from their childhood and repeat it. NOT that hard to figure out.



*PROVE*


----------



## PaintMyHouse

GreenBean said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Homosexual Dilemma exists only in the minds of those who dislike marriage equality, much like folks who disliked interracial marriage.
> 
> Tough for them back then and tough for you today because we are never going back.
> 
> Get over it and don't marry someone you don't love is the best advice you can get.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Liberal machine has long sought to undermine the family structure - it is an obstacle on their path to absolute and complete control .  Pushing sexual perversion - Homosexuality, transgenderism, transsexualism, pederasty and assorted sexual dysphoria , gender dysphoria, transvestism, analloerotic disorders and abnormal erotic fixations on society - forced acceptance and forced propagandizing to the younger generation is absolutely unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Ward and June are dead, Wally and the Beaver grew up.  Do the same little faggot-hater.


----------



## GreenBean

GreenBean said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Homosexual Dilemma exists only in the minds of those who dislike marriage equality, much like folks who disliked interracial marriage.
> 
> Tough for them back then and tough for you today because we are never going back.
> 
> Get over it and don't marry someone you don't love is the best advice you can get.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Liberal machine has long sought to undermine the family structure - it is an obstacle on their path to absolute and complete control .  Pushing sexual perversion - Homosexuality, transgenderism, transsexualism, pederasty and assorted sexual dysphoria , gender dysphoria, transvestism, analloerotic disorders and abnormal erotic fixations on society - forced acceptance and forced propagandizing to the younger generation is absolutely unacceptable.
Click to expand...


*Pedophiles are invariably males: *Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men.

*Significant numbers of victims are males: *Up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys (as opposed to girls).

*The 10 percent fallacy: *Studies indicate that, contrary to the inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.

*Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: *Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.

*Some homosexual activists defend the historic connection between homosexuality and pedophilia: *Such activists consider the defense of "boy-lovers" to be a legitimate gay rights issue.

*Pedophile themes abound in homosexual literary culture: *Gay fiction as well as serious academic treatises promote "intergenerational intimacy."

MALE HOMOSEXUALS COMMIT A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF CHILD SEX ABUSE CASES
Homosexual apologists admit that some homosexuals sexually molest children, but they deny that homosexuals are more likely to commit such offenses. After all, they argue, the majority of child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature. *While this is correct in terms of absolute numbers, this argument ignores the fact that homosexuals comprise only a very small percentage of the population.

Family Research Council*


----------



## Seawytch

80zephyr said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just an "FYI" to folks just reading and lurking...the Family Research Council is not a credible source for anything resembling a scientific study. Neither is NARTH or Focus on the Family. I think it's apparent you can dismiss anything from "looneybird".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so it goes. I personally believe that most leftist sources lie, and are not to be believed. But, rather than "kill the messenger", maybe we should see what a link says and refute it with one of our own.
> 
> Unless you think debate is just using links YOU believe to be correct.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Major medical associations and universities are not "leftist sources", they are reputable, peer reviewed sources. That is an alien concept to people who rely on the debunked and extremely biased research from places like I mentioned above. 

Do you know what happens when the "research" presented from those places gets presented in a court of law? It get's dismissed as the garbage it is. 

_“The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration,” he wrote in what must be one of the most stinging and decisive repudiations of an expert witness in memory. He cited evidence that the conservative research was “hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder” which clearly expressed its wish for skewed results. Dismissing the defense’s other witnesses just as strongly, the judge wrote that “The Court was unable to accord the testimony of Marks, Price, and Allen any significant weight.” He concluded that “The most that can be said of these witnesses’ testimony is that the ‘no differences’ consensus has not been proven with scientific certainty, not that there is any credible evidence showing that children raised by same-sex couples fare worse than those raised by heterosexual couples.”_​


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *'They took turns raping me': New claims of child sex abuse revealed as gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go to trial *
> 
> Read more: Gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go on trial to fight allegations Daily Mail Online
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can always find examples of pedo abuse among both hetero and homo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet in the short time that gay couples have been adopting, *several of these horror stories have popped up*. Statistics are already coming out indicating that a child is far more likely to be abused by a gay couple than their heterosexual counterparts. Since homo marriage and adoption are relatively new, the swift manner in which these horror stories are popping up doesn't set a promising trend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they do, because adoption by gay couples is in the public light.  Yet look at all the horror stories about adoption by hetero couples.  All it says is you will have bad players in both groups and there needs to be some means of weeding them out.
> 
> What statistics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals represent less than 3% but are involved in nearly 1/3 of all sex abuse cases against children
> 
> MALE HOMOSEXUALS COMMIT A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF CHILD SEX ABUSE CASES
> Homosexual apologists admit that some homosexuals sexually molest children, but they deny that homosexuals are more likely to commit such offenses. After all, they argue, the majority of child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature. While this is correct in terms of absolute numbers, this argument ignores the fact that homosexuals comprise only a very small percentage of the population.
> 
> The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. To demonstrate this it is necessary to connect several statistics related to the problem of child sex abuse: 1) men are almost always the perpetrator; 2) up to one-third or more of child sex abuse cases are committed against boys; 3) less than three percent of the population are homosexuals. Thus, a tiny percentage of the population (homosexual men), commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation.
> 
> Men Account for Almost All Sexual Abuse of Children Cases
> An essay on adult sex offenders in the book _Sexual Offending Against Children _reported:"It is widely believed that the vast majority of sexual abuse is perpetrated by males and that female sex offenders only account for a tiny proportion of offences. Indeed, with 3,000 adult male sex offenders in prison in England and Wales at any one time, the corresponding figure for female sex offenders is 12!"[1]
> 
> Family Research Council
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Family Research Council?  Seriously?
> 
> First of all - Pedophilia, if that is what you are referring to - is it's own category.  Offenders are neither hetero nor homo but are attracted to prebuscent children and do not typically have or are able to sustain normal relationships with adults.
> 
> Second of all - "Men Account for Almost All Sexual Abuse of Children Cases" - well...sounds like you are making an argument that adoption should be limited to single women or lesbian couples only then
Click to expand...


Why is pedophilia in its own category? Could it be that the left needs it to be, otherwise it would shed a bad light on the gays?

Why should I believe you when you say its a separate category? Why is it that many pedophiles will ONLY attacks boys and not girls?

I reject your "category" classification. Logic and reality tell me it has no basis in fact.

Mark


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Requiring marriage to a partner of the opposite sex was also applied equally, regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take that argument a step back in history:  Requiring marriage to a partner of the same race was also applied equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Any man couldn't marry any woman. Now, they can. And since marriage is for reproduction, all discrimination stopped after racial intermarriage was allowed.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except marriage is no longer for reproduction - that is outdated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not only outdated, it's not even true.  Marriage was never about reproduction.  Until recently it wasn't even about love let alone children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were correct, history would be replete with men marrying men and women marrying women. Know what I think? I think arguments like this are simply one more way that the left lies about history to make what they want more palatable to the "sheep".
Click to expand...

There is plenty of history, you just don't know it, or want to, because it would mean that your mentality is based upon a lie, which it is.  And even if marriage once was only meant for reproduction it now no longer is and hasn't been for a very long time, so you're fucked from all sides, and apparently can't deal with like an adult and accept that You Have Lost, period.  You will just have to move on because we ain't going back.


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet in the short time that gay couples have been adopting, several of these horror stories have popped up. Statistics are already coming out indicating that a child is far more likely to be abused by a gay couple than their heterosexual counterparts. Since homo marriage and adoption are relatively new, the swift manner in which these horror stories are popping up doesn't set a promising trend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not surprising since almost all homosexuals were abused as children themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is another falsehood spread by anti gay bigots.
> 
> From the American Psychiatric Association:
> 
> *What causes Homosexuality/Heterosexuality/Bisexuality?*
> No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice. Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. *Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> b.s. its clear as day. An abused child has more chance of becoming gay because they were abused by a same sex parent- they get confused and depressed and angry; then they grow up and inflict that pain on their child, cycle never stops. They try to recreate it also with their homo partner. One is the alpha, one is the lesser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is not true at all. There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support your claim. How you "feel" about it is not science.
> 
> I was never abused. My spouse was never abused. In all my 32 years as a gay women I've known exactly one person who had ever been abused and she knew she was gay before he started abusing her. She actually thinks he started abusing her because she was the "tomboy". Out of four girls, she's the only one grandpa "diddled" with.
> 
> Get your head out of anti gay sites and go look at some actual scientific studies done by reputable organizations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You talk about science and then leap into anecdotal evidence.  Do you have any idea how idiotic you sound?
Click to expand...



Except I've provided both. The scientific evidence supports my anecdotal evidence.


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> "Between two consenting adults", see you're already applying your own arbitrary opinion on what criteria should decide who somebody can marry.



More accurately, we're applying the requirements of marriage as our standard for who can get married. And there's no requirement that anyone have children or be able to have them. Rendering any restriction that is based on that standard uselessly arbitrary. As it doesn't exist nor is applied to anyone. 



> And you're drifting away from the legal argument because you don't have on that merits consideration.



Actually, its an explicitly legal argument. And has been used many, many times in court. *No one is legally required to be able to procreate in order to get married. R*endering the inability to procreate an invalid basis to legal basis to deny someone the right to marry.

If you're going to restrict marriage only to hetero couples, you'll need a compelling state interest and a very good reason. And as the utter lack of any requirement to be able to procreate in order to get married demonstrates, you lack both. 

Which is why you'll abandon the legal argument and go back to the arbitrary 'moral' claims, based on nothing but your religious belief. Which no one really gives a shit about.



> You insist that gay "marriage" doesn't weaken society, but again, it's just an opinion.  And if these things are decided by opinion, which they should, then most Americans disagree with you and have passed laws requiring marriage be between a man and a woman.  Hence the state marriage laws.



There's simply no evidence of harm to society. You've made a claim of harm you can't support, based on religious reasoning and void of a logical or rational reason. Your religious beliefs are yours. They don't stand as a valid reason for anyone who doesn't already believe exactly as you do.

And most people don't. 

And has been explained to you repeatedly, the States lack the ability to pass laws that abrogate individual rights. Thus your 'if you can pass the laws, they must be right' standard is indefensible clap trap. As the Loving V. Virginia rulings overturning interracial marriage bans demonstrated nearly 50 years ago.



> What I want to know is why the Left is so terrified of democracy?  If you think you're right, prevail upon your fellow man to convince them.  But using Leftist hack ideologue judges to legislate from the bench sans any sound legal argument is the path you've chosen and the reason that people are starting to hate gay people like they never have before in this country.



Rights trump powers. You're literally arguing that any rights should be able to be voted away with a 50% plus 1 vote. And that's the beating heart of the tyranny of the majority. Which the founders despised. And which most thinking people do as well.

Be it the right to marry, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to speech......*rights trump the State's powers to abrogate them. *


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't, but you need them to because otherwise you are just another run-of-the-mill faggot hater.  It's all about the children you say, only it isn't, it's about your fear of the dreaded "others"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i don't fear the gayz, *only for the children who grow up confused and pressured to be gay* when they are straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny thing that, it doesn't seem to be the case.  Loving parents accept what their children are.
> 
> Gay Parents As Good As Straight Ones BU Today Boston University
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gay parents will be more likely to sex. abuse, as they were sex. abused themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any unbiased sources that prove this claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's plenty of bias in all the sources that try to deny that gays abusing children is a problem.  Let's not pretend that your sources are unbiased.  The Family Research Council is one of the few groups willing to address the problem and not pretend it doesn't exist.  They cite references for all their claims and they approach the issue scientifically. Since there are no unbiased sources anywhere on this issue, we have to go by who has an interest in protecting the reputation of the gay community no matter what as opposed to who has an interest in protecting children by highlighting venues where they are disproportionately exposed to abuse.
> 
> Facts are facts, no matter what site is showing them.
Click to expand...


Facts are facts...but how you present them, or link, or the conclusions you attempt to draw or what you choose to omit is something entirely different and that is where bias comes in.

All facts aren't equal - conclusions that come out of a poorly done study can often be challanged.

There are more and less biased sources and sources with greater legitimacy than others.


----------



## Iceweasel

1751_Texan said:


> *Texan:*that is incorrect, It was states that wrote ban laws that have been affirmed Unconstitutional. No one forced the states to write those laws. the Attorneys General of each of those states did the states a disservice by allowing those states to follow through in their unconstitutional legislation...no one forced that states to do that.


There is nothing unconstitutional about states defining what marriage means. AG's don't run any legislative branch, they enforce the laws they write.





> Everyone is mocked...Why should Christians be treated more sacrosanct than they are now? Christians are one of the protected classes...but no where in the Constitution does it say they must be free of Mockery.


You missed my point by a country mile. No one said Christianity can't be mocked, just that it is. Much more so than gays and there are a LOT more Christians.


----------



## 80zephyr

Seawytch said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just an "FYI" to folks just reading and lurking...the Family Research Council is not a credible source for anything resembling a scientific study. Neither is NARTH or Focus on the Family. I think it's apparent you can dismiss anything from "looneybird".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so it goes. I personally believe that most leftist sources lie, and are not to be believed. But, rather than "kill the messenger", maybe we should see what a link says and refute it with one of our own.
> 
> Unless you think debate is just using links YOU believe to be correct.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Major medical associations and universities are not "leftist sources", they are reputable, peer reviewed sources. That is an alien concept to people who rely on the debunked and extremely biased research from places like I mentioned above.
> 
> Do you know what happens when the "research" presented from those places gets presented in a court of law? It get's dismissed as the garbage it is.
> 
> _“The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration,” he wrote in what must be one of the most stinging and decisive repudiations of an expert witness in memory. He cited evidence that the conservative research was “hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder” which clearly expressed its wish for skewed results. Dismissing the defense’s other witnesses just as strongly, the judge wrote that “The Court was unable to accord the testimony of Marks, Price, and Allen any significant weight.” He concluded that “The most that can be said of these witnesses’ testimony is that the ‘no differences’ consensus has not been proven with scientific certainty, not that there is any credible evidence showing that children raised by same-sex couples fare worse than those raised by heterosexual couples.”_​
Click to expand...


Because one study is dismissed, doesn't mean they all are. Each should be taken on its own merit. And just for your information, I believe there is a serious counter movement that tries to discredit every study on this subject that doesn't jive with their own beliefs, on both sides.


Mark


----------



## Iceweasel

Skylar said:


> Be it the right to marry, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to speech......*rights trump the State's powers to abrogate them. *


Where is the Constitutional right to marry? Why do you guys make shit up?


----------



## Seawytch

Our kids are fine and we're having them whether we're married or not. We're also marrying whether we have kids are not...just like straight folks. 

Some of us DO have children. Gays are having children exactly like straights do....adoption, artificial insemination, IVF, divorce. 

Someone explain why our families, whether with or without children, are less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges associated with civil marriage than straight families (with or without children)? What is your reasonable person standard you use to justify discriminating against our loving partnerships?


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't fear the gayz, *only for the children who grow up confused and pressured to be gay* when they are straight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing that, it doesn't seem to be the case.  Loving parents accept what their children are.
> 
> Gay Parents As Good As Straight Ones BU Today Boston University
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gay parents will be more likely to sex. abuse, as they were sex. abused themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any unbiased sources that prove this claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's plenty of bias in all the sources that try to deny that gays abusing children is a problem.  Let's not pretend that your sources are unbiased.  The Family Research Council is one of the few groups willing to address the problem and not pretend it doesn't exist.  They cite references for all their claims and they approach the issue scientifically. Since there are no unbiased sources anywhere on this issue, we have to go by who has an interest in protecting the reputation of the gay community no matter what as opposed to who has an interest in protecting children by highlighting venues where they are disproportionately exposed to abuse.
> 
> Facts are facts, no matter what site is showing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts are facts...but how you present them, or link, or the conclusions you attempt to draw or what you choose to omit is something entirely different and that is where bias comes in.
> 
> All facts aren't equal - conclusions that come out of a poorly done study can often be challanged.
> 
> There are more and less biased sources and sources with greater legitimacy than others.
Click to expand...


Unless every subject can be observed 24/7, the claim is ALWAYS made that a study is poorly done. As a matter of fact, I find it funny that the left views science as a solid science, unless it disagrees with a result. Then the scientist is an idiot.

Mark


----------



## Carib Gyal

If it is true that marriage can be defined and redefined by society or opinion (and it is true), then it can continually be redefined again and again.

Therefore, what you believe marriage is or isn't today, can be changed again in a decade.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't fear the gayz, *only for the children who grow up confused and pressured to be gay* when they are straight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing that, it doesn't seem to be the case.  Loving parents accept what their children are.
> 
> Gay Parents As Good As Straight Ones BU Today Boston University
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gay parents will be more likely to sex. abuse, as they were sex. abused themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any unbiased sources that prove this claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's plenty of bias in all the sources that try to deny that gays abusing children is a problem.  Let's not pretend that your sources are unbiased.  The Family Research Council is one of the few groups willing to address the problem and not pretend it doesn't exist.  They cite references for all their claims and they approach the issue scientifically. Since there are no unbiased sources anywhere on this issue, we have to go by who has an interest in protecting the reputation of the gay community no matter what as opposed to who has an interest in protecting children by highlighting venues where they are disproportionately exposed to abuse.
> 
> Facts are facts, no matter what site is showing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts are facts...but how you present them, or link, or the conclusions you attempt to draw or what you choose to omit is something entirely different and that is where bias comes in.
> 
> All facts aren't equal - conclusions that come out of a poorly done study can often be challanged.
> 
> There are more and less biased sources and sources with greater legitimacy than others.
Click to expand...


I think you're forgetting that EVERYONE has an agenda.  Politically, if I wanted to get dirt on the Democrat party, I wouldn't go to the DNC website.  If there's anything impeachable about Democrats, it will be told by the enemies of the Democrats, not the Democrats themselves.

And so it goes with everything else.

The fact that so few are willing to explore the issue of gays abusing children is a demonstration of how the gay mafia has silenced all opposition so that the only ones willing to expose the unflattering aspects of gay culture are those who are opposed to that culture to begin with.  There's no scandal here.  The FRC has done their due diligence. They have citations for all their claims. Go to the site and see for yourself.  Rationally they cannot be dismissed just because they have a low opinion of homosexuality to begin with.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Iceweasel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be it the right to marry, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to speech......*rights trump the State's powers to abrogate them. *
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the Constitutional right to marry? Why do you guys make shit up?
Click to expand...

Where in the Constitution are civil rights for the *******?  Oh right, not in there.  In the Constitution they are property.  Grow up and stop looking for doesn't exist.


----------



## Seawytch

80zephyr said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just an "FYI" to folks just reading and lurking...the Family Research Council is not a credible source for anything resembling a scientific study. Neither is NARTH or Focus on the Family. I think it's apparent you can dismiss anything from "looneybird".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so it goes. I personally believe that most leftist sources lie, and are not to be believed. But, rather than "kill the messenger", maybe we should see what a link says and refute it with one of our own.
> 
> Unless you think debate is just using links YOU believe to be correct.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Major medical associations and universities are not "leftist sources", they are reputable, peer reviewed sources. That is an alien concept to people who rely on the debunked and extremely biased research from places like I mentioned above.
> 
> Do you know what happens when the "research" presented from those places gets presented in a court of law? It get's dismissed as the garbage it is.
> 
> _“The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration,” he wrote in what must be one of the most stinging and decisive repudiations of an expert witness in memory. He cited evidence that the conservative research was “hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder” which clearly expressed its wish for skewed results. Dismissing the defense’s other witnesses just as strongly, the judge wrote that “The Court was unable to accord the testimony of Marks, Price, and Allen any significant weight.” He concluded that “The most that can be said of these witnesses’ testimony is that the ‘no differences’ consensus has not been proven with scientific certainty, not that there is any credible evidence showing that children raised by same-sex couples fare worse than those raised by heterosexual couples.”_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because one study is dismissed, doesn't mean they all are. Each should be taken on its own merit. And just for your information, I believe there is a serious counter movement that tries to discredit every study on this subject that doesn't jive with their own beliefs, on both sides.
> 
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...



Yes, dear, they have all been dismissed....This was the one they chose to use in court which means the other ones must have been even worse. They've all been discredited. There is no credible study that shows our children at ANY disadvantage to yours, none. All the major child welfare, medical, and psychological organizations have come to the same conclusion, that there is no difference in outcomes between our kids and yours. None, zero, zip zilch. Our kids are fine. We're raising great ones. One will be President someday...the kid of gay parents. Worry about the kids of divorce...they're the ones that are fucked up.


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing that, it doesn't seem to be the case.  Loving parents accept what their children are.
> 
> Gay Parents As Good As Straight Ones BU Today Boston University
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gay parents will be more likely to sex. abuse, as they were sex. abused themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any unbiased sources that prove this claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's plenty of bias in all the sources that try to deny that gays abusing children is a problem.  Let's not pretend that your sources are unbiased.  The Family Research Council is one of the few groups willing to address the problem and not pretend it doesn't exist.  They cite references for all their claims and they approach the issue scientifically. Since there are no unbiased sources anywhere on this issue, we have to go by who has an interest in protecting the reputation of the gay community no matter what as opposed to who has an interest in protecting children by highlighting venues where they are disproportionately exposed to abuse.
> 
> Facts are facts, no matter what site is showing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts are facts...but how you present them, or link, or the conclusions you attempt to draw or what you choose to omit is something entirely different and that is where bias comes in.
> 
> All facts aren't equal - conclusions that come out of a poorly done study can often be challanged.
> 
> There are more and less biased sources and sources with greater legitimacy than others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're forgetting that EVERYONE has an agenda.  Politically, if I wanted to get dirt on the Democrat party, I wouldn't go to the DNC website.  If there's anything impeachable about Democrats, it will be told by the enemies of the Democrats, not the Democrats themselves.
> 
> And so it goes with everything else.
> 
> The fact that so few are willing to explore the issue of gays abusing children is a demonstration of how the gay mafia has silenced all opposition so that the only ones willing to expose the unflattering aspects of gay culture are those who are opposed to that culture to begin with.  There's no scandal here.  The FRC has done their due diligence. They have citations for all their claims. Go to the site and see for yourself.  Rationally they cannot be dismissed just because they have a low opinion of homosexuality to begin with.
Click to expand...



The Gay "Agenda" is equality. Your "agenda" is to deny that equality based on nothing but animus. Tell me how that's worked out through history?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Carib Gyal said:


> If it is true that marriage can be defined and redefined by society or opinion (and it is true), then it can continually be redefined again and again.
> 
> Therefore, what you believe marriage is or isn't today, can be changed again in a decade.


Yep, but we generally go forward towards equality, not backwards towards tradition, in this case, homophobic tradition.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing that, it doesn't seem to be the case.  Loving parents accept what their children are.
> 
> Gay Parents As Good As Straight Ones BU Today Boston University
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gay parents will be more likely to sex. abuse, as they were sex. abused themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any unbiased sources that prove this claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's plenty of bias in all the sources that try to deny that gays abusing children is a problem.  Let's not pretend that your sources are unbiased.  The Family Research Council is one of the few groups willing to address the problem and not pretend it doesn't exist.  They cite references for all their claims and they approach the issue scientifically. Since there are no unbiased sources anywhere on this issue, we have to go by who has an interest in protecting the reputation of the gay community no matter what as opposed to who has an interest in protecting children by highlighting venues where they are disproportionately exposed to abuse.
> 
> Facts are facts, no matter what site is showing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts are facts...but how you present them, or link, or the conclusions you attempt to draw or what you choose to omit is something entirely different and that is where bias comes in.
> 
> All facts aren't equal - conclusions that come out of a poorly done study can often be challanged.
> 
> There are more and less biased sources and sources with greater legitimacy than others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're forgetting that EVERYONE has an agenda.  Politically, if I wanted to get dirt on the Democrat party, I wouldn't go to the DNC website.  If there's anything impeachable about Democrats, it will be told by the enemies of the Democrats, not the Democrats themselves.
> 
> And so it goes with everything else.
> 
> The fact that so few are willing to explore the issue of gays abusing children is a demonstration of how the gay mafia has silenced all opposition so that the only ones willing to expose the unflattering aspects of gay culture are those who are opposed to that culture to begin with.  There's no scandal here.  The FRC has done their due diligence. They have citations for all their claims. Go to the site and see for yourself.  Rationally they cannot be dismissed just because they have a low opinion of homosexuality to begin with.
Click to expand...

It doesn't fucking matter, it's not about the children.


----------



## 80zephyr

Seawytch said:


> Our kids are fine and we're having them whether we're married or not. We're also marrying whether we have kids are not...just like straight folks.
> 
> Some of us DO have children. Gays are having children exactly like straights do....adoption, artificial insemination, IVF, divorce.
> 
> Someone explain why our families, whether with or without children, are less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges associated with civil marriage than straight families (with or without children)? What is your reasonable person standard you use to justify discriminating against our loving partnerships?



Personally, I believe that kids should be brought up with a man and a woman as the parents.  I think that nature devised a plan that has worked since the dawn of humankind, and I believe that kids bought up in a one gender household miss out on the guidance of the other gender.

Mark


----------



## Seawytch

Iceweasel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be it the right to marry, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to speech......*rights trump the State's powers to abrogate them. *
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the Constitutional right to marry? Why do you guys make shit up?
Click to expand...


Where in the Constitution is your right to interstate travel? Do you believe the only rights you have are expressly enumerated in the Constitution? If so, your education fell short. Google "Fundamental Rights" and then Google: 

Loving v Virginia, Turner v Safely and Zablocki v Wisconsin. 

Then get back to us if you still have questions.


----------



## Carib Gyal

PaintMyHouse said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is true that marriage can be defined and redefined by society or opinion (and it is true), then it can continually be redefined again and again.
> 
> Therefore, what you believe marriage is or isn't today, can be changed again in a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, but we generally go forward towards equality, not backwards towards tradition, in this case, homophobic tradition.
Click to expand...

It's a cycle. When you wrote the Constitution you were much more open minded than people are today.

I'm saying, the very arguments you are using can and will be used against you in the future.


----------



## Londoner

Conservatives who get their information from the Rightwing message system don't understand the libertarian minimalist state, nor do they understand the Constitution, which protects everyone's beliefs, including Muslims and Homosexuals, provided those beliefs don't harm others. 

(Republicans want a powerful state which imposes their values on others. They want to limit the freedom and full civic participation of groups they find evil, abnormal or otherwise inferior. FYI: these groups shift over time. Homosexuals are the flavor of the month.)

But they weren't always the flavor of the month.  Conservative traditionalists (from both political parties) opposed the progress of blacks and women. To understand the disgust these people have for different value systems, research the reaction of Nixon's "Silent White majority" to the feminist revolution of the 60s.

The Rightwing czars of morality have an uneasy relationship to science, which is why they needed to create a massive institutional network of think tanks, which enabled them to tailor their scientific findings to their political goals. If science proves that human sexuality is an automatic response, the job of their think tanks is to show that it is a choice. They can get away with this because their voting coalition includes a block of people who have not had much advanced education, and so are quite vulnerable to the many charismatic pundits who seem to thrive on the Right.

Here is what many Republicans don't understand about the moral duty of the state to protect the sanctity of marriage. Government does not exist to save our souls. This is the job of individuals and families, in the privacy of their own lives. The sacredness of marriage doesn't come from the contract or the state, it comes from free individuals - individuals who are not told by bureaucrats what is good and normal, that is, individuals who are free to practice their own beliefs provided they don't harm others. The marriage contract is only a legal document that stipulates rights and obligations. Only a conservative could confuse a bureaucratic contract with a holy document. 

Government exists merely to hand out and enforce legal contracts. We don't want a bureaucrat at the foot of every bed or hiding in every closet to make sure that each American practices the lifestyle and beliefs of conservatives. We want government not to care about our soul, our sexuality, our book purchases, etc. We want a minimalist state.

We want a minimalist state that doesn't play an activist role in morality or beliefs.

We want a minimalist state that hands out contracts and protects our right not to be harmed by others. We don't want Washington to legislate morality and impose a single set of values on all groups. We want maximum freedom for the maximum number of people. 

Conservatives, on the other hand, want a big powerful government that imposes a single set of values on all people. In the 1800s they told us it wasn't natural for women to leave their domestic/biological destiny for public or civic leadership. We were told that women were too irrational to meet the rigorous mental demands of politics, and that they were more suited to being man's helper and providing a nurturing home. 

Thank god we didn't let conservatives and traditionalists win that fight. Thank god we didn't let them define what was moral and normal behavior for women. [You get the picture right? Every generation of conservatives has a unique set of beliefs and values to be imposed by big government on the rest of us. They always find a group which is abnormal, evil or inferior, and who therefore deserves a lower status, with fewer rights] 

Unfortunately, because the centralized power of Washington exists, we are still vulnerable to the centralization and violent imposition of a single value system, one that subjugates all outsiders to a singular  system, much like communism, which itself limited a diversity of beliefs and practices for "the good of society".

*God help us, because the Nazis were also driven by a very powerful conception of what was good and normal. Study eugenics. All it took was a massive economic downturn, which made the masses vulnerable to a charismatic leader promising moral renewal by expunging from the state all who were not pure.*

God help us.


----------



## Seawytch

80zephyr said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our kids are fine and we're having them whether we're married or not. We're also marrying whether we have kids are not...just like straight folks.
> 
> Some of us DO have children. Gays are having children exactly like straights do....adoption, artificial insemination, IVF, divorce.
> 
> Someone explain why our families, whether with or without children, are less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges associated with civil marriage than straight families (with or without children)? What is your reasonable person standard you use to justify discriminating against our loving partnerships?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I believe that kids should be brought up with a man and a woman as the parents.  I think that nature devised a plan that has worked since the dawn of humankind, and I believe that kids bought up in a one gender household miss out on the guidance of the other gender.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Personally I'm glad you don't get to make the rules about who gets to be parents or not. I don't think fundamentalist Christians should get to be parents...I've seen more than my share of kids fucked up by having Fundie Parents.

I'm glad I don't get to make the rules about who can be parents either. 

That doesn't answer the question though...try again. What reasonable person standard to you use to deny our family the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Carib Gyal said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is true that marriage can be defined and redefined by society or opinion (and it is true), then it can continually be redefined again and again.
> 
> Therefore, what you believe marriage is or isn't today, can be changed again in a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, but we generally go forward towards equality, not backwards towards tradition, in this case, homophobic tradition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a cycle. When you wrote the Constitution you were much more open minded than people are today.
> 
> I'm saying, the very arguments you are using can and will be used against you in the future.
Click to expand...

Used against me?  Not a chance.  You forget, it's my country not yours, fucked up as it is.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> The Gay "Agenda" is equality. Your "agenda" is to deny that equality based on nothing but animus. Tell me how that's worked out through history?



Bullshit.  Every activist group claims they want "equality" feminists, black race hustlers, etc.  But what you want isn't equality, it's superiority.

Case in point. During the 1990's feminist groups lobbied the military to allow women the choice of whether to go to combat or not.  Does this make them equal to men? Not when you consider that men have no choice, when they're deployed, they go. And every Army soldier is at the very least an 11Bravo no matter what their specialty is and can be deployed into direct combat at the pleasure of the DOD.

And when boys who "think they're a girl" can go into a school restroom with teenage girls, we're not talking about equality, we're talking about an extreme minority forcing everyone else to accomodate them.  The problem is, you Leftwats throw around words like "equality" while working steadfastly against any such notion.  It's one of the many buzzwords utilized for your perverted agenda to destroy equality.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our kids are fine and we're having them whether we're married or not. We're also marrying whether we have kids are not...just like straight folks.
> 
> Some of us DO have children. Gays are having children exactly like straights do....adoption, artificial insemination, IVF, divorce.
> 
> Someone explain why our families, whether with or without children, are less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges associated with civil marriage than straight families (with or without children)? What is your reasonable person standard you use to justify discriminating against our loving partnerships?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I believe that kids should be brought up with a man and a woman as the parents.  I think that nature devised a plan that has worked since the dawn of humankind, and I believe that kids bought up in a one gender household miss out on the guidance of the other gender.
Click to expand...

It doesn't fucking matter, it's not about the children.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> And when boys who "think they're a girl" can go into a school restroom with teenage girls, we're not talking about equality, we're talking about an extreme minority forcing everyone else to accomodate them.  The problem is, you Leftwats throw around words like "equality" while working steadfastly against any such notion.  It's one of the many buzzwords utilized for your perverted agenda to destroy equality.


This, utter nonsense.  No wonder you're Catholic, you can't fucking think.  Just another dumb drunk Indian still stuck on the Rez, another fine American tradition.


----------



## Seawytch

PaintMyHouse said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> gay parents will be more likely to sex. abuse, as they were sex. abused themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any unbiased sources that prove this claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's plenty of bias in all the sources that try to deny that gays abusing children is a problem.  Let's not pretend that your sources are unbiased.  The Family Research Council is one of the few groups willing to address the problem and not pretend it doesn't exist.  They cite references for all their claims and they approach the issue scientifically. Since there are no unbiased sources anywhere on this issue, we have to go by who has an interest in protecting the reputation of the gay community no matter what as opposed to who has an interest in protecting children by highlighting venues where they are disproportionately exposed to abuse.
> 
> Facts are facts, no matter what site is showing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts are facts...but how you present them, or link, or the conclusions you attempt to draw or what you choose to omit is something entirely different and that is where bias comes in.
> 
> All facts aren't equal - conclusions that come out of a poorly done study can often be challanged.
> 
> There are more and less biased sources and sources with greater legitimacy than others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're forgetting that EVERYONE has an agenda.  Politically, if I wanted to get dirt on the Democrat party, I wouldn't go to the DNC website.  If there's anything impeachable about Democrats, it will be told by the enemies of the Democrats, not the Democrats themselves.
> 
> And so it goes with everything else.
> 
> The fact that so few are willing to explore the issue of gays abusing children is a demonstration of how the gay mafia has silenced all opposition so that the only ones willing to expose the unflattering aspects of gay culture are those who are opposed to that culture to begin with.  There's no scandal here.  The FRC has done their due diligence. They have citations for all their claims. Go to the site and see for yourself.  Rationally they cannot be dismissed just because they have a low opinion of homosexuality to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't fucking matter, it's not about the children.
Click to expand...



Ah, but that's not entirely true. Justice Kennedy brought up "the children":

_"DOMA humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives."_


----------



## Carib Gyal

PaintMyHouse said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is true that marriage can be defined and redefined by society or opinion (and it is true), then it can continually be redefined again and again.
> 
> Therefore, what you believe marriage is or isn't today, can be changed again in a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, but we generally go forward towards equality, not backwards towards tradition, in this case, homophobic tradition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a cycle. When you wrote the Constitution you were much more open minded than people are today.
> 
> I'm saying, the very arguments you are using can and will be used against you in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Used against me?  Not a chance.  You forget, it's my country not yours, fucked up as it is.
Click to expand...

I'ze American. Just as much as you are.


----------



## 80zephyr

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is heterosexuality being shoved in your face?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the standard *you've* set, where the mere exist of gays in the media is homosexuality being 'shoved down your throat'?
> 
> Off the top of my head, the Bachelor and the Bachelorette. The Dating game. Any show that has straight people. Any mention of straight people in the media, news, press, or television.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical. 95% of the pop is straight. You act like the gayz should get half of the media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is my point.  They are pushy, "in your face" and want to flaunt themselves everywhere and I mean EVERYWHERE.  It's the way gays today think they're more important than anything else going on in this country, that their private lifestyle must be everyone's business, whether we like it or not.  And they continue to peacock their way into every TV show, professional sports, and every other venue of popularity.  And my question remains, what if Christians acted like this?  I'm sure we'd be considered insufferable assholes.  Amazing how that same standard doesn't apply to boorish gays.
Click to expand...


Michael Sam comes out, he's a "hero". Tebow kneels, people laugh.

Tebow's only mistake is he wasn't a gay Christian.

Mark


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our kids are fine and we're having them whether we're married or not. We're also marrying whether we have kids are not...just like straight folks.
> 
> Some of us DO have children. Gays are having children exactly like straights do....adoption, artificial insemination, IVF, divorce.
> 
> Someone explain why our families, whether with or without children, are less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges associated with civil marriage than straight families (with or without children)? What is your reasonable person standard you use to justify discriminating against our loving partnerships?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I believe that kids should be brought up with a man and a woman as the parents.  I think that nature devised a plan that has worked since the dawn of humankind, and I believe that kids bought up in a one gender household miss out on the guidance of the other gender.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally I'm glad you don't get to make the rules about who gets to be parents or not. I don't think fundamentalist Christians should get to be parents...I've seen more than my share of kids fucked up by having Fundie Parents.
> 
> I'm glad I don't get to make the rules about who can be parents either.
> 
> That doesn't answer the question though...try again. What reasonable person standard to you use to deny our family the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
Click to expand...

Isn't that the same as our belief that kids are "fucked up" being raised by queers?  Do you have even one rational bone in your body?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Seawytch said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any unbiased sources that prove this claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's plenty of bias in all the sources that try to deny that gays abusing children is a problem.  Let's not pretend that your sources are unbiased.  The Family Research Council is one of the few groups willing to address the problem and not pretend it doesn't exist.  They cite references for all their claims and they approach the issue scientifically. Since there are no unbiased sources anywhere on this issue, we have to go by who has an interest in protecting the reputation of the gay community no matter what as opposed to who has an interest in protecting children by highlighting venues where they are disproportionately exposed to abuse.
> 
> Facts are facts, no matter what site is showing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts are facts...but how you present them, or link, or the conclusions you attempt to draw or what you choose to omit is something entirely different and that is where bias comes in.
> 
> All facts aren't equal - conclusions that come out of a poorly done study can often be challanged.
> 
> There are more and less biased sources and sources with greater legitimacy than others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're forgetting that EVERYONE has an agenda.  Politically, if I wanted to get dirt on the Democrat party, I wouldn't go to the DNC website.  If there's anything impeachable about Democrats, it will be told by the enemies of the Democrats, not the Democrats themselves.
> 
> And so it goes with everything else.
> 
> The fact that so few are willing to explore the issue of gays abusing children is a demonstration of how the gay mafia has silenced all opposition so that the only ones willing to expose the unflattering aspects of gay culture are those who are opposed to that culture to begin with.  There's no scandal here.  The FRC has done their due diligence. They have citations for all their claims. Go to the site and see for yourself.  Rationally they cannot be dismissed just because they have a low opinion of homosexuality to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't fucking matter, it's not about the children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but that's not entirely true. Justice Kennedy brought up "the children":
> 
> _"DOMA humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives."_
Click to expand...

Yes he did, and it still doesn't matter.


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't, but you need them to because otherwise you are just another run-of-the-mill faggot hater.  It's all about the children you say, only it isn't, it's about your fear of the dreaded "others"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i don't fear the gayz, *only for the children who grow up confused and pressured to be gay* when they are straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny thing that, it doesn't seem to be the case.  Loving parents accept what their children are.
> 
> Gay Parents As Good As Straight Ones BU Today Boston University
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gay parents will be more likely to sex. abuse, as they were sex. abused themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any unbiased sources that prove this claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's plenty of bias in all the sources that try to deny that gays abusing children is a problem.
Click to expand...


No, there hasn't. You're offering us anecdotal examples as evidence of a larger trend. But you can't factually establish the larger trend. Argument by Anecdote is a logical fallacy for a reason. And that fallacy is the beating heart of your argument.



> Let's not pretend that your sources are unbiased.  The Family Research Council is one of the few groups willing to address the problem and not pretend it doesn't exist.



The Family Research Council does what you do: they begin with a conclusion and then cherry pick what they believe supports that position. Where as credible studies begin with no conclusion and doesn't ignore results that contradict their hypothesis. 

For example, do you think the Family Research Council would *ever* release results that indicated that gay and lesbian parents do as good a job of raising their families as straights, if that's what the evidence indicated? Of course not. How do we know? They already ignore and omit from mention the legion of research that shows the same. 



> They cite references for all their claims and they approach the issue scientifically.



No, they don't. As they omit any results that don't meet their predefined position. The numerous studies that contradict them are never, ever mentioned. That's called cherry picking. Its a fallacy of logic and the antithesiss of the scientific method. As you only accept those results that affirm your hypothesis. And ignore all others. *Giving you what is known among the world of science a 'confirmation bias'.*

Which are notoriously inaccurate and unreliable. 



> Since there are no unbiased sources anywhere on this issue, we have to go by who has an interest in protecting the reputation of the gay community no matter what as opposed to who has an interest in protecting children by highlighting venues where they are disproportionately exposed to abuse.



The Family Research Council is an organization dedicated to the promotion of their perspective on family. Which doens't include gays. You're equating that with say, the American Psychiatric Association, which has no such bias. 

Worse, the FRC spins data to a ridiculous degree. Take the way they reached their stats on homosexuals and child abuse of roughly 30%. They counted every act of sexual abuse against a male child by a man as an attack by an homosexual. Even when 75% of these men were heterosexuals involved in a sexual relationship with that child's mother or female relative. With more than 99% of child abusers self identifying as heterosexual.

That's ridiculous. A heterosexual is defined as someone who is sexually attracted to women. Which 3 in 4 abusers of boys demonstratably are, as proven by their sexual relationships with women. And which 99% indicate they are. 

Yet the FRC ignored all of that and simply imagined that any male abuser of a child is a male abuser. Even when the very report they were citing draws a HUGE distinction between homosexual pedophiles and homosexual adults, explicitly indicating they are not the same.* That's spectacularly dishonest. *Which is why no credible social scientists take the FRC seriously.

But you do...because they say what you want to believe. That's confirmation bias squared.



> Facts are facts, no matter what site is showing them.



Alas, cherry picking doesn't provide you with a reliable data set, as you ignore anything that doesn't ape what you already believe. And as demonstrated by the FRC's gross and intentional misrepresentation of the sexual abuse numbers, what you're being fed aren't facts.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is heterosexuality being shoved in your face?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the standard *you've* set, where the mere exist of gays in the media is homosexuality being 'shoved down your throat'?
> 
> Off the top of my head, the Bachelor and the Bachelorette. The Dating game. Any show that has straight people. Any mention of straight people in the media, news, press, or television.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical. 95% of the pop is straight. You act like the gayz should get half of the media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is my point.  They are pushy, "in your face" and want to flaunt themselves everywhere and I mean EVERYWHERE.  It's the way gays today think they're more important than anything else going on in this country, that their private lifestyle must be everyone's business, whether we like it or not.  And they continue to peacock their way into every TV show, professional sports, and every other venue of popularity.  And my question remains, what if Christians acted like this?  I'm sure we'd be considered insufferable assholes.  Amazing how that same standard doesn't apply to boorish gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Michael Sam comes out, he's a "hero". Tebow kneels, people laugh.
> 
> Tebow's only mistake is he wasn't a gay Christian.
Click to expand...

Tebow's mistake is he's a theocratic jerk who doesn't realize that God has better things to do than help him be the top dog in a fucking game!


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Gay "Agenda" is equality. Your "agenda" is to deny that equality based on nothing but animus. Tell me how that's worked out through history?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  Every activist group claims they want "equality" feminists, black race hustlers, etc.  But what you want isn't equality, it's superiority.
> 
> Case in point. During the 1990's feminist groups lobbied the military to allow women the choice of whether to go to combat or not.  Does this make them equal to men? Not when you consider that men have no choice, when they're deployed, they go. And every Army soldier is at the very least an 11Bravo no matter what their specialty is and can be deployed into direct combat at the pleasure of the DOD.
> 
> And when boys who "think they're a girl" can go into a school restroom with teenage girls, we're not talking about equality, we're talking about an extreme minority forcing everyone else to accomodate them.  The problem is, you Leftwats throw around words like "equality" while working steadfastly against any such notion.  It's one of the many buzzwords utilized for your perverted agenda to destroy equality.
Click to expand...


Man, you're really hung up on this bathroom thing aren't you? Try getting to know a transgendered kid...TALK to them. A transgendered kid wants to use the bathroom of the gender they feel they ARE. Nobody is harmed in allowing them. In fact, there is more harm in preventing them. 

Gays want equal treatment under the law. You're bringing up unrelated strawmen does not change that fact. I want my civil marriage treated exactly like your civil marriage is. That's not a difficult concept to grasp. You have to come up with a societal harm in allowing me equal treatment under the law. You can't...which is why anti gay marriage laws keep getting struck down.


----------



## Coyote

80zephyr said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can always find examples of pedo abuse among both hetero and homo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet in the short time that gay couples have been adopting, *several of these horror stories have popped up*. Statistics are already coming out indicating that a child is far more likely to be abused by a gay couple than their heterosexual counterparts. Since homo marriage and adoption are relatively new, the swift manner in which these horror stories are popping up doesn't set a promising trend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they do, because adoption by gay couples is in the public light.  Yet look at all the horror stories about adoption by hetero couples.  All it says is you will have bad players in both groups and there needs to be some means of weeding them out.
> 
> What statistics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals represent less than 3% but are involved in nearly 1/3 of all sex abuse cases against children
> 
> MALE HOMOSEXUALS COMMIT A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF CHILD SEX ABUSE CASES
> Homosexual apologists admit that some homosexuals sexually molest children, but they deny that homosexuals are more likely to commit such offenses. After all, they argue, the majority of child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature. While this is correct in terms of absolute numbers, this argument ignores the fact that homosexuals comprise only a very small percentage of the population.
> 
> The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. To demonstrate this it is necessary to connect several statistics related to the problem of child sex abuse: 1) men are almost always the perpetrator; 2) up to one-third or more of child sex abuse cases are committed against boys; 3) less than three percent of the population are homosexuals. Thus, a tiny percentage of the population (homosexual men), commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation.
> 
> Men Account for Almost All Sexual Abuse of Children Cases
> An essay on adult sex offenders in the book _Sexual Offending Against Children _reported:"It is widely believed that the vast majority of sexual abuse is perpetrated by males and that female sex offenders only account for a tiny proportion of offences. Indeed, with 3,000 adult male sex offenders in prison in England and Wales at any one time, the corresponding figure for female sex offenders is 12!"[1]
> 
> Family Research Council
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Family Research Council?  Seriously?
> 
> First of all - Pedophilia, if that is what you are referring to - is it's own category.  Offenders are neither hetero nor homo but are attracted to prebuscent children and do not typically have or are able to sustain normal relationships with adults.
> 
> Second of all - "Men Account for Almost All Sexual Abuse of Children Cases" - well...sounds like you are making an argument that adoption should be limited to single women or lesbian couples only then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is pedophilia in its own category? Could it be that the left needs it to be, otherwise it would shed a bad light on the gays?
Click to expand...


It has nothing to do with "left" or "right" but what is, not what you wish is.

Pedophilia - TIME

It s Not About Homosexuality Blaming the Wrong People for the Sexual Abuse Crisis Rev. James Martin S.J.

Pedophilia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation
_Another problem related to terminology arises because sexual abuse of male children by adult men*2* is often referred to as "homosexual molestation." The adjective "homosexual" (or "heterosexual" when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim's gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. *Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator's sexual orientation. *

 As an expert panel of researchers convened by the National Academy of Sciences noted in a 1993 report: "The distinction between homosexual and heterosexual child molesters relies on the premise that male molesters of male victims are homosexual in orientation. *Most molesters of boys do not report sexual interest in adult men, however" *(National Research Council, 1993, p. 143, citation omitted)... _​
_... Some conservative groups have argued that scientific research strongly supports their claims that homosexuality and pedophilia are linked. The Family Research Council has produced what is perhaps the most extensive attempt to document this claim. It is an article by Timothy J. Dailey titled Homosexuality and Child Abuse. 

 With 76 footnotes, many of them referring to papers in scientific journals, it appears at first glance to be a thorough and scholarly discussion of the issue. *On further examination, however, its central argument – that "the evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls" – doesn't hold up. *_​



> Why should I believe you when you say its a separate category? Why is it that many pedophiles will ONLY attacks boys and not girls?



First question - it's not me that says it's a seperate category, it's the psychiatric profession, those who specialize in child sexual abuse, and other professionals.



> I reject your "category" classification. Logic and reality tell me it has no basis in fact.
> 
> Mark



That's certainly your option but it goes against scientific research.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Carib Gyal said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is true that marriage can be defined and redefined by society or opinion (and it is true), then it can continually be redefined again and again.
> 
> Therefore, what you believe marriage is or isn't today, can be changed again in a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, but we generally go forward towards equality, not backwards towards tradition, in this case, homophobic tradition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a cycle. When you wrote the Constitution you were much more open minded than people are today.
> 
> I'm saying, the very arguments you are using can and will be used against you in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Used against me?  Not a chance.  You forget, it's my country not yours, fucked up as it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'ze American. Just as much as you are.
Click to expand...

No, actually you aren't.  You have legal standing of an American, that's all.


----------



## 80zephyr

Seawytch said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> Legally they are the same thing, what is the compelling state interest?  Oh, we don't have one.  Well, that's into the can then.
> 
> And stop signing your name.  It's annoying and nobody gives a fuck whether you live or die let alone what your goddamned name is.  This isn't a letter to mommy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The states compelling interest in to deal in reality, not cave to a whimsical whim of the electorate. Two men can never be married, no matter how much they wish they could be. That the government would try to change biological law to fit our wishes is insane.
> 
> Might as well call a man and a tree married. It won't make them so.
> 
> Oh, by the way, my name is...
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Two men are marrying...probably as we speak and your *opinion *on the matter does not change the *reality*. Denying reality does not make that reality go away...it just makes you delusional.
Click to expand...


Of course, they can legally marry. Biologically, can't happen. And, by society now calling them "married" doesn't make them so. Only the delusion that if it is legal makes it marriage does.

Mark


----------



## Iceweasel

Seawytch said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be it the right to marry, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to speech......*rights trump the State's powers to abrogate them. *
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the Constitutional right to marry? Why do you guys make shit up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution is your right to interstate travel? Do you believe the only rights you have are expressly enumerated in the Constitution? If so, your education fell short. Google "Fundamental Rights" and then Google:
> 
> Loving v Virginia, Turner v Safely and Zablocki v Wisconsin.
> 
> Then get back to us if you still have questions.
Click to expand...

I'll get back to you right now, and I prefer a different search engine thankyouverymuch. You are the ill informed one here so you go google it.

The Constitution puts restrictions on government, there is nothing in the Constitution to restrict my travel. It's a right unless there's a reason, and there are public areas I can't go or am limited to some degree when I get there. And that has exactly what to do with two homosexuals mimicking marriage? States can define marriage how they want as long as it doesn't interfere with a Constitutional right, like a black man being treated differently than a white man. 

Race, gender and religion ARE Constitutionally protected from government treating them differently. Now, go find sexual relationships or sexual preference in the Constitution and get back to us.


----------



## Carib Gyal

PaintMyHouse said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is true that marriage can be defined and redefined by society or opinion (and it is true), then it can continually be redefined again and again.
> 
> Therefore, what you believe marriage is or isn't today, can be changed again in a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, but we generally go forward towards equality, not backwards towards tradition, in this case, homophobic tradition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a cycle. When you wrote the Constitution you were much more open minded than people are today.
> 
> I'm saying, the very arguments you are using can and will be used against you in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Used against me?  Not a chance.  You forget, it's my country not yours, fucked up as it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'ze American. Just as much as you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, actually you aren't.  You have legal standing of an American, that's all.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am. I have the same rights as someone who thinks Americans and all of humanity are a disease and should be wiped off the face of the Earth.


----------



## Coyote

80zephyr said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing that, it doesn't seem to be the case.  Loving parents accept what their children are.
> 
> Gay Parents As Good As Straight Ones BU Today Boston University
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gay parents will be more likely to sex. abuse, as they were sex. abused themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any unbiased sources that prove this claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's plenty of bias in all the sources that try to deny that gays abusing children is a problem.  Let's not pretend that your sources are unbiased.  The Family Research Council is one of the few groups willing to address the problem and not pretend it doesn't exist.  They cite references for all their claims and they approach the issue scientifically. Since there are no unbiased sources anywhere on this issue, we have to go by who has an interest in protecting the reputation of the gay community no matter what as opposed to who has an interest in protecting children by highlighting venues where they are disproportionately exposed to abuse.
> 
> Facts are facts, no matter what site is showing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts are facts...but how you present them, or link, or the conclusions you attempt to draw or what you choose to omit is something entirely different and that is where bias comes in.
> 
> All facts aren't equal - conclusions that come out of a poorly done study can often be challanged.
> 
> There are more and less biased sources and sources with greater legitimacy than others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Unless every subject can be observed 24/7, the claim is ALWAYS made that a study is poorly done.* As a matter of fact, I find it funny that the left views science as a solid science, unless it disagrees with a result. Then the scientist is an idiot.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Not at all.  There is a lot that goes in to a well done study vs. a poorly done study - sample size, accounting for variables, etc etc.


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our kids are fine and we're having them whether we're married or not. We're also marrying whether we have kids are not...just like straight folks.
> 
> Some of us DO have children. Gays are having children exactly like straights do....adoption, artificial insemination, IVF, divorce.
> 
> Someone explain why our families, whether with or without children, are less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges associated with civil marriage than straight families (with or without children)? What is your reasonable person standard you use to justify discriminating against our loving partnerships?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I believe that kids should be brought up with a man and a woman as the parents.  I think that nature devised a plan that has worked since the dawn of humankind, and I believe that kids bought up in a one gender household miss out on the guidance of the other gender.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally I'm glad you don't get to make the rules about who gets to be parents or not. I don't think fundamentalist Christians should get to be parents...I've seen more than my share of kids fucked up by having Fundie Parents.
> 
> I'm glad I don't get to make the rules about who can be parents either.
> 
> That doesn't answer the question though...try again. What reasonable person standard to you use to deny our family the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't that the same as our belief that kids are "fucked up" being raised by queers?  Do you have even one rational bone in your body?
Click to expand...



Whhhhoooooossssshhhhhh, right over your fucking head. 

See, here's the actual difference. I don't really want to keep you from having kids, it was a joke. You, on the other hand are not joking, you would like to have prevented me from having kids and maybe would even support taking our kids away from us. And despite the fact that I think Fundies are terrible, reprehensible people, I don't want to keep you from civilly marrying each other either. Get the distinction?


----------



## Iceweasel

Seawytch said:


> That doesn't answer the question though...try again. What reasonable person standard to you use to deny our family the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?


What standard do you use to oppose three, four or ten people getting married? Like most of you dimwits, you just want your preferences remedied and the hell with anyone else.


----------



## Seawytch

Iceweasel said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be it the right to marry, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to speech......*rights trump the State's powers to abrogate them. *
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the Constitutional right to marry? Why do you guys make shit up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution is your right to interstate travel? Do you believe the only rights you have are expressly enumerated in the Constitution? If so, your education fell short. Google "Fundamental Rights" and then Google:
> 
> Loving v Virginia, Turner v Safely and Zablocki v Wisconsin.
> 
> Then get back to us if you still have questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll get back to you right now, and I prefer a different search engine thankyouverymuch. You are the ill informed one here so you go google it.
> 
> The Constitution puts restrictions on government, there is nothing in the Constitution to restrict my travel. It's a right unless there's a reason, and there are public areas I can't go or am limited to some degree when I get there. And that has exactly what to do with two homosexuals mimicking marriage? States can define marriage how they want as long as it doesn't interfere with a Constitutional right, like a black man being treated differently than a white man.
> 
> Race, gender and religion ARE Constitutionally protected from government treating them differently. Now, go find sexual relationships or sexual preference in the Constitution and get back to us.
Click to expand...


Deflection...use whatever search engine you like, but do get back to us after you looked up Fundamental Rights and those cases I cited. If you're still confused, we can discuss.


----------



## 80zephyr

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well.  If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.
> 
> And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me.  I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture.  Double standard perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.
> 
> What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
> 
> Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are gender and race different when it comes to the discrimination experienced?
> 
> Can you name a state or locality that prohibits civil marriage on an inability to procreate? Can you name a single person in the history of history that was denied a civil marriage license because of an inability or unwillingness to procreate? Are you aware that there are over a million children living in same sex homes?
> 
> I'm sorry but saying "been there done that" does not excuse your wishing to put an arbitrary restriction on gay couples that is not put on straight couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not arbitrary restrictions.  Children have always been adopted only by families that meet a certain criteria, that provide the maximum benefit to the child.  Child protection services being picky about who gets to adopt children has never been called into question before the rainbow brigade decided they wanted to complete their picture of "marriage" by bringing kids into their insane, kooky world. Every gay cohabitation home is insufficient when compared to a mother father home because it intentionally OMITS a mother or a father.  If they're even on the list of potential adoption candidates, they should be dead last.  But instead, true to their evil, Leftist form, they are insisting on affirmative action, so they can gain preference over homes that the children benefit from more.
> 
> How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Saying that gays who cannot procreate with each other cannot marry but sterile or infertile couples that cannot procreate with each other do get to get married is setting an arbitrary standard.
> 
> Children still are being adopted by families that meet a certain criteria...and being gay does not preclude you in most states.
> 
> You have your opinion on children and gays, but it is just your opinion and is not supported by facts and evidence. The facts are that our children are at no disadvantage to yours and studies show that gender is only a factor in parenting in one area...and I guarantee you won't be able to guess what it is.
Click to expand...


Any "study" that says kids don't suffer from having a man and a woman as parents is wrong. And I really don't care who wrote it.

Mark


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Carib Gyal said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, but we generally go forward towards equality, not backwards towards tradition, in this case, homophobic tradition.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a cycle. When you wrote the Constitution you were much more open minded than people are today.
> 
> I'm saying, the very arguments you are using can and will be used against you in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Used against me?  Not a chance.  You forget, it's my country not yours, fucked up as it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'ze American. Just as much as you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, actually you aren't.  You have legal standing of an American, that's all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I am. I have the same rights as someone who thinks Americans and all of humanity are a disease and should be wiped off the face of the Earth.
Click to expand...

As I said, you have the legal standing but you aren't an American.  This nation wasn't founded for the pitchforks who take their guns to the Wal-Mart so they can play John Wayne.


----------



## Seawytch

Iceweasel said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't answer the question though...try again. What reasonable person standard to you use to deny our family the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
> 
> 
> 
> What standard do you use to oppose three, four or ten people getting married? Like most of you dimwits, you just want your preferences remedied and the hell with anyone else.
Click to expand...


Current law does not allow for more than a non familial consenting adult couple marrying. If you would like to change that, I wish you luck. Hurry before Julie Andrews remarries.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Can anyone answer how long you little faggot-haters are going to keep pissing into the wind while your society leaves you in the past?


----------



## Carib Gyal

PaintMyHouse said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a cycle. When you wrote the Constitution you were much more open minded than people are today.
> 
> I'm saying, the very arguments you are using can and will be used against you in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> Used against me?  Not a chance.  You forget, it's my country not yours, fucked up as it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'ze American. Just as much as you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, actually you aren't.  You have legal standing of an American, that's all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I am. I have the same rights as someone who thinks Americans and all of humanity are a disease and should be wiped off the face of the Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said, you have the legal standing but you aren't an American.  This nation wasn't founded for the pitchforks who take their guns to the Wal-Mart so they can play John Wayne.
Click to expand...

Nor was it founded for the AIDS butts who think all of humanity should perish.


----------



## Seawytch

80zephyr said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.
> 
> What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
> 
> Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are gender and race different when it comes to the discrimination experienced?
> 
> Can you name a state or locality that prohibits civil marriage on an inability to procreate? Can you name a single person in the history of history that was denied a civil marriage license because of an inability or unwillingness to procreate? Are you aware that there are over a million children living in same sex homes?
> 
> I'm sorry but saying "been there done that" does not excuse your wishing to put an arbitrary restriction on gay couples that is not put on straight couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not arbitrary restrictions.  Children have always been adopted only by families that meet a certain criteria, that provide the maximum benefit to the child.  Child protection services being picky about who gets to adopt children has never been called into question before the rainbow brigade decided they wanted to complete their picture of "marriage" by bringing kids into their insane, kooky world. Every gay cohabitation home is insufficient when compared to a mother father home because it intentionally OMITS a mother or a father.  If they're even on the list of potential adoption candidates, they should be dead last.  But instead, true to their evil, Leftist form, they are insisting on affirmative action, so they can gain preference over homes that the children benefit from more.
> 
> How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Saying that gays who cannot procreate with each other cannot marry but sterile or infertile couples that cannot procreate with each other do get to get married is setting an arbitrary standard.
> 
> Children still are being adopted by families that meet a certain criteria...and being gay does not preclude you in most states.
> 
> You have your opinion on children and gays, but it is just your opinion and is not supported by facts and evidence. The facts are that our children are at no disadvantage to yours and studies show that gender is only a factor in parenting in one area...and I guarantee you won't be able to guess what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any "study" that says kids don't suffer from having a man and a woman as parents is wrong. And I really don't care who wrote it.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...



Gotcha. You have your opinion, facts don't matter. Good to know.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Gay "Agenda" is equality. Your "agenda" is to deny that equality based on nothing but animus. Tell me how that's worked out through history?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  Every activist group claims they want "equality" feminists, black race hustlers, etc.  But what you want isn't equality, it's superiority.
> 
> Case in point. During the 1990's feminist groups lobbied the military to allow women the choice of whether to go to combat or not.  Does this make them equal to men? Not when you consider that men have no choice, when they're deployed, they go. And every Army soldier is at the very least an 11Bravo no matter what their specialty is and can be deployed into direct combat at the pleasure of the DOD.
> 
> And when boys who "think they're a girl" can go into a school restroom with teenage girls, we're not talking about equality, we're talking about an extreme minority forcing everyone else to accomodate them.  The problem is, you Leftwats throw around words like "equality" while working steadfastly against any such notion.  It's one of the many buzzwords utilized for your perverted agenda to destroy equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man, you're really hung up on this bathroom thing aren't you? Try getting to know a transgendered kid...TALK to them. A transgendered kid wants to use the bathroom of the gender they feel they ARE. Nobody is harmed in allowing them. In fact, there is more harm in preventing them.
> 
> 
> Gays want equal treatment under the law. You're bringing up unrelated strawmen does not change that fact. I want my civil marriage treated exactly like your civil marriage is. That's not a difficult concept to grasp. You have to come up with a societal harm in allowing me equal treatment under the law. You can't...which is why anti gay marriage laws keep getting struck down.
Click to expand...


Hung up?  I have a daughter. And I have 3 sons I'm teaching to protect their sister for her entire life.  Let's not lightly put aside the fact that California's law allows any boy who suddenly feels like a girl to use the girl's restroom.  He doesn't even have to act or dress like a girl.  

And it's surprising that I have to explain this to a woman, but apparently you're not like most women.  Ladies' restrooms are sanctuaries, a place where women can get away and find respite among other women.  Put a man in a woman's restroom and many women will feel uncomfortable...and rightly so.  Common sense says that men should use the men's restroom and women the women's restroom regardless of what gender you feel that day.  And speaking of "no harm being done" what harm is there in insisting that a boy use the boys' restroom?  NONE!

All of which underscores my argument that what you people are pushing for is NOT equality, but the domination of your sick, evil, depraved ideologies.

And like I said in the OP, on behalf of America, F*** you.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
> 
> Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are gender and race different when it comes to the discrimination experienced?
> 
> Can you name a state or locality that prohibits civil marriage on an inability to procreate? Can you name a single person in the history of history that was denied a civil marriage license because of an inability or unwillingness to procreate? Are you aware that there are over a million children living in same sex homes?
> 
> I'm sorry but saying "been there done that" does not excuse your wishing to put an arbitrary restriction on gay couples that is not put on straight couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not arbitrary restrictions.  Children have always been adopted only by families that meet a certain criteria, that provide the maximum benefit to the child.  Child protection services being picky about who gets to adopt children has never been called into question before the rainbow brigade decided they wanted to complete their picture of "marriage" by bringing kids into their insane, kooky world. Every gay cohabitation home is insufficient when compared to a mother father home because it intentionally OMITS a mother or a father.  If they're even on the list of potential adoption candidates, they should be dead last.  But instead, true to their evil, Leftist form, they are insisting on affirmative action, so they can gain preference over homes that the children benefit from more.
> 
> How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Saying that gays who cannot procreate with each other cannot marry but sterile or infertile couples that cannot procreate with each other do get to get married is setting an arbitrary standard.
> 
> Children still are being adopted by families that meet a certain criteria...and being gay does not preclude you in most states.
> 
> You have your opinion on children and gays, but it is just your opinion and is not supported by facts and evidence. The facts are that our children are at no disadvantage to yours and studies show that gender is only a factor in parenting in one area...and I guarantee you won't be able to guess what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any "study" that says kids don't suffer from having a man and a woman as parents is wrong. And I really don't care who wrote it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha. You have your opinion, facts don't matter. Good to know.
Click to expand...


This coming from the "facts don't matter" Ferguson Left.


----------



## Seawytch

Happy New Year all...my kids are up and want waffles.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Gay "Agenda" is equality. Your "agenda" is to deny that equality based on nothing but animus. Tell me how that's worked out through history?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  Every activist group claims they want "equality" feminists, black race hustlers, etc.  But what you want isn't equality, it's superiority.
> 
> Case in point. During the 1990's feminist groups lobbied the military to allow women the choice of whether to go to combat or not.  Does this make them equal to men? Not when you consider that men have no choice, when they're deployed, they go. And every Army soldier is at the very least an 11Bravo no matter what their specialty is and can be deployed into direct combat at the pleasure of the DOD.
> 
> And when boys who "think they're a girl" can go into a school restroom with teenage girls, we're not talking about equality, we're talking about an extreme minority forcing everyone else to accomodate them.  The problem is, you Leftwats throw around words like "equality" while working steadfastly against any such notion.  It's one of the many buzzwords utilized for your perverted agenda to destroy equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man, you're really hung up on this bathroom thing aren't you? Try getting to know a transgendered kid...TALK to them. A transgendered kid wants to use the bathroom of the gender they feel they ARE. Nobody is harmed in allowing them. In fact, there is more harm in preventing them.
> 
> 
> Gays want equal treatment under the law. You're bringing up unrelated strawmen does not change that fact. I want my civil marriage treated exactly like your civil marriage is. That's not a difficult concept to grasp. You have to come up with a societal harm in allowing me equal treatment under the law. You can't...which is why anti gay marriage laws keep getting struck down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hung up?  I have a daughter. And I have 3 sons I'm teaching to protect their sister for her entire life.  Let's not lightly put aside the fact that California's law allows any boy who suddenly feels like a girl to use the girl's restroom.  He doesn't even have to act or dress like a girl.
> 
> And it's surprising that I have to explain this to a woman, but apparently you're not like most women.  Ladies' restrooms are sanctuaries, a place where women can get away and find respite among other women.  Put a man in a woman's restroom and many women will feel uncomfortable...and rightly so.  Common sense says that men should use the men's restroom and women the women's restroom regardless of what gender you feel that day.  And speaking of "no harm being done" what harm is there in insisting that a boy use the boys' restroom?  NONE!
> 
> All of which underscores my argument that what you people are pushing for is NOT equality, but the domination of your sick, evil, depraved ideologies.
> 
> And like I said in the OP, on behalf of America, F*** you.
Click to expand...

Damn drunk Indian, and just as fucking dumb.  Go play the half-breeds Father McTouchYou


----------



## Skylar

Iceweasel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be it the right to marry, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to speech......*rights trump the State's powers to abrogate them. *
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the Constitutional right to marry? Why do you guys make shit up?
Click to expand...


Please read the 9th amendment.


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet in the short time that gay couples have been adopting, *several of these horror stories have popped up*. Statistics are already coming out indicating that a child is far more likely to be abused by a gay couple than their heterosexual counterparts. Since homo marriage and adoption are relatively new, the swift manner in which these horror stories are popping up doesn't set a promising trend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they do, because adoption by gay couples is in the public light.  Yet look at all the horror stories about adoption by hetero couples.  All it says is you will have bad players in both groups and there needs to be some means of weeding them out.
> 
> What statistics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals represent less than 3% but are involved in nearly 1/3 of all sex abuse cases against children
> 
> MALE HOMOSEXUALS COMMIT A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF CHILD SEX ABUSE CASES
> Homosexual apologists admit that some homosexuals sexually molest children, but they deny that homosexuals are more likely to commit such offenses. After all, they argue, the majority of child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature. While this is correct in terms of absolute numbers, this argument ignores the fact that homosexuals comprise only a very small percentage of the population.
> 
> The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. To demonstrate this it is necessary to connect several statistics related to the problem of child sex abuse: 1) men are almost always the perpetrator; 2) up to one-third or more of child sex abuse cases are committed against boys; 3) less than three percent of the population are homosexuals. Thus, a tiny percentage of the population (homosexual men), commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation.
> 
> Men Account for Almost All Sexual Abuse of Children Cases
> An essay on adult sex offenders in the book _Sexual Offending Against Children _reported:"It is widely believed that the vast majority of sexual abuse is perpetrated by males and that female sex offenders only account for a tiny proportion of offences. Indeed, with 3,000 adult male sex offenders in prison in England and Wales at any one time, the corresponding figure for female sex offenders is 12!"[1]
> 
> Family Research Council
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Family Research Council?  Seriously?
> 
> First of all - Pedophilia, if that is what you are referring to - is it's own category.  Offenders are neither hetero nor homo but are attracted to prebuscent children and do not typically have or are able to sustain normal relationships with adults.
> 
> Second of all - "Men Account for Almost All Sexual Abuse of Children Cases" - well...sounds like you are making an argument that adoption should be limited to single women or lesbian couples only then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is pedophilia in its own category? Could it be that the left needs it to be, otherwise it would shed a bad light on the gays?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with "left" or "right" but what is, not what you wish is.
> 
> Pedophilia - TIME
> 
> It s Not About Homosexuality Blaming the Wrong People for the Sexual Abuse Crisis Rev. James Martin S.J.
> 
> Pedophilia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation
> _Another problem related to terminology arises because sexual abuse of male children by adult men*2* is often referred to as "homosexual molestation." The adjective "homosexual" (or "heterosexual" when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim's gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. *Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator's sexual orientation. *
> 
> As an expert panel of researchers convened by the National Academy of Sciences noted in a 1993 report: "The distinction between homosexual and heterosexual child molesters relies on the premise that male molesters of male victims are homosexual in orientation. *Most molesters of boys do not report sexual interest in adult men, however" *(National Research Council, 1993, p. 143, citation omitted)... _​
> _... Some conservative groups have argued that scientific research strongly supports their claims that homosexuality and pedophilia are linked. The Family Research Council has produced what is perhaps the most extensive attempt to document this claim. It is an article by Timothy J. Dailey titled Homosexuality and Child Abuse.
> 
> With 76 footnotes, many of them referring to papers in scientific journals, it appears at first glance to be a thorough and scholarly discussion of the issue. *On further examination, however, its central argument – that "the evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls" – doesn't hold up. *_​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I believe you when you say its a separate category? Why is it that many pedophiles will ONLY attacks boys and not girls?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First question - it's not me that says it's a seperate category, it's the psychiatric profession, those who specialize in child sexual abuse, and other professionals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your "category" classification. Logic and reality tell me it has no basis in fact.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's certainly your option but it goes against scientific research.
Click to expand...


From your link:

*Most molesters of boys do not report sexual interest in adult men, however"*

And? It is apparent that they suffer from BOTH pedophilia and homosexuality. Why is an "adult" the litmus test for homosexuality? I have news for you, its not.

As to the "scientific research", I used to be a huge believer in science. Today, science is nothing more than a popularity contest.

Reality and logic have to replace it, until science reestablishes itself.

Mark


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our kids are fine and we're having them whether we're married or not. We're also marrying whether we have kids are not...just like straight folks.
> 
> Some of us DO have children. Gays are having children exactly like straights do....adoption, artificial insemination, IVF, divorce.
> 
> Someone explain why our families, whether with or without children, are less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges associated with civil marriage than straight families (with or without children)? What is your reasonable person standard you use to justify discriminating against our loving partnerships?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I believe that kids should be brought up with a man and a woman as the parents.  I think that nature devised a plan that has worked since the dawn of humankind, and I believe that kids bought up in a one gender household miss out on the guidance of the other gender.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Nature doesn't 'devise' shit. Nature focuses on reproduction. If you're reproductively viable, nature's requirements are met. How you reproduce, nature doesn't have much to say about.

We however, do. While rape is a reproductively viable method of passing on DNA, its also quite awful and denounced by most civilizations. While sex with reproductively viable children might be a viable method of passing on DNA, its fits the same bill as rape in most civilizations.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> Happy New Year all...my kids are up and want waffles.



To you too.  Not only did my 11 year old make it to midnight, but my 6 year old too.  It's cereal this morning because my wife and I got seriously WASTED last night after the kids went to bed.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  Doesn't however change the fact that insisting that marriage and it's legal benefits be limited only to mixed-gender couples violates the Constitutional premise of equal treatment under the law, which is what has struck down a multitude of state bans.
> 
> The other thing...the "hearts and minds" aspect...that is exactly what has been going on as well.  This wasn't pushed to the SC right off the bat - it has been going through state after state.  Polls show, overwelmingly - that support for same sex marriage has been growing with over 50% in favor.  To me, though - that's irrelevant because basic rights should never ever be determined by popular opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well.  If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.
> 
> And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me.  I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture.  Double standard perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.
> 
> What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
> 
> Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are gender and race different when it comes to the discrimination experienced?
> 
> Can you name a state or locality that prohibits civil marriage on an inability to procreate? Can you name a single person in the history of history that was denied a civil marriage license because of an inability or unwillingness to procreate? Are you aware that there are over a million children living in same sex homes?
> 
> I'm sorry but saying "been there done that" does not excuse your wishing to put an arbitrary restriction on gay couples that is not put on straight couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not arbitrary restrictions.  Children have always been adopted only by families that meet a certain criteria, that provide the maximum benefit to the child.  Child protection services being picky about who gets to adopt children has never been called into question before the rainbow brigade decided they wanted to complete their picture of "marriage" by bringing kids into their insane, kooky world. Every gay cohabitation home is insufficient when compared to a mother father home because it intentionally OMITS a mother or a father.  If they're even on the list of potential adoption candidates, they should be dead last.  But instead, true to their evil, Leftist form, they are insisting on affirmative action, so they can gain preference over homes that the children benefit from more.
> 
> How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?
Click to expand...

Which god is that?


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Gay "Agenda" is equality. Your "agenda" is to deny that equality based on nothing but animus. Tell me how that's worked out through history?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  Every activist group claims they want "equality" feminists, black race hustlers, etc.  But what you want isn't equality, it's superiority.
> 
> Case in point. During the 1990's feminist groups lobbied the military to allow women the choice of whether to go to combat or not.  Does this make them equal to men? Not when you consider that men have no choice, when they're deployed, they go. And every Army soldier is at the very least an 11Bravo no matter what their specialty is and can be deployed into direct combat at the pleasure of the DOD.
> 
> And when boys who "think they're a girl" can go into a school restroom with teenage girls, we're not talking about equality, we're talking about an extreme minority forcing everyone else to accomodate them.  The problem is, you Leftwats throw around words like "equality" while working steadfastly against any such notion.  It's one of the many buzzwords utilized for your perverted agenda to destroy equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man, you're really hung up on this bathroom thing aren't you? Try getting to know a transgendered kid...TALK to them. A transgendered kid wants to use the bathroom of the gender they feel they ARE. Nobody is harmed in allowing them. In fact, there is more harm in preventing them.
> 
> 
> Gays want equal treatment under the law. You're bringing up unrelated strawmen does not change that fact. I want my civil marriage treated exactly like your civil marriage is. That's not a difficult concept to grasp. You have to come up with a societal harm in allowing me equal treatment under the law. You can't...which is why anti gay marriage laws keep getting struck down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hung up?  I have a daughter. And I have 3 sons I'm teaching to protect their sister for her entire life.  Let's not lightly put aside the fact that California's law allows any boy who suddenly feels like a girl to use the girl's restroom.  He doesn't even have to act or dress like a girl.
> 
> And it's surprising that I have to explain this to a woman, but apparently you're not like most women.  Ladies' restrooms are sanctuaries, a place where women can get away and find respite among other women.  Put a man in a woman's restroom and many women will feel uncomfortable...and rightly so.  Common sense says that men should use the men's restroom and women the women's restroom regardless of what gender you feel that day.  And speaking of "no harm being done" what harm is there in insisting that a boy use the boys' restroom?  NONE!
> 
> All of which underscores my argument that what you people are pushing for is NOT equality, but the domination of your sick, evil, depraved ideologies.
> 
> And like I said in the OP, on behalf of America, F*** you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn drunk Indian, and just as fucking dumb.  Go play the half-breeds Father McTouchYou
Click to expand...


You are refreshing House. A leftist that actually says what he is thinking. So, you treat blacks and Hispanics like that to, you "enlightened progressive"?

Mark


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ImGoing2Heaven said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Sodom fell
> The Bible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sodom was destroyed, according to the angels, "because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah was great before the Lord".
> 
> Yes, amazing how militant, belligerent homosexuality is not new and people protested their unrelenting intrusion. And back then it was more than just obnoxiousness, gangs of homosexuality were attacking outlying towns and villages well beyond the cities.  They were a force of oppression.  As Ecclesiastes says, "there is nothing new under the sun" and it's true.  Gays in American and Europe today are well on track to being the very kind of people in the ancient cities who were destroyed by a righteous God to give reprieve to their neighbors in Southern Canaan.  There's a link that can't be denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how Christians have so mangled the allegory in that story in order to bash gays...especially when the "hero" of the story, Lott, offered up his virgin daughters to be raped by an angry mob, then he went and fucked those same daughters himself in the hills.
> 
> And gays get the bad rap out of that story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the reminder that the homosexual Canaanite culture was so decadent that offering up women as a commodity was a common way of settling differences. Oh, and by the way, Lots daughters got him drunk so they could have children by him.  Yes the culture is that depraved when pervasive homosexuality becomes dominant. I'm glad we agree.
Click to expand...

Ah...so it was the daughters' fault.


----------



## bodecea

ninja007 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical. 95% of the pop is straight. You act like the gayz should get half of the media.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is my point.  They are pushy, "in your face" and want to flaunt themselves everywhere and I mean EVERYWHERE.  It's the way gays today think they're more important than anything else going on in this country, that their private lifestyle must be everyone's business, whether we like it or not.  And they continue to peacock their way into every TV show, professional sports, and every other venue of popularity.  And my question remains, what if Christians acted like this?  I'm sure we'd be considered insufferable assholes.  Amazing how that same standard doesn't apply to boorish gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Far less so than heterosexuality. On the Bachelor, a guy makes out with a different girl every week. On Jersey Shore, there's a hook up every episode. *TV is filled with shows about heterosexual dating, *relationships, family, sex, etc. _Yet if a football player kisses is boyfriend for one second, homosexuality is 'pushed in your face' and 'pushy'?_
> 
> That's ludicriously inconsistent.
> 
> *You simply respond differently to the displays of heterosexuality than you do homosexuality.* And your personal enmity to gays doesn't translate into our dilemma. This is your issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thats because the gayz are only 3-4% of the pop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like Jews...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> being a Jew isn't a choice.
Click to expand...

Oh?  Since when?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Gay "Agenda" is equality. Your "agenda" is to deny that equality based on nothing but animus. Tell me how that's worked out through history?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  Every activist group claims they want "equality" feminists, black race hustlers, etc.  But what you want isn't equality, it's superiority.
> 
> Case in point. During the 1990's feminist groups lobbied the military to allow women the choice of whether to go to combat or not.  Does this make them equal to men? Not when you consider that men have no choice, when they're deployed, they go. And every Army soldier is at the very least an 11Bravo no matter what their specialty is and can be deployed into direct combat at the pleasure of the DOD.
> 
> And when boys who "think they're a girl" can go into a school restroom with teenage girls, we're not talking about equality, we're talking about an extreme minority forcing everyone else to accomodate them.  The problem is, you Leftwats throw around words like "equality" while working steadfastly against any such notion.  It's one of the many buzzwords utilized for your perverted agenda to destroy equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man, you're really hung up on this bathroom thing aren't you? Try getting to know a transgendered kid...TALK to them. A transgendered kid wants to use the bathroom of the gender they feel they ARE. Nobody is harmed in allowing them. In fact, there is more harm in preventing them.
> 
> 
> Gays want equal treatment under the law. You're bringing up unrelated strawmen does not change that fact. I want my civil marriage treated exactly like your civil marriage is. That's not a difficult concept to grasp. You have to come up with a societal harm in allowing me equal treatment under the law. You can't...which is why anti gay marriage laws keep getting struck down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hung up?  I have a daughter. And I have 3 sons I'm teaching to protect their sister for her entire life.  Let's not lightly put aside the fact that California's law allows any boy who suddenly feels like a girl to use the girl's restroom.  He doesn't even have to act or dress like a girl.
> 
> And it's surprising that I have to explain this to a woman, but apparently you're not like most women.  Ladies' restrooms are sanctuaries, a place where women can get away and find respite among other women.  Put a man in a woman's restroom and many women will feel uncomfortable...and rightly so.  Common sense says that men should use the men's restroom and women the women's restroom regardless of what gender you feel that day.  And speaking of "no harm being done" what harm is there in insisting that a boy use the boys' restroom?  NONE!
> 
> All of which underscores my argument that what you people are pushing for is NOT equality, but the domination of your sick, evil, depraved ideologies.
> 
> And like I said in the OP, on behalf of America, F*** you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn drunk Indian, and just as fucking dumb.  Go play the half-breeds Father McTouchYou
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are refreshing House. A leftist that actually says what he is thinking. So, you treat blacks and Hispanics like that to, you "enlightened progressive"?
Click to expand...

Americans are a dumb as dog shit, stupid ******* and wetbacks included.  And if you were around enough you'd know that Chief Sellout calls his kids half-breeds, and isn't concerned that not long ago the only good damn drunk Indian was a dead one.


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because marriage, by its very nature, is for reproduction. Now, we understand that people can marry without having children, but that it is the exception to the basis for the existence of marriage. That is doesn't happen every time doesn't change that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> That is entirely untrue, and it if were true, and it isn't, millions upon millions of people could not get married, and they can, as long as they are male and female, the only contract on the books that requires such a thing.
Click to expand...


No its not untrue. It is the logical building block of society. And "marriage" happened long before societies developed.

Mark


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree all you want. What I said is a fact. There is no discrimination in modern state marriage laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  What you said there is your opinion.  Same as me.
> 
> Welcome to America, Bub.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's where you are wrong. In realistic terms, there can not be discrimination when all people are treated the same.
> 
> If marriage is allowed only between one man and one woman, then EVERYONE lives under the same law. That is not an opinion. It is logic.
> 
> And you can disagree if you want, but logic says you are wrong.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

You know...the state of Virginia tried that same argument in Loving v. Virginia in front of the Supreme Court.  It got quite a laugh.


----------



## bodecea

ninja007 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.
> 
> What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
> 
> Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are gender and race different when it comes to the discrimination experienced?
> 
> Can you name a state or locality that prohibits civil marriage on an inability to procreate? Can you name a single person in the history of history that was denied a civil marriage license because of an inability or unwillingness to procreate? Are you aware that there are over a million children living in same sex homes?
> 
> I'm sorry but saying "been there done that" does not excuse your wishing to put an arbitrary restriction on gay couples that is not put on straight couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not arbitrary restrictions.  Children have always been adopted only by families that meet a certain criteria, that provide the maximum benefit to the child.  Child protection services being picky about who gets to adopt children has never been called into question before the rainbow brigade decided they wanted to complete their picture of "marriage" by bringing kids into their insane, kooky world. Every gay cohabitation home is insufficient when compared to a mother father home because it intentionally OMITS a mother or a father.  If they're even on the list of potential adoption candidates, they should be dead last.  But instead, true to their evil, Leftist form, they are insisting on affirmative action, so they can gain preference over homes that the children benefit from more.
> 
> How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Saying that gays who cannot procreate with each other cannot marry but sterile or infertile couples that cannot procreate with each other do get to get married is setting an arbitrary standard.
> 
> Children still are being adopted by families that meet a certain criteria...and being gay does not preclude you in most states.
> 
> You have your opinion on children and gays, but it is just your opinion and is not supported by facts and evidence. *The facts are that our children are at no disadvantage to yours* and studies show that gender is only a factor in parenting in one area...and I guarantee you won't be able to guess what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BS. Every (unbiased) study shows it is worse for children with gay parents.
Click to expand...

Ah...let's see those unbiased studies then.


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> And? It is apparent that they suffer from BOTH pedophilia and homosexuality. Why is an "adult" the litmus test for homosexuality? I have news for you, its not.



No it isn't. *Almost all sexual abusers self identify as heterosexual. *That means they are sexually attracted to women. With 3 in 4 being in a sexual relationship with the male child's mother or female relative. Demonstrating elegantly that one's sexual preference in children isn't necessarily related to one's sexual preference in adults.

Its apparent that the folks you have to watch out for if you want to prevent sexual abuse are heterosexual men. As they make up 99% of the abusers. *In fact, a child is more than 100 times more likely to be abused by a heterosexual male in a relationship with their mother or female relative than from a homosexual. *



> As to the "scientific research", I used to be a huge believer in science. Today, science is nothing more than a popularity contest.



That's anti-intellectual clap trap. You don't like the results of legions of studies that contradict you. So you apply an arbitrary label so you can ignore anything that doesn't fit into your beliefs. 

The obvious problem with that being that the validity of a study has absolutely nothing to do with its agreement with you.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

bodecea said:


> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is my point.  They are pushy, "in your face" and want to flaunt themselves everywhere and I mean EVERYWHERE.  It's the way gays today think they're more important than anything else going on in this country, that their private lifestyle must be everyone's business, whether we like it or not.  And they continue to peacock their way into every TV show, professional sports, and every other venue of popularity.  And my question remains, what if Christians acted like this?  I'm sure we'd be considered insufferable assholes.  Amazing how that same standard doesn't apply to boorish gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Far less so than heterosexuality. On the Bachelor, a guy makes out with a different girl every week. On Jersey Shore, there's a hook up every episode. *TV is filled with shows about heterosexual dating, *relationships, family, sex, etc. _Yet if a football player kisses is boyfriend for one second, homosexuality is 'pushed in your face' and 'pushy'?_
> 
> That's ludicriously inconsistent.
> 
> *You simply respond differently to the displays of heterosexuality than you do homosexuality.* And your personal enmity to gays doesn't translate into our dilemma. This is your issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thats because the gayz are only 3-4% of the pop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like Jews...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> being a Jew isn't a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh?  Since when?
Click to expand...

Since forever.  It's an ethnic religion in nearly all cases.  It is also does not seek converts which is why there are so few Jews in the world.


----------



## bodecea

ninja007 said:


> Analysis New Study Did Not Prove That Gay Parents Are Better


CP World.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Unfortunately perception of sexual orientation in child sex offenders is seriously skewed by the fact that many child predators disguise themselves in the legitimacy of marriage.  A lot of gay men and pederasts do this too.  But eventually their core sexual nature asserts itself and children are abused. 

Historically, the link between homosexuality and pederasty is far more conspicuous to the point that the "age of consent" is nothing more than a modern construct that in prior times was an unheard of concept.  Arranged marriages of prepubescent girls was common as well as throwing parties where boys are brought in to entertain the guests.  Part of the deterioration of Greek and Roman societies can be attributed to rampant pederasty.  The Catholic Church took its strongest stand against homosexuality and pederasty during those times, speaking out against the evil of their day.

The delusion among the perverted Left is this idea that the "age of consent" will hold sway against a waxing tide of lust and perversion.  It's just a line and it will be crossed repeatedly.  Soon it won't even be a line anymore and the "age of consent" will be a relic of history.  Such is the folly of acquiescence to unbridled perversion.


----------



## 80zephyr

Seawytch said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well.  If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.
> 
> And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me.  I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture.  Double standard perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.
> 
> What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
> 
> Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are gender and race different when it comes to the discrimination experienced?
> 
> Can you name a state or locality that prohibits civil marriage on an inability to procreate? Can you name a single person in the history of history that was denied a civil marriage license because of an inability or unwillingness to procreate? Are you aware that there are over a million children living in same sex homes?
> 
> I'm sorry but saying "been there done that" does not excuse your wishing to put an arbitrary restriction on gay couples that is not put on straight couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because marriage, by its very nature, is for reproduction. Now, we understand that people can marry without having children, but that it is the exception to the basis for the existence of marriage. That is doesn't happen every time doesn't change that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that were true then my 90 year old grandfather would have been prevented from marrying his 80 year old girlfriend. My sterilized brother would have been prevented from marrying his sterilized wife.
> 
> What doesn't change is the fact that you want to treat gay couples differently than straight couples. You want to set a standard for gays that you would not set for straights. That's discrimination and that makes you an anti gay bigot. It's okay, you've got company.
Click to expand...


Watering down the definition of marriage is the way to its destruction. Its destruction is already underway in our society because the "enlightened" have already damaged it, possibly beyond repair. Now, they appear intent to finish the job, to the determent to us all.

Mark


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ImGoing2Heaven said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Sodom fell
> The Bible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sodom was destroyed, according to the angels, "because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah was great before the Lord".
> 
> Yes, amazing how militant, belligerent homosexuality is not new and people protested their unrelenting intrusion. And back then it was more than just obnoxiousness, gangs of homosexuality were attacking outlying towns and villages well beyond the cities.  They were a force of oppression.  As Ecclesiastes says, "there is nothing new under the sun" and it's true.  Gays in American and Europe today are well on track to being the very kind of people in the ancient cities who were destroyed by a righteous God to give reprieve to their neighbors in Southern Canaan.  There's a link that can't be denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how Christians have so mangled the allegory in that story in order to bash gays...especially when the "hero" of the story, Lott, offered up his virgin daughters to be raped by an angry mob, then he went and fucked those same daughters himself in the hills.
> 
> And gays get the bad rap out of that story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the reminder that the homosexual Canaanite culture was so decadent that offering up women as a commodity was a common way of settling differences. Oh, and by the way, Lots daughters got him drunk so they could have children by him.  Yes the culture is that depraved when pervasive homosexuality becomes dominant. I'm glad we agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah...so it was the daughters' fault.
Click to expand...


They were not innocent victims. Stop lying.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well.  If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.
> 
> And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me.  I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture.  Double standard perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.
> 
> What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
> 
> Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are gender and race different when it comes to the discrimination experienced?
> 
> Can you name a state or locality that prohibits civil marriage on an inability to procreate? Can you name a single person in the history of history that was denied a civil marriage license because of an inability or unwillingness to procreate? Are you aware that there are over a million children living in same sex homes?
> 
> I'm sorry but saying "been there done that" does not excuse your wishing to put an arbitrary restriction on gay couples that is not put on straight couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not arbitrary restrictions.  Children have always been adopted only by families that meet a certain criteria, that provide the maximum benefit to the child.  Child protection services being picky about who gets to adopt children has never been called into question before the rainbow brigade decided they wanted to complete their picture of "marriage" by bringing kids into their insane, kooky world. Every gay cohabitation home is insufficient when compared to a mother father home because it intentionally OMITS a mother or a father.  If they're even on the list of potential adoption candidates, they should be dead last.  But instead, true to their evil, Leftist form, they are insisting on affirmative action, so they can gain preference over homes that the children benefit from more.
> 
> How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which god is that?
Click to expand...


The one that will judge your immortal soul, whether you believe in Him now or not.


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  Every activist group claims they want "equality" feminists, black race hustlers, etc.  But what you want isn't equality, it's superiority.
> 
> Case in point. During the 1990's feminist groups lobbied the military to allow women the choice of whether to go to combat or not.  Does this make them equal to men? Not when you consider that men have no choice, when they're deployed, they go. And every Army soldier is at the very least an 11Bravo no matter what their specialty is and can be deployed into direct combat at the pleasure of the DOD.
> 
> And when boys who "think they're a girl" can go into a school restroom with teenage girls, we're not talking about equality, we're talking about an extreme minority forcing everyone else to accomodate them.  The problem is, you Leftwats throw around words like "equality" while working steadfastly against any such notion.  It's one of the many buzzwords utilized for your perverted agenda to destroy equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man, you're really hung up on this bathroom thing aren't you? Try getting to know a transgendered kid...TALK to them. A transgendered kid wants to use the bathroom of the gender they feel they ARE. Nobody is harmed in allowing them. In fact, there is more harm in preventing them.
> 
> 
> Gays want equal treatment under the law. You're bringing up unrelated strawmen does not change that fact. I want my civil marriage treated exactly like your civil marriage is. That's not a difficult concept to grasp. You have to come up with a societal harm in allowing me equal treatment under the law. You can't...which is why anti gay marriage laws keep getting struck down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hung up?  I have a daughter. And I have 3 sons I'm teaching to protect their sister for her entire life.  Let's not lightly put aside the fact that California's law allows any boy who suddenly feels like a girl to use the girl's restroom.  He doesn't even have to act or dress like a girl.
> 
> And it's surprising that I have to explain this to a woman, but apparently you're not like most women.  Ladies' restrooms are sanctuaries, a place where women can get away and find respite among other women.  Put a man in a woman's restroom and many women will feel uncomfortable...and rightly so.  Common sense says that men should use the men's restroom and women the women's restroom regardless of what gender you feel that day.  And speaking of "no harm being done" what harm is there in insisting that a boy use the boys' restroom?  NONE!
> 
> All of which underscores my argument that what you people are pushing for is NOT equality, but the domination of your sick, evil, depraved ideologies.
> 
> And like I said in the OP, on behalf of America, F*** you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn drunk Indian, and just as fucking dumb.  Go play the half-breeds Father McTouchYou
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are refreshing House. A leftist that actually says what he is thinking. So, you treat blacks and Hispanics like that to, you "enlightened progressive"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Americans are a dumb as dog shit, stupid ******* and wetbacks included.  And if you were around enough you'd know that Chief Sellout calls his kids half-breeds, and isn't concerned that not long ago the only good damn drunk Indian was a dead one.
Click to expand...


What he says about his family has no influence on what you said. Many blacks call other blacks *******, does that now mean I have the right to do it as well?

Mark


----------



## bodecea

ninja007 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS. Every study shows it is worse for children with gay parents.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't, but you need them to because otherwise you are just another run-of-the-mill faggot hater.  It's all about the children you say, only it isn't, it's about your fear of the dreaded "others"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i don't fear the gayz, only for the children who grow up confused and pressured to be gay when they are straight.
Click to expand...

And where do you think the greater pressure is in our society?  To be gay or to be straight?   How come straight parents keep having gay kids and gay parents keep having straight kids?


----------



## JakeStarkey

"Family Research Council"

Really?


----------



## Skylar

bodecea said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree all you want. What I said is a fact. There is no discrimination in modern state marriage laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  What you said there is your opinion.  Same as me.
> 
> Welcome to America, Bub.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's where you are wrong. In realistic terms, there can not be discrimination when all people are treated the same.
> 
> If marriage is allowed only between one man and one woman, then EVERYONE lives under the same law. That is not an opinion. It is logic.
> 
> And you can disagree if you want, but logic says you are wrong.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know...the state of Virginia tried that same argument in Loving v. Virginia in front of the Supreme Court.  It got quite a laugh.
Click to expand...


Exactly the same reasoning. Since both blacks and whites were prohibited from from marrying each other, the laws were 'equal'. 

Alas, you need a valid basis for the restriction to exist to begin with. And such a reason exists in neither gay marriage bans nor interracial marriage bans.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because marriage, by its very nature, is for reproduction. Now, we understand that people can marry without having children, but that it is the exception to the basis for the existence of marriage. That is doesn't happen every time doesn't change that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> That is entirely untrue, and it if were true, and it isn't, millions upon millions of people could not get married, and they can, as long as they are male and female, the only contract on the books that requires such a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No its not untrue. It is the logical building block of society. And "marriage" happened long before societies developed.
Click to expand...

No, it didn't.  You believe lies, plain and simple.  Start here: 13 Facts on the History of Marriage

And answer the damn question, how long are you going to keep beating your head against the wall while the rest of your society waves goodbye?


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence fallacy. Confusing fact with opinion.  Thus invalid reasoning, therefore reasoning that is disqualified from consideration by reasonable people.
> 
> And of course, factually inaccurate. As in 36 states, marriage is also one man and one man or one woman and one woman. Ignoring this fact doesn't change it.
> 
> [quote
> This is the consequence of the physiological design of the human species.
> 
> What relevance does the physiological design of the species have to do with marriage? *Remember, you've said repeatedly that you're not arguing that marriage is about procreation. *Without procreation, what relevance does your point have to marriage, its purpose, or a valid basis for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That an insignificant minority craves legitimacy through the pretense of marriage doesn't change that... and no American is ever going to tolerate that minority attempting to force them to accept their pretense as anything but... and your pretense that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality did not sue innocent people into bankruptcy, JUST BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT WHICH THEY DISAGREED, demonstrates that you're either a liar, or you're delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that a majority of the nation supports gay marriage and gay marriage proponents outweigh opponents by a 12 to 19 points, your assessment of what Americans feel on the matter are of no consequence. As you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> A majority disagrees with you. And that majority is _growing. Get used to the idea._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Civil Rights are nothing BUT popular opinion.  Which is why they're not worth the paper they're written on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Factually incorrect. Civil rights may or may not be in line with popular opinion. Interracial marriage bans when it was recognized as unconstitutional was wildly popular. With support in the mid to high 80s. There was very little popular support for interracial marriage, despite the courts recognizing it was a right.
> 
> Demonstrating elegantly that civil rights can most definitely be something other than popular opinion. And of course, our law recognizes civil rights. Which might explain the rather horrid record your ilk have had in court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are only natural human rights... endowed by God, resting in the authority of God; nature himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And which rights did God 'endow'? And according to who? You can't say with anything more than empty opinion. See, plenty of people claim to speak for God. You included.
> 
> Using the reasoning of religion, almost all religion is false. Given that by your own reasoning almost all people who claim to speak for God are wrong, what would be the odds that out of all the people in all the world, across the long span of what is, what has been and what will be......that *you* happened to be the guy to get it right? Especially when there's nothing that mandates that anyone did?
> 
> The odds of your accuracy are exceedingly small. Rendering your citation of yourself as the conveyer of God's will unreliable. And of course, without reason or logic.
> 
> Oh, and for spice, your claims is a classic Appeal to Authority fallacy. Thus invalid reasoning, therefore reasoning that is disqualified from consideration by reasonable people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that you people are incapable of understanding that... is why you people are so prone toward foolishness and evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More accurately, 'we people' don't accept you as speaking for God. Though I'll be happy to recognize you as the avatar of the Appeal to Authority fallacy. You yourself have said that the appeal to authority fallacy is valid only if its logic and reasoning are valid.
> 
> *And you can't logically or reasonably establish you claims. *Which is why you continue to fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazing that you use the "majority of people" argument. Tell me, before this "majority" would it have been alright for me to tell you that the "majority" don't want gay marriage and that you should just STFU?
> 
> If not, why do you use it to bludgeon others?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

You don't gays to be uppity and fight for our rights, do you?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.
> 
> What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
> 
> Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are gender and race different when it comes to the discrimination experienced?
> 
> Can you name a state or locality that prohibits civil marriage on an inability to procreate? Can you name a single person in the history of history that was denied a civil marriage license because of an inability or unwillingness to procreate? Are you aware that there are over a million children living in same sex homes?
> 
> I'm sorry but saying "been there done that" does not excuse your wishing to put an arbitrary restriction on gay couples that is not put on straight couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not arbitrary restrictions.  Children have always been adopted only by families that meet a certain criteria, that provide the maximum benefit to the child.  Child protection services being picky about who gets to adopt children has never been called into question before the rainbow brigade decided they wanted to complete their picture of "marriage" by bringing kids into their insane, kooky world. Every gay cohabitation home is insufficient when compared to a mother father home because it intentionally OMITS a mother or a father.  If they're even on the list of potential adoption candidates, they should be dead last.  But instead, true to their evil, Leftist form, they are insisting on affirmative action, so they can gain preference over homes that the children benefit from more.
> 
> How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which god is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The one that will judge your immortal soul, whether you believe in Him now or not.
Click to expand...

Remember that part about asshole Christians, that's you little Bible-thumper.


----------



## bodecea

ninja007 said:


> Kids of gay parents fare worse study finds but research draws fire from experts - CBS News
> 
> 
> A Major Study Reveals What Happens to Children Raised by Same-Sex Couples - Mic


From your link:



> The state of Utah, for example, cited a study funded by a conservative religious think tank that purportedly showed the opposite outcome of this larger study.


----------



## Carib Gyal

When my grandmother was born people either walked or rode horses to travel. Before she died man had landed on the moon.

A lot can change in one generation.


----------



## Skylar

Carib Gyal said:


> If it is true that marriage can be defined and redefined by society or opinion (and it is true), then it can continually be redefined again and again.
> 
> Therefore, what you believe marriage is or isn't today, can be changed again in a decade.



Marriage is a social construct. It is whatever we say it is.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man, you're really hung up on this bathroom thing aren't you? Try getting to know a transgendered kid...TALK to them. A transgendered kid wants to use the bathroom of the gender they feel they ARE. Nobody is harmed in allowing them. In fact, there is more harm in preventing them.
> 
> 
> Gays want equal treatment under the law. You're bringing up unrelated strawmen does not change that fact. I want my civil marriage treated exactly like your civil marriage is. That's not a difficult concept to grasp. You have to come up with a societal harm in allowing me equal treatment under the law. You can't...which is why anti gay marriage laws keep getting struck down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hung up?  I have a daughter. And I have 3 sons I'm teaching to protect their sister for her entire life.  Let's not lightly put aside the fact that California's law allows any boy who suddenly feels like a girl to use the girl's restroom.  He doesn't even have to act or dress like a girl.
> 
> And it's surprising that I have to explain this to a woman, but apparently you're not like most women.  Ladies' restrooms are sanctuaries, a place where women can get away and find respite among other women.  Put a man in a woman's restroom and many women will feel uncomfortable...and rightly so.  Common sense says that men should use the men's restroom and women the women's restroom regardless of what gender you feel that day.  And speaking of "no harm being done" what harm is there in insisting that a boy use the boys' restroom?  NONE!
> 
> All of which underscores my argument that what you people are pushing for is NOT equality, but the domination of your sick, evil, depraved ideologies.
> 
> And like I said in the OP, on behalf of America, F*** you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn drunk Indian, and just as fucking dumb.  Go play the half-breeds Father McTouchYou
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are refreshing House. A leftist that actually says what he is thinking. So, you treat blacks and Hispanics like that to, you "enlightened progressive"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Americans are a dumb as dog shit, stupid ******* and wetbacks included.  And if you were around enough you'd know that Chief Sellout calls his kids half-breeds, and isn't concerned that not long ago the only good damn drunk Indian was a dead one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What he says about his family has no influence on what you said. Many blacks call other blacks *******, does that now mean I have the right to do it as well?
Click to expand...

Yep, you have the right there Whitey, but I'd be careful around who I displayed said right.  Some of those ******* will kill your sorry white ass.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Analysis New Study Did Not Prove That Gay Parents Are Better
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say better, I said at no disadvantage. There is no difference in outcomes between the children raised by intact gay families and intact straight families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *'They took turns raping me': New claims of child sex abuse revealed as gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go to trial *
> 
> Read more: Gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go on trial to fight allegations Daily Mail Online
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Click to expand...

Yes, there are bad gays....shall we point out the heteros who rape their children and beat them to death?  And shall we hold those examples up as all heteros being the same?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Carib Gyal said:


> When my grandmother was born people either walked or rode horses to travel. Before she died man had landed on the moon.
> 
> A lot can change in one generation.


That wasn't one generation dumbass:

*generation*

noun
1.
the entire body of individuals born and living at about the same time:
the postwar generation.
2.
*the term of years, roughly 30 among human beings, accepted as the average period between the birth of parents and the birth of their offspring. *


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia tried to argue there was no racial discrimination but there was.  The court determined:
> 
> "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."
> 
> Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> You're in good company. A lot of Leftists miss that one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  Doesn't however change the fact that insisting that marriage and it's legal benefits be limited only to mixed-gender couples violates the Constitutional premise of equal treatment under the law, which is what has struck down a multitude of state bans.
> 
> The other thing...the "hearts and minds" aspect...that is exactly what has been going on as well.  This wasn't pushed to the SC right off the bat - it has been going through state after state.  Polls show, overwelmingly - that support for same sex marriage has been growing with over 50% in favor.  To me, though - that's irrelevant because basic rights should never ever be determined by popular opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well.  If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.
> 
> And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me.  I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture.  Double standard perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.
> 
> What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
> 
> *Marriage is for reproduction*, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But I will, because it's pertinent.
> 
> Marriage today is for many things and reproduction is not the only thing and insisting on that would deprive many of marriage.
Click to expand...


Depriving marriage doesn't bother me. We do it everyday.

Mark


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Analysis New Study Did Not Prove That Gay Parents Are Better
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say better, I said at no disadvantage. There is no difference in outcomes between the children raised by intact gay families and intact straight families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *'They took turns raping me': New claims of child sex abuse revealed as gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go to trial *
> 
> Read more: Gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go on trial to fight allegations Daily Mail Online
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can always find examples of pedo abuse among both hetero and homo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet in the short time that gay couples have been adopting, several of these horror stories have popped up. Statistics are already coming out indicating that a child is far more likely to be abused by a gay couple than their heterosexual counterparts. Since homo marriage and adoption are relatively new, the swift manner in which these horror stories are popping up doesn't set a promising trend.
Click to expand...

Several?  You've given us ONE.  I can find hundreds per county of the U.S. of heteros hurting, raping, killing their own children.  Why do you think the hetero parents are always the first suspects?


----------



## Carib Gyal

Skylar said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Family Research Council"
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is true that marriage can be defined and redefined by society or opinion (and it is true), then it can continually be redefined again and again.
> 
> Therefore, what you believe marriage is or isn't today, can be changed again in a decade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is a social construct. It is whatever we say it is.
Click to expand...

Yes! And what we say it is today may not be what we say it is tomorrow, using the very same arguments you are using now. Because marriage is what we say it is.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> *Homosexual Couple Adopted Boy and Molested Him from Infancy*
> The Thinking Housewife rsaquo Homosexual Couple Adopted Boy and Molested Him from Infancy


2.   We have about 10 so far this year (one day old) in San Diego alone......of heteros abusing children.


----------



## Carib Gyal

PaintMyHouse said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> When my grandmother was born people either walked or rode horses to travel. Before she died man had landed on the moon.
> 
> A lot can change in one generation.
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't one generation dumbass:
> 
> *generation*
> 
> noun
> 1.
> the entire body of individuals born and living at about the same time:
> the postwar generation.
> 2.
> *the term of years, roughly 30 among human beings, accepted as the average period between the birth of parents and the birth of their offspring. *
Click to expand...

Cool, fart smeller. Now look up heterosexual and learn about them.


----------



## 80zephyr

Seawytch said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree all you want. What I said is a fact. There is no discrimination in modern state marriage laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  What you said there is your opinion.  Same as me.
> 
> Welcome to America, Bub.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's where you are wrong. In realistic terms, there can not be discrimination when all people are treated the same.
> 
> If marriage is allowed only between one man and one woman, then EVERYONE lives under the same law. That is not an opinion. It is logic.
> 
> And you can disagree if you want, but logic says you are wrong.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you aware that your argument was used before?
> 
> As Reconstruction collapsed in the late 1870s, legislators, policymakers, and, above all, judges began to marshal the arguments they needed to justify the reinstatement--and subsequent expansion--of miscegenation law.
> 
> Here are four of the arguments they used:
> 
> 1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.
> 
> 2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.
> 
> 3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and
> 
> 4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."
> 
> On this fourth point--the supposed "unnaturality" of interracial marriage--judges formed a virtual chorus. Here, for example, is the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878:
> 
> The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.
> 
> *The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.*
> 
> - See more at: History News Network Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation
Click to expand...


Race is not gender, it has no context in this debate, IMO.

Mark


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Analysis New Study Did Not Prove That Gay Parents Are Better
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say better, I said at no disadvantage. There is no difference in outcomes between the children raised by intact gay families and intact straight families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *'They took turns raping me': New claims of child sex abuse revealed as gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go to trial *
> 
> Read more: Gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go on trial to fight allegations Daily Mail Online
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can always find examples of pedo abuse among both hetero and homo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet in the short time that gay couples have been adopting, several of these horror stories have popped up. Statistics are already coming out indicating that a child is far more likely to be abused by a gay couple than their heterosexual counterparts. Since homo marriage and adoption are relatively new, the swift manner in which these horror stories are popping up doesn't set a promising trend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Several?  You've given us ONE.  I can find hundreds per county of the U.S. of heteros hurting, raping, killing their own children.  Why do you think the hetero parents are always the first suspects?
Click to expand...


No, actually I posted 3 and that's just scratching the surface.  Try again.


----------



## bodecea

ninja007 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Analysis New Study Did Not Prove That Gay Parents Are Better
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say better, I said at no disadvantage. There is no difference in outcomes between the children raised by intact gay families and intact straight families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *'They took turns raping me': New claims of child sex abuse revealed as gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go to trial *
> 
> Read more: Gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go on trial to fight allegations Daily Mail Online
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can always find examples of pedo abuse among both hetero and homo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet in the short time that gay couples have been adopting, several of these horror stories have popped up. Statistics are already coming out indicating that a child is far more likely to be abused by a gay couple than their heterosexual counterparts. Since homo marriage and adoption are relatively new, the swift manner in which these horror stories are popping up doesn't set a promising trend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not surprising since almost all homosexuals were abused as children themselves.
Click to expand...


And where did you get that false piece of information?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Carib Gyal said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Family Research Council"
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is true that marriage can be defined and redefined by society or opinion (and it is true), then it can continually be redefined again and again.
> 
> Therefore, what you believe marriage is or isn't today, can be changed again in a decade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is a social construct. It is whatever we say it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes! And what we say it is today may not be what we say it is tomorrow, using the very same arguments you are using now. Because marriage is what we say it is.
Click to expand...

Gee, do you suddenly think we're going to redefine marriage in the future as that of one man and one woman, of the same race and religion and age, who must be able to conceive children?


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  Doesn't however change the fact that insisting that marriage and it's legal benefits be limited only to mixed-gender couples violates the Constitutional premise of equal treatment under the law, which is what has struck down a multitude of state bans.
> 
> The other thing...the "hearts and minds" aspect...that is exactly what has been going on as well.  This wasn't pushed to the SC right off the bat - it has been going through state after state.  Polls show, overwelmingly - that support for same sex marriage has been growing with over 50% in favor.  To me, though - that's irrelevant because basic rights should never ever be determined by popular opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well.  If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.
> 
> And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me.  I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture.  Double standard perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.
> 
> What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
> 
> *Marriage is for reproduction*, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But I will, because it's pertinent.
> 
> Marriage today is for many things and reproduction is not the only thing and insisting on that would deprive many of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sex isn't even for reproduction, usually, but somehow marriage is?  Morons here, total fucking morons.
Click to expand...


In the context of our society, your damn right it is. It is the reason why childbirth outside of marriage was shunned.

Mark


----------



## bodecea

ninja007 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS. Every study shows it is worse for children with gay parents.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't, but you need them to because otherwise you are just another run-of-the-mill faggot hater.  It's all about the children you say, only it isn't, it's about your fear of the dreaded "others"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i don't fear the gayz, *only for the children who grow up confused and pressured to be gay* when they are straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny thing that, it doesn't seem to be the case.  Loving parents accept what their children are.
> 
> Gay Parents As Good As Straight Ones BU Today Boston University
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gay parents will be more likely to sex. abuse, as they were sex. abused themselves.
Click to expand...

You are accusing me of abusing my daughter?   You sure you want to go there?


----------



## Carib Gyal

PaintMyHouse said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Family Research Council"
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is true that marriage can be defined and redefined by society or opinion (and it is true), then it can continually be redefined again and again.
> 
> Therefore, what you believe marriage is or isn't today, can be changed again in a decade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is a social construct. It is whatever we say it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes! And what we say it is today may not be what we say it is tomorrow, using the very same arguments you are using now. Because marriage is what we say it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee, do you suddenly think we're going to redefine marriage in the future as that of one man and one woman, of the same race and religion and age, who must be able to conceive children?
Click to expand...

Gee do you think cycles won't continue as they have since the beginning of the mankind that you want to wipe off the face of the Earth?


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> Legally they are the same thing, what is the compelling state interest?  Oh, we don't have one.  Well, that's into the can then.
> 
> And stop signing your name.  It's annoying and nobody gives a fuck whether you live or die let alone what your goddamned name is.  This isn't a letter to mommy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The states compelling interest in to deal in reality, not cave to a whimsical whim of the electorate. Two men can never be married, no matter how much they wish they could be. That the government would try to change biological law to fit our wishes is insane.
> 
> Might as well call a man and a tree married. It won't make them so.
> 
> And BTW, the state has no "compelling interest" to limiting marriage to just two people.
> 
> Oh, by the way, my name is...
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is not biological law.  It's a human construct.
Click to expand...


And? What difference does that make?

Mark


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well.  If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.
> 
> And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me.  I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture.  Double standard perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.
> 
> What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
> 
> *Marriage is for reproduction*, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But I will, because it's pertinent.
> 
> Marriage today is for many things and reproduction is not the only thing and insisting on that would deprive many of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sex isn't even for reproduction, usually, but somehow marriage is?  Morons here, total fucking morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the context of our society, your damn right it is. It is the reason why childbirth outside of marriage was shunned.
Click to expand...

That's because fucking outside of marriage was shunned dumbass.  It had nothing to do with marriage.  And it was also shunned if you were married but fucking someone other than your spouse, along with fucking animals, children, and your same sex.  It was the fucking that mattered, the out-of-wedlock child was just the evidence that you were a slut who couldn't keep her legs crossed and so were the other bastards men produced on the side.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Carib Gyal said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Family Research Council"
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is true that marriage can be defined and redefined by society or opinion (and it is true), then it can continually be redefined again and again.
> 
> Therefore, what you believe marriage is or isn't today, can be changed again in a decade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is a social construct. It is whatever we say it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes! And what we say it is today may not be what we say it is tomorrow, using the very same arguments you are using now. Because marriage is what we say it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee, do you suddenly think we're going to redefine marriage in the future as that of one man and one woman, of the same race and religion and age, who must be able to conceive children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee do you think cycles won't continue as they have since the beginning of the mankind that you want to wipe off the face of the Earth?
Click to expand...

Gee, answer the fucking question.  What part of this makes you think were going to go backwards, about 500 years?


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> I have news for you little faggot haters, children are not part of this discussion over rights.  I don't give a fuck if it is worse for the children, we don't do what is best for the child in this country because if we did we wouldn't let so many biological but unfit parents raise them.  This is about rights and equality.  Take your concerns for the children and start doing something about the homes where they are being bounced off the walls and fucked like whores.



You are correct. Nobody cares about the kids. Our lenient divorce laws are proof of that.

Mark


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Carib Gyal said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> When my grandmother was born people either walked or rode horses to travel. Before she died man had landed on the moon.
> 
> A lot can change in one generation.
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't one generation dumbass:
> 
> *generation*
> 
> noun
> 1.
> the entire body of individuals born and living at about the same time:
> the postwar generation.
> 2.
> *the term of years, roughly 30 among human beings, accepted as the average period between the birth of parents and the birth of their offspring. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cool, fart smeller. Now look up heterosexual and learn about them.
Click to expand...

I _am _heterosexual you dumbass.


----------



## Silhouette

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> ....But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.


 
Very clever StMike.  It almost looks like you're against the LGBT cult's progression, until you start slinging abusive language at "them", precaculated to elicit the exact type of sympathy they will play the heartstrings of the Justices with (most particulary Justice Kennedy) when the vote comes up this year on whether or not to overturn Windsor 2013 and instead force gay marriage on the unwilling states...

Everyone beware of Saintmichaeldefendthem.  His role in the LGBT blogosphere is to ramp sympathy for gays by bashing them.  Don't join in.  Keep your arguments intellectual if you truly oppose this cult taking over our culture.  Do not play into StMike's game..

Read over "Saintmichaeldefendthem"s posts.  You will see his courious double-stance all throughout.  There should be plenty of reading material in this thread by now for his ruse to be exposed..


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have news for you little faggot haters, children are not part of this discussion over rights.  I don't give a fuck if it is worse for the children, we don't do what is best for the child in this country because if we did we wouldn't let so many biological but unfit parents raise them.  This is about rights and equality.  Take your concerns for the children and start doing something about the homes where they are being bounced off the walls and fucked like whores.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct. Nobody cares about the kids. Our lenient divorce laws are proof of that.
Click to expand...

So stop using them as part of your argument since they don't fucking matter in this case.


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.
> 
> What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
> 
> *Marriage is for reproduction*, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But I will, because it's pertinent.
> 
> Marriage today is for many things and reproduction is not the only thing and insisting on that would deprive many of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sex isn't even for reproduction, usually, but somehow marriage is?  Morons here, total fucking morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the context of our society, your damn right it is. It is the reason why childbirth outside of marriage was shunned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because fucking outside of marriage was shunned dumbass.  It had nothing to do with marriage.  And it was also shunned if you were married but fucking someone other than your spouse, along with fucking animals, children, and your same sex.  It was the fucking that mattered, the out-of-wedlock child was just the evidence that you were a slut who couldn't keep her legs crossed and so were the other bastards men produced on the side.
Click to expand...


Lol. You are getting it. Yep, fucking outside of marriage was socially unacceptable because this was before birth control and abortion, and the child wouldn't be brought up in a two parent household.

Mark


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> The faggots, and logic, won.  Exactly how long are you little homophobes going to beat this issue, forever?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably. Since you and yours beat it forever and worn down Americans finally gave in. So tell me, why didn't you just give up when most Americans didn't agree with you?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Why didn't the Patriots give up in 1777?  Why didn't the blacks give up in 1955?  Why didn't women give up in 1979 when the ERA failed?


----------



## Carib Gyal

PaintMyHouse said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Family Research Council"
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is true that marriage can be defined and redefined by society or opinion (and it is true), then it can continually be redefined again and again.
> 
> Therefore, what you believe marriage is or isn't today, can be changed again in a decade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is a social construct. It is whatever we say it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes! And what we say it is today may not be what we say it is tomorrow, using the very same arguments you are using now. Because marriage is what we say it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee, do you suddenly think we're going to redefine marriage in the future as that of one man and one woman, of the same race and religion and age, who must be able to conceive children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee do you think cycles won't continue as they have since the beginning of the mankind that you want to wipe off the face of the Earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee, answer the fucking question.  What part of this makes you think were going to go backwards, about 500 years?
Click to expand...

Answer your stupid fucking question? OK, I didn't suddenly think anything, I've known about the cyclical nature of public opinion for years.

Now you answer mine.


----------



## Carib Gyal

PaintMyHouse said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> When my grandmother was born people either walked or rode horses to travel. Before she died man had landed on the moon.
> 
> A lot can change in one generation.
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't one generation dumbass:
> 
> *generation*
> 
> noun
> 1.
> the entire body of individuals born and living at about the same time:
> the postwar generation.
> 2.
> *the term of years, roughly 30 among human beings, accepted as the average period between the birth of parents and the birth of their offspring. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cool, fart smeller. Now look up heterosexual and learn about them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I _am _heterosexual you dumbass.
Click to expand...

At least you don't deny jerking off to the sweet scent of a young boy's farts.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

PaintMyHouse said:


> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kids of gay parents fare worse study finds but research draws fire from experts - CBS News
> A Major Study Reveals What Happens to Children Raised by Same-Sex Couples - Mic
> 
> 
> 
> It Doesn't FUCKING matter.  It has nothing, repeat, nothing to do with Marriage Equality.  Got it now?
Click to expand...


Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have news for you little faggot haters, children are not part of this discussion over rights.  I don't give a fuck if it is worse for the children, we don't do what is best for the child in this country because if we did we wouldn't let so many biological but unfit parents raise them.  This is about rights and equality.  Take your concerns for the children and start doing something about the homes where they are being bounced off the walls and fucked like whores.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct. Nobody cares about the kids. Our lenient divorce laws are proof of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So stop using them as part of your argument since they don't fucking matter in this case.
Click to expand...


Well, since I do care about the kids, I suppose it is a valid part of my argument.  So...

Mark


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Silhouette said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very clever StMike.  It almost looks like you're against the LGBT cult's progression, until you start slinging abusive language at "them", precaculated to elicit the exact type of sympathy they will play the heartstrings of the Justices with (most particulary Justice Kennedy) when the vote comes up this year on whether or not to overturn Windsor 2013 and instead force gay marriage on the unwilling states...
> 
> Everyone beware of Saintmichaeldefendthem.  His role in the LGBT blogosphere is to ramp sympathy for gays by bashing them.  Don't join in.  Keep your arguments intellectual if you truly oppose this cult taking over our culture.  Do not play into StMike's game..
> 
> Read over "Saintmichaeldefendthem"s posts.  You will see his courious double-stance all throughout.  There should be plenty of reading material in this thread by now for his ruse to be exposed..
Click to expand...


Oh, you're too clever for me.


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have news for you little faggot haters, children are not part of this discussion over rights.  I don't give a fuck if it is worse for the children, we don't do what is best for the child in this country because if we did we wouldn't let so many biological but unfit parents raise them.  This is about rights and equality.  Take your concerns for the children and start doing something about the homes where they are being bounced off the walls and fucked like whores.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct. Nobody cares about the kids. Our lenient divorce laws are proof of that.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

You want to get rid of those too, right?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kids of gay parents fare worse study finds but research draws fire from experts - CBS News
> A Major Study Reveals What Happens to Children Raised by Same-Sex Couples - Mic
> 
> 
> 
> It Doesn't FUCKING matter.  It has nothing, repeat, nothing to do with Marriage Equality.  Got it now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...

Give it a rest faggot-hater.  You lost.  Suck it up and be a man for once.


----------



## bodecea

PaintMyHouse said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Family Research Council"
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is true that marriage can be defined and redefined by society or opinion (and it is true), then it can continually be redefined again and again.
> 
> Therefore, what you believe marriage is or isn't today, can be changed again in a decade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is a social construct. It is whatever we say it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes! And what we say it is today may not be what we say it is tomorrow, using the very same arguments you are using now. Because marriage is what we say it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee, do you suddenly think we're going to redefine marriage in the future as that of one man and one woman, of the same race and religion and age, who must be able to conceive children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee do you think cycles won't continue as they have since the beginning of the mankind that you want to wipe off the face of the Earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee, answer the fucking question.  What part of this makes you think were going to go backwards, about 500 years?
Click to expand...

They have gone back....in Iran and Afghanistan and Pakistan....places that some on this thread probably admire.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have news for you little faggot haters, children are not part of this discussion over rights.  I don't give a fuck if it is worse for the children, we don't do what is best for the child in this country because if we did we wouldn't let so many biological but unfit parents raise them.  This is about rights and equality.  Take your concerns for the children and start doing something about the homes where they are being bounced off the walls and fucked like whores.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct. Nobody cares about the kids. Our lenient divorce laws are proof of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So stop using them as part of your argument since they don't fucking matter in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, since I do care about the kids, I suppose it is a valid part of my argument.  So...
Click to expand...

No, it isn't since the debate is about Marriage Equality not what's best for children.


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree all you want. What I said is a fact. There is no discrimination in modern state marriage laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  What you said there is your opinion.  Same as me.
> 
> Welcome to America, Bub.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's where you are wrong. In realistic terms, there can not be discrimination when all people are treated the same.
> 
> If marriage is allowed only between one man and one woman, then EVERYONE lives under the same law. That is not an opinion. It is logic.
> 
> And you can disagree if you want, but logic says you are wrong.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you aware that your argument was used before?
> 
> As Reconstruction collapsed in the late 1870s, legislators, policymakers, and, above all, judges began to marshal the arguments they needed to justify the reinstatement--and subsequent expansion--of miscegenation law.
> 
> Here are four of the arguments they used:
> 
> 1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.
> 
> 2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.
> 
> 3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and
> 
> 4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."
> 
> On this fourth point--the supposed "unnaturality" of interracial marriage--judges formed a virtual chorus. Here, for example, is the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878:
> 
> The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.
> 
> *The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.*
> 
> - See more at: History News Network Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Race is not gender, it has no context in this debate, IMO.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

So...you think equal civil rights under our laws should apply only in the case of race?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

bodecea said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have news for you little faggot haters, children are not part of this discussion over rights.  I don't give a fuck if it is worse for the children, we don't do what is best for the child in this country because if we did we wouldn't let so many biological but unfit parents raise them.  This is about rights and equality.  Take your concerns for the children and start doing something about the homes where they are being bounced off the walls and fucked like whores.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct. Nobody cares about the kids. Our lenient divorce laws are proof of that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want to get rid of those too, right?
Click to expand...


So you're FOR Divorce?  

LOL!  And they claim that they're not the purveyors of Evil in our time.


----------



## 80zephyr

JakeStarkey said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 80zypher can't understand the logic is the issue, or the constitution, for that matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which logic am I missing? Are you really trying to say that if all people are treated equally, they are being discriminated against?  Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A person in Illinois has the same innate right to marry the person he chooses as does anyone in Utah.
> 
> Opposition to marriage equality is opposition to innate rights and the Constitution.
> 
> If you don't like homosexual marriage, then don't marry one of your own sex.  No one cares, son.
Click to expand...


Not the point. My logic is impeccable. Even if you don't agree with it.

Mark


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  Doesn't however change the fact that insisting that marriage and it's legal benefits be limited only to mixed-gender couples violates the Constitutional premise of equal treatment under the law, which is what has struck down a multitude of state bans.
> 
> The other thing...the "hearts and minds" aspect...that is exactly what has been going on as well.  This wasn't pushed to the SC right off the bat - it has been going through state after state.  Polls show, overwelmingly - that support for same sex marriage has been growing with over 50% in favor.  To me, though - that's irrelevant because basic rights should never ever be determined by popular opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well.  If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.
> 
> And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me.  I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture.  Double standard perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.
> 
> What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
> 
> *Marriage is for reproduction*, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But I will, because it's pertinent.
> 
> Marriage today is for many things and reproduction is not the only thing and insisting on that would deprive many of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depriving marriage doesn't bother me. We do it everyday.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Based on what exactly?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

bodecea said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree all you want. What I said is a fact. There is no discrimination in modern state marriage laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  What you said there is your opinion.  Same as me.
> 
> Welcome to America, Bub.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's where you are wrong. In realistic terms, there can not be discrimination when all people are treated the same.
> 
> If marriage is allowed only between one man and one woman, then EVERYONE lives under the same law. That is not an opinion. It is logic.
> 
> And you can disagree if you want, but logic says you are wrong.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you aware that your argument was used before?
> 
> As Reconstruction collapsed in the late 1870s, legislators, policymakers, and, above all, judges began to marshal the arguments they needed to justify the reinstatement--and subsequent expansion--of miscegenation law.
> 
> Here are four of the arguments they used:
> 
> 1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.
> 
> 2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.
> 
> 3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and
> 
> 4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."
> 
> On this fourth point--the supposed "unnaturality" of interracial marriage--judges formed a virtual chorus. Here, for example, is the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878:
> 
> The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.
> 
> *The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.*
> 
> - See more at: History News Network Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Race is not gender, it has no context in this debate, IMO.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...you think equal civil rights under our laws should apply only in the case of race?
Click to expand...


Civil Rights?

You're speaking of the mechanism the Left uses as a means to promote the separation of mankind from its natural, Human Rights?

Evil should be shunned... everywhere, every time and in every facet in which it exists.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Carib Gyal said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is a social construct. It is whatever we say it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! And what we say it is today may not be what we say it is tomorrow, using the very same arguments you are using now. Because marriage is what we say it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee, do you suddenly think we're going to redefine marriage in the future as that of one man and one woman, of the same race and religion and age, who must be able to conceive children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee do you think cycles won't continue as they have since the beginning of the mankind that you want to wipe off the face of the Earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee, answer the fucking question.  What part of this makes you think were going to go backwards, about 500 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answer your stupid fucking question? OK, I didn't suddenly think anything, I've known about the cyclical nature of public opinion for years.
> 
> Now you answer mine.
Click to expand...

So you think, somehow magically, that we will return to the Gold Old Days when the faggots stayed in the closet and didn't have rights?  God you are fucking dumb.

Move to Jesusland and get the fuck out of my country.


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have news for you little faggot haters, children are not part of this discussion over rights.  I don't give a fuck if it is worse for the children, we don't do what is best for the child in this country because if we did we wouldn't let so many biological but unfit parents raise them.  This is about rights and equality.  Take your concerns for the children and start doing something about the homes where they are being bounced off the walls and fucked like whores.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct. Nobody cares about the kids. Our lenient divorce laws are proof of that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want to get rid of those too, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're FOR Divorce?
> 
> LOL!  And they claim that they're not the purveyors of Evil in our time.
Click to expand...

I am certainly in agreement that divorce is a legal option.  You want divorce eliminated legally?


----------



## 80zephyr

bodecea said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree all you want. What I said is a fact. There is no discrimination in modern state marriage laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  What you said there is your opinion.  Same as me.
> 
> Welcome to America, Bub.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's where you are wrong. In realistic terms, there can not be discrimination when all people are treated the same.
> 
> If marriage is allowed only between one man and one woman, then EVERYONE lives under the same law. That is not an opinion. It is logic.
> 
> And you can disagree if you want, but logic says you are wrong.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you aware that your argument was used before?
> 
> As Reconstruction collapsed in the late 1870s, legislators, policymakers, and, above all, judges began to marshal the arguments they needed to justify the reinstatement--and subsequent expansion--of miscegenation law.
> 
> Here are four of the arguments they used:
> 
> 1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.
> 
> 2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.
> 
> 3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and
> 
> 4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."
> 
> On this fourth point--the supposed "unnaturality" of interracial marriage--judges formed a virtual chorus. Here, for example, is the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878:
> 
> The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.
> 
> *The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.*
> 
> - See more at: History News Network Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Race is not gender, it has no context in this debate, IMO.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...you think equal civil rights under our laws should apply only in the case of race?
Click to expand...


Nope. But, in the case of marriage, either tab A fits into slot B, or its not marriage. No matter how much you wish it to be.

Mark


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Evil should be shunned... everywhere, every time and in every facet in which it exists.


Yes, and you are said evil.


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  What you said there is your opinion.  Same as me.
> 
> Welcome to America, Bub.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's where you are wrong. In realistic terms, there can not be discrimination when all people are treated the same.
> 
> If marriage is allowed only between one man and one woman, then EVERYONE lives under the same law. That is not an opinion. It is logic.
> 
> And you can disagree if you want, but logic says you are wrong.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you aware that your argument was used before?
> 
> As Reconstruction collapsed in the late 1870s, legislators, policymakers, and, above all, judges began to marshal the arguments they needed to justify the reinstatement--and subsequent expansion--of miscegenation law.
> 
> Here are four of the arguments they used:
> 
> 1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.
> 
> 2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.
> 
> 3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and
> 
> 4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."
> 
> On this fourth point--the supposed "unnaturality" of interracial marriage--judges formed a virtual chorus. Here, for example, is the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878:
> 
> The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.
> 
> *The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.*
> 
> - See more at: History News Network Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Race is not gender, it has no context in this debate, IMO.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...you think equal civil rights under our laws should apply only in the case of race?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Civil Rights?
> 
> You're speaking of the mechanism the Left uses as a means to promote the separation of mankind from its natural, Human Rights?
> 
> Evil should be shunned... everywhere, every time and in every facet in which it exists.
Click to expand...

So...you're not a fan of civil rights, I take it.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have news for you little faggot haters, children are not part of this discussion over rights.  I don't give a fuck if it is worse for the children, we don't do what is best for the child in this country because if we did we wouldn't let so many biological but unfit parents raise them.  This is about rights and equality.  Take your concerns for the children and start doing something about the homes where they are being bounced off the walls and fucked like whores.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct. Nobody cares about the kids. Our lenient divorce laws are proof of that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want to get rid of those too, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're FOR Divorce?
> 
> LOL!  And they claim that they're not the purveyors of Evil in our time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am certainly in agreement that divorce is a legal option.  You want divorce eliminated legally?
Click to expand...


Conservatives have always maintained that divorce should be difficult and not easily done.  Where in that do you see the word "eliminated"? 

Stop lying, Leftists.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  What you said there is your opinion.  Same as me.
> 
> Welcome to America, Bub.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's where you are wrong. In realistic terms, there can not be discrimination when all people are treated the same.
> 
> If marriage is allowed only between one man and one woman, then EVERYONE lives under the same law. That is not an opinion. It is logic.
> 
> And you can disagree if you want, but logic says you are wrong.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you aware that your argument was used before?
> 
> As Reconstruction collapsed in the late 1870s, legislators, policymakers, and, above all, judges began to marshal the arguments they needed to justify the reinstatement--and subsequent expansion--of miscegenation law.
> 
> Here are four of the arguments they used:
> 
> 1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.
> 
> 2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.
> 
> 3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and
> 
> 4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."
> 
> On this fourth point--the supposed "unnaturality" of interracial marriage--judges formed a virtual chorus. Here, for example, is the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878:
> 
> The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.
> 
> *The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.*
> 
> - See more at: History News Network Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Race is not gender, it has no context in this debate, IMO.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...you think equal civil rights under our laws should apply only in the case of race?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. But, in the case of marriage, either tab A fits into slot B, or its not marriage. No matter how much you wish it to be.
Click to expand...

The courts and the American people disagree so exactly how long are you going to keep pissing into the wind?  How long before you grow the fuck up?


----------



## 80zephyr

bodecea said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have news for you little faggot haters, children are not part of this discussion over rights.  I don't give a fuck if it is worse for the children, we don't do what is best for the child in this country because if we did we wouldn't let so many biological but unfit parents raise them.  This is about rights and equality.  Take your concerns for the children and start doing something about the homes where they are being bounced off the walls and fucked like whores.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct. Nobody cares about the kids. Our lenient divorce laws are proof of that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want to get rid of those too, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're FOR Divorce?
> 
> LOL!  And they claim that they're not the purveyors of Evil in our time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am certainly in agreement that divorce is a legal option.  You want divorce eliminated legally?
Click to expand...


I want divorce to be virtually impossible when children under 18 are involved. The kids didn't decide to be a dumbass, you did.

Mark


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

JakeStarkey said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 80zypher can't understand the logic is the issue, or the constitution, for that matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which logic am I missing? Are you really trying to say that if all people are treated equally, they are being discriminated against?  Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A person in Illinois has the same innate right to marry the person he chooses as does anyone in Utah.
> 
> Opposition to marriage equality is opposition to innate rights and the Constitution.
> 
> If you don't like homosexual marriage, then don't marry one of your own sex.  No one cares, son.
Click to expand...


No such right exists... as there is no right to lend assistance in injuring another person.  

Sexual Abnormality is the result of cognitive perversion; which is to say the consequence of a disordered mind.  By lending to the pretense that Marriage is something other than the joining of one man and one woman, one lends credence to perverse reasoning, injuring themselves, the other subject and anyone else who may be affected, or otherwise influenced BY the perversion.

See how that works?


----------



## Carib Gyal

PaintMyHouse said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! And what we say it is today may not be what we say it is tomorrow, using the very same arguments you are using now. Because marriage is what we say it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, do you suddenly think we're going to redefine marriage in the future as that of one man and one woman, of the same race and religion and age, who must be able to conceive children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee do you think cycles won't continue as they have since the beginning of the mankind that you want to wipe off the face of the Earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee, answer the fucking question.  What part of this makes you think were going to go backwards, about 500 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answer your stupid fucking question? OK, I didn't suddenly think anything, I've known about the cyclical nature of public opinion for years.
> 
> Now you answer mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think, somehow magically, that we will return to the Gold Old Days when the faggots stayed in the closet and didn't have rights?  God you are fucking dumb.
> 
> Move to Jesusland and get the fuck out of my country.
Click to expand...

Answer my question, stupid fuck.


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's where you are wrong. In realistic terms, there can not be discrimination when all people are treated the same.
> 
> If marriage is allowed only between one man and one woman, then EVERYONE lives under the same law. That is not an opinion. It is logic.
> 
> And you can disagree if you want, but logic says you are wrong.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you aware that your argument was used before?
> 
> As Reconstruction collapsed in the late 1870s, legislators, policymakers, and, above all, judges began to marshal the arguments they needed to justify the reinstatement--and subsequent expansion--of miscegenation law.
> 
> Here are four of the arguments they used:
> 
> 1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.
> 
> 2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.
> 
> 3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and
> 
> 4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."
> 
> On this fourth point--the supposed "unnaturality" of interracial marriage--judges formed a virtual chorus. Here, for example, is the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878:
> 
> The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.
> 
> *The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.*
> 
> - See more at: History News Network Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Race is not gender, it has no context in this debate, IMO.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...you think equal civil rights under our laws should apply only in the case of race?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. But, in the case of marriage, either tab A fits into slot B, or its not marriage. No matter how much you wish it to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The courts and the American people disagree so exactly how long are you going to keep pissing into the wind?  How long before you grow the fuck up?
Click to expand...


When the courts disagreed with you, did you stop your whining? Or, did you keep on going? There are now inroads being made into making abortion harder to get.

The game is never over. Ever.

Mark


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
> 
> *Marriage is for reproduction*, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I will, because it's pertinent.
> 
> Marriage today is for many things and reproduction is not the only thing and insisting on that would deprive many of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sex isn't even for reproduction, usually, but somehow marriage is?  Morons here, total fucking morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the context of our society, your damn right it is. It is the reason why childbirth outside of marriage was shunned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because fucking outside of marriage was shunned dumbass.  It had nothing to do with marriage.  And it was also shunned if you were married but fucking someone other than your spouse, along with fucking animals, children, and your same sex.  It was the fucking that mattered, the out-of-wedlock child was just the evidence that you were a slut who couldn't keep her legs crossed and so were the other bastards men produced on the side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. You are getting it. Yep, fucking outside of marriage was socially unacceptable because this was before birth control and abortion, and the child wouldn't be brought up in a two parent household.
Click to expand...

God you dumb as a box of fucking hammers.  Who raised the child was of no concern, who you fucked to get it was.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you aware that your argument was used before?
> 
> As Reconstruction collapsed in the late 1870s, legislators, policymakers, and, above all, judges began to marshal the arguments they needed to justify the reinstatement--and subsequent expansion--of miscegenation law.
> 
> Here are four of the arguments they used:
> 
> 1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.
> 
> 2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.
> 
> 3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and
> 
> 4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."
> 
> On this fourth point--the supposed "unnaturality" of interracial marriage--judges formed a virtual chorus. Here, for example, is the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878:
> 
> The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.
> 
> *The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.*
> 
> - See more at: History News Network Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Race is not gender, it has no context in this debate, IMO.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...you think equal civil rights under our laws should apply only in the case of race?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. But, in the case of marriage, either tab A fits into slot B, or its not marriage. No matter how much you wish it to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The courts and the American people disagree so exactly how long are you going to keep pissing into the wind?  How long before you grow the fuck up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the courts disagreed with you, did you stop your whining? Or, did you keep on going? There are now inroads being made into making abortion harder to get.
> 
> The game is never over. Ever.
Click to expand...

So you will be a total dumbshit, saying all the rest of America is wrong and you are right, for the rest of your goddamned life then?  Okay, see ya.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have news for you little faggot haters, children are not part of this discussion over rights.  I don't give a fuck if it is worse for the children, we don't do what is best for the child in this country because if we did we wouldn't let so many biological but unfit parents raise them.  This is about rights and equality.  Take your concerns for the children and start doing something about the homes where they are being bounced off the walls and fucked like whores.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct. Nobody cares about the kids. Our lenient divorce laws are proof of that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want to get rid of those too, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're FOR Divorce?
> 
> LOL!  And they claim that they're not the purveyors of Evil in our time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am certainly in agreement that divorce is a legal option.  You want divorce eliminated legally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want divorce to be virtually impossible when children under 18 are involved. The kids didn't decide to be a dumbass, you did.
Click to expand...

Jesus, go watch some I Love Lucy episodes and dream of when there was actual support for your backwards mentality.


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:
> 
> “DOMA didn't fall, it's just not being enforced...kinda like federal marijuana laws.”
> 
> Incorrect
> 
> The CSA regulating marijuana use is Constitutional (_Gonzales v. Raich_ (2005)), DOMA, not – it in fact failed to pass Constitutional muster (_US v. Windsor_ (2013)).
> 
> SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:
> 
> “Every law has a moral component and is an expression of somebody's view of morality. It promotes what somebody thinks should be promoted. It just so happens that most people think marriage should promote family and children which is why we have these marriage laws.”
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> That something is perceived by the majority to be 'immoral' or 'traditional' is legally and Constitutionally invalid:
> 
> “Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack. Second, individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons.”
> 
> LAWRENCE V. TEXAS
> 
> SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:
> 
> “Under the constitution, states retain the prerogative to set marriage laws according to the values of their residents.”
> 
> Under the Constitution, the states are required to afford equal protection of the law to all persons eligible to participate in marriage – same- or opposite-sex. Residents of the states do not have the authority to deny gay Americans access to marriage law predicated on something as subjective and as capricious as 'values.' A measure seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law “classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This [the states] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” (_Romer v. Evans _(1996)).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said this:
> 
> *That something is perceived by the majority to be 'immoral' or 'traditional' is legally and Constitutionally invalid:*
> 
> 
> Your wrong. Laws are made with moral components every day. Tell me, when the nation decided to change adulthood from 21 to 18, was that a moral decision, or was it based on some fact that we missed?
> 
> Who says that you can't buy a pistol, at 20, when the law states you have to be 21, and at 18 the "law" sys you are an adult?
> 
> There are dozens of laws that are written the same way.
> 
> If morals were not part of our laws, we would let children marry at 7. They are not adults you say? Know why? Because our sense of morality set age limits on these types of things.
> 
> Are drug laws valid? I mean, taking heroin isn't hurting anyone if you don't overdose. Why do these laws exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equality is a Moral thing dumbass.
Click to expand...


And? I just gave examples of some that are treated unequally on the basis of morality.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Race is not gender, it has no context in this debate, IMO.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> So...you think equal civil rights under our laws should apply only in the case of race?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. But, in the case of marriage, either tab A fits into slot B, or its not marriage. No matter how much you wish it to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The courts and the American people disagree so exactly how long are you going to keep pissing into the wind?  How long before you grow the fuck up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the courts disagreed with you, did you stop your whining? Or, did you keep on going? There are now inroads being made into making abortion harder to get.
> 
> The game is never over. Ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you will be a total dumbshit, saying all the rest of America is wrong and you are right, for the rest of your goddamned life then?  Okay, see ya.
Click to expand...


Why not? It worked for you, didn't it?

Mark


----------



## Iceweasel

Skylar said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be it the right to marry, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to speech......*rights trump the State's powers to abrogate them. *
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the Constitutional right to marry? Why do you guys make shit up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please read the 9th amendment.
Click to expand...

Please make your point.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evil should be shunned... everywhere, every time and in every facet in which it exists.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and you are said evil.
Click to expand...


(This is where it gets fun kids... watch this 'trick'.  Try it for yourself... it provides the means for them to demonstrate their intrinsic evil.)

How so?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> So...you think equal civil rights under our laws should apply only in the case of race?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. But, in the case of marriage, either tab A fits into slot B, or its not marriage. No matter how much you wish it to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The courts and the American people disagree so exactly how long are you going to keep pissing into the wind?  How long before you grow the fuck up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the courts disagreed with you, did you stop your whining? Or, did you keep on going? There are now inroads being made into making abortion harder to get.
> 
> The game is never over. Ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you will be a total dumbshit, saying all the rest of America is wrong and you are right, for the rest of your goddamned life then?  Okay, see ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not? It worked for you, didn't it?
Click to expand...

No, what worked for me was America finally grew up a little bit and the courts decided they could no longer do what they had done just because this country was made up of faggot-haters like yourself.  America does sometimes eventually grow up a tiny bit, but not you, not in a million years.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct. Nobody cares about the kids. Our lenient divorce laws are proof of that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> You want to get rid of those too, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're FOR Divorce?
> 
> LOL!  And they claim that they're not the purveyors of Evil in our time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am certainly in agreement that divorce is a legal option.  You want divorce eliminated legally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want divorce to be virtually impossible when children under 18 are involved. The kids didn't decide to be a dumbass, you did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus, go watch some I Love Lucy episodes and dream of when there was actual support for your backwards mentality.
Click to expand...


80... you have a ^ concession ^ waiting to be noted and accepted up there.


----------



## Iceweasel

Skylar said:


> Exactly the same reasoning. Since both blacks and whites were prohibited from from marrying each other, the laws were 'equal'.
> 
> Alas, you need a valid basis for the restriction to exist to begin with. And such a reason exists in neither gay marriage bans nor interracial marriage bans.


Race is protected, your sexual preference isn't. You activists constantly lie to further your agenda. Black men and women were not treated the same as whites. Homosexuality is neither a race, gender or religion. Lying about it just weakens your case.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evil should be shunned... everywhere, every time and in every facet in which it exists.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and you are said evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (This is where it gets fun kids... what this 'trick'.  Try it for yourself... it provides the means for them to demonstrate their intrinsic evil.)
> 
> How so?
Click to expand...

It starts with the fact that you think you know what evil actually is.  In your case that is anything you fear or that threatens your dogmatic worldview.  I've seen it a million times.  In no time at all you'll be telling me that Christianity is the One True Faith, when is just happens to be the one you were raised in and you know nothing of any other.  You don't fucking think, the first sign that you probably are evil.


----------



## Silhouette

Iceweasel said:


> Race is protected, your sexual preference isn't. You activists constantly lie to further your agenda. Black men and women were not treated the same as whites. Homosexuality is neither a race, gender or religion. Lying about it just weakens your case.


 
Oh, it's definitely a religion...more properly a cult.  It evangelizes, recruits and punishes heretics (Anne Heche syndrome).  It launches inquisitions daily and seeks to usurp any other religion whose edicts are in direct conflict with its dogma of "self, indulgence, deviance" Amen.

You'd better believe it's a religion, because if you mistake it for anything else, you will be burned at the stake...eventually...


----------



## AVG-JOE

80zephyr said:


> Our government policies were set up to help families raise children. It is the only reason these laws exist. Since gays cannot have children, having the government give them the same benefits is unreasonable.
> 
> Government discriminates every day. Tell me, is it discrimination if I have to pay taxes to provide for some one elses welfare?
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> Mark



If a government like ours wants to establish economic rules that either enhance or tax partnerships that government MUST enforce those rules equally across the board.  The only other option is to eliminate the special treatment that's given to ALL married couples.

What is so fucking hard to understand about the demand that our constitution makes for equal treatment under the law for ALL?

Either eliminate all the rules that treat married couples differently than non married partners, or grant those benefits to ALL who're willing to make the kind of legally binding commitment to each other that "marriage" means in 21st Century America. 

This is not rocket science...  Just a willingness to live and let live.


----------



## Iceweasel

Skylar said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is true that marriage can be defined and redefined by society or opinion (and it is true), then it can continually be redefined again and again.
> 
> Therefore, what you believe marriage is or isn't today, can be changed again in a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is a social construct. It is whatever we say it is.
Click to expand...

No, marriage is a legal arrangement. People live together without marriages. I do agree though that we are on a slippery slope since there's nothing to prevent bisexuals from marrying a male and female, it's just a matter of time and being a squeaky wheel like the homosexuals. 

It's time government abandons marriage definitions and legal status and it DOES become a social construct and is whatever you want it to be.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. But, in the case of marriage, either tab A fits into slot B, or its not marriage. No matter how much you wish it to be.
> 
> 
> 
> The courts and the American people disagree so exactly how long are you going to keep pissing into the wind?  How long before you grow the fuck up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the courts disagreed with you, did you stop your whining? Or, did you keep on going? There are now inroads being made into making abortion harder to get.
> 
> The game is never over. Ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you will be a total dumbshit, saying all the rest of America is wrong and you are right, for the rest of your goddamned life then?  Okay, see ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not? It worked for you, didn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, what worked for me was America finally grew up a little bit and the courts decided they could no longer do what they had done just because this country was made up of faggot-haters like yourself.  America does sometimes eventually grow up a tiny bit, but not you, not in a million years.
Click to expand...


Few people, if any 'hate the sexually abnormal'.  All people of sound mind, merely recognize that sexual abnormality is the consequence of a perversion of human reasoning and that to accept perverse reasoning is to cripple the individual and by logical extension to cripple the viability of the culture that such infects.

You're in effect asking the culture to Normalize Abnormal Reasoning.  Such is beyond foolish and has never in the history of humanity provided for anything except a sign of the impending doom of whatever culture that tried it.


----------



## Iceweasel

Silhouette said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Race is protected, your sexual preference isn't. You activists constantly lie to further your agenda. Black men and women were not treated the same as whites. Homosexuality is neither a race, gender or religion. Lying about it just weakens your case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, it's definitely a religion...more properly a cult.  It evangelizes, recruits and punishes heretics (Anne Heche syndrome).  It launches inquisitions daily and seeks to usurp any other religion whose edicts are in direct conflict with its dogma of "self, indulgence, deviance" Amen.
> 
> You'd better believe it's a religion, because if you mistake it for anything else, you will be burned at the stake...eventually...
Click to expand...

I was tempted to go there, but kept it simple since the concept of the square pegs going in the square holes is too hard for some here. Yes, if you support traditional marriage you are a heretic but they prefer to use the emotional term "homophobe".


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Iceweasel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is true that marriage can be defined and redefined by society or opinion (and it is true), then it can continually be redefined again and again.
> 
> Therefore, what you believe marriage is or isn't today, can be changed again in a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is a social construct. It is whatever we say it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, marriage is a legal arrangement. People live together without marriages. I do agree though that we are on a slippery slope since there's nothing to prevent bisexuals from marrying a male and female, it's just a matter of time and being a squeaky wheel like the homosexuals.
> 
> It's time government abandons marriage definitions and legal status and it DOES become a social construct and is whatever you want it to be.
Click to expand...


No...  You're reasoning is that because the Left is squeaky... we must compromise with them until all standards are eliminated.

The problem with that is that standards are what provide for the viability of any institution... eliminate standards and you eliminate the institution which is sustained by them.

The better alternative is to eliminate the Left.

Culture's routinely survive war... they never survive the infection which attacks the viability of their structure.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> The courts and the American people disagree so exactly how long are you going to keep pissing into the wind?  How long before you grow the fuck up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the courts disagreed with you, did you stop your whining? Or, did you keep on going? There are now inroads being made into making abortion harder to get.
> 
> The game is never over. Ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you will be a total dumbshit, saying all the rest of America is wrong and you are right, for the rest of your goddamned life then?  Okay, see ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not? It worked for you, didn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, what worked for me was America finally grew up a little bit and the courts decided they could no longer do what they had done just because this country was made up of faggot-haters like yourself.  America does sometimes eventually grow up a tiny bit, but not you, not in a million years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Few people, if any 'hate the sexually abnormal'.  All people of sound mind, merely recognize that sexual abnormality is the consequence of a perversion of human reasoning and that to accept perverse reasoning is to cripple the individual and by logical extension to cripple the viability of the culture that such infects.
> 
> You're in effect asking the culture to Normalize Abnormal Reasoning.  Such is beyond foolish and has never in the history of humanity provided for anything except a sign of the impending doom of whatever culture that tried it.
Click to expand...

Well your society has already rejected your "reasoning" there my little man.  Now what do you do?


----------



## 80zephyr

Seawytch said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Limiting it to two is discriminatory.  I mean, why can't a bi-sexual marry both the man and the woman he/she loves?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.
> 
> Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.
> 
> The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands.  Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.
> 
> Treat all partnerships the same.  Easy-squeezy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Requiring marriage to a partner of the opposite sex was also applied equally, regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take that argument a step back in history:  Requiring marriage to a partner of the same race was also applied equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Any man couldn't marry any woman. Now, they can. And since marriage is for reproduction, all discrimination stopped after racial intermarriage was allowed.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right...we ended marriage discrimination based on race in 1967 (but the prevailing argument that it wasn't discrimination held out for 85 years) and now we are ending it based on gender in 2014-15. I don't want to marry a man just as Mildred Loving didn't want to marry a black person. The discrimination is exactly the same, the justification of the bigots is exactly the same...only the targets have changed. The outcomes will be the same though...the bigots lose.
Click to expand...

Anyone that can't see the difference between race and gender when it comes to marriage just isn't thinking properly.

Mark


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is true that marriage can be defined and redefined by society or opinion (and it is true), then it can continually be redefined again and again.
> 
> Therefore, what you believe marriage is or isn't today, can be changed again in a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is a social construct. It is whatever we say it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, marriage is a legal arrangement. People live together without marriages. I do agree though that we are on a slippery slope since there's nothing to prevent bisexuals from marrying a male and female, it's just a matter of time and being a squeaky wheel like the homosexuals.
> 
> It's time government abandons marriage definitions and legal status and it DOES become a social construct and is whatever you want it to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...  You're reasoning is that because the Left is squeaky... we must compromise with them until all standards are eliminated.
> 
> The problem with that is that standards are what provide for the viability of any institution... eliminate standards and you eliminate the institution which is sustained by them.
> 
> The better alternative is to eliminate the Left.
> 
> Culture's routinely survive war... they never survive the infection which attacks the viability of their structure.
Click to expand...

This is a Liberal Nation founded by Liberals.  If you don't like it then get the fuck out.  No one is stopping you.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

AVG-JOE said:


> If a government like ours wants to establish economic rules that either enhance or tax partnerships that government MUST enforce those rules equally across the board.



And our government does just that.

There is nothing in the standard of marriage which discriminates against the sexual deviant.  PERIOD.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. 

If two deviants of the same gender want to join in one legal entity... they're perfectly entitled to do so through the article of incorporation, or some other device established for that purpose. 

What that device will NEVER BE, is _Marriage._


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.
> 
> Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.
> 
> The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands.  Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.
> 
> Treat all partnerships the same.  Easy-squeezy.
> 
> 
> 
> Requiring marriage to a partner of the opposite sex was also applied equally, regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take that argument a step back in history:  Requiring marriage to a partner of the same race was also applied equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Any man couldn't marry any woman. Now, they can. And since marriage is for reproduction, all discrimination stopped after racial intermarriage was allowed.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right...we ended marriage discrimination based on race in 1967 (but the prevailing argument that it wasn't discrimination held out for 85 years) and now we are ending it based on gender in 2014-15. I don't want to marry a man just as Mildred Loving didn't want to marry a black person. The discrimination is exactly the same, the justification of the bigots is exactly the same...only the targets have changed. The outcomes will be the same though...the bigots lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone that can't see the difference between race and gender when it comes to marriage just isn't thinking properly.
Click to expand...

Anyone who can't see the similarity doesn't understand legal reasoning and arguments, the arguments your side has used and lost with time and again.  

Tell us, when it's legal in all 50 states, June is likely, what will you do then?


----------



## AVG-JOE

ninja007 said:


> thats because the gayz are only 3-4% of the pop.



So what?

I'll bet that there's a category you belong to that's a minority... are you sure that you want the government backing mob rule instead of protecting freedom of thought and minority opinion?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is true that marriage can be defined and redefined by society or opinion (and it is true), then it can continually be redefined again and again.
> 
> Therefore, what you believe marriage is or isn't today, can be changed again in a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is a social construct. It is whatever we say it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, marriage is a legal arrangement. People live together without marriages. I do agree though that we are on a slippery slope since there's nothing to prevent bisexuals from marrying a male and female, it's just a matter of time and being a squeaky wheel like the homosexuals.
> 
> It's time government abandons marriage definitions and legal status and it DOES become a social construct and is whatever you want it to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...  You're reasoning is that because the Left is squeaky... we must compromise with them until all standards are eliminated.
> 
> The problem with that is that standards are what provide for the viability of any institution... eliminate standards and you eliminate the institution which is sustained by them.
> 
> The better alternative is to eliminate the Left.
> 
> Culture's routinely survive war... they never survive the infection which attacks the viability of their structure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a Liberal Nation founded by Liberals.  If you do like then get the fuck out.  No one is stopping you.
Click to expand...


THE LEFT... "The better alternative is to eliminate the Left." You're conflating the context of the word "Liberal", which literally means Proponent of Individual LIBERTY" and The Ideological Left, which axiomatically OPPOSES  Individual Liberty... preferring to tout the ruse of 'Collective Liberty', which nature requires cannot exist absent INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.  

But, LOL!  As a Leftist, you could not have possibly known that. As to_ know it, _requires objectivity and Leftists axiomatically reject objectivity.  

Your concession, is therefore duly noted and summarily accepted.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is true that marriage can be defined and redefined by society or opinion (and it is true), then it can continually be redefined again and again.
> 
> Therefore, what you believe marriage is or isn't today, can be changed again in a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is a social construct. It is whatever we say it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, marriage is a legal arrangement. People live together without marriages. I do agree though that we are on a slippery slope since there's nothing to prevent bisexuals from marrying a male and female, it's just a matter of time and being a squeaky wheel like the homosexuals.
> 
> It's time government abandons marriage definitions and legal status and it DOES become a social construct and is whatever you want it to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...  You're reasoning is that because the Left is squeaky... we must compromise with them until all standards are eliminated.
> 
> The problem with that is that standards are what provide for the viability of any institution... eliminate standards and you eliminate the institution which is sustained by them.
> 
> The better alternative is to eliminate the Left.
> 
> Culture's routinely survive war... they never survive the infection which attacks the viability of their structure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a Liberal Nation founded by Liberals.  If you do like then get the fuck out.  No one is stopping you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THE LEFT... "The better alternative is to eliminate the Left." You're conflating the context of the word "Liberal", which literally means Proponent of Individual LIBERTY" and The Ideological Left, which axiomatically OPPOSES  Individual Liberty... preferring to tout the ruse of 'Collective Liberty', which nature requires cannot exist absent INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.
> 
> But, LOL!  As a Leftist, you could not have possibly known that. As to_ know it, _requires objectivity and Leftists axiomatically reject objectivity.
> 
> Your concession, is therefore duly noted and summarily accepted.
Click to expand...

I'll make it simple for you asswipe, we founded the place, it's our nation, fucked as it is, so get out and take for god and guns with you.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

AVG-JOE said:


> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> thats because the gayz are only 3-4% of the pop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
Click to expand...


Extremely minute minority... when means that you people are _*irrelevant*_.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> thats because the gayz are only 3-4% of the pop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Extremely minute minority... when means that you people are _*irrelevant*_.
Click to expand...

I'll let the Jews and Mormons know of your decision.


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take that argument a step back in history:  Requiring marriage to a partner of the same race was also applied equally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Any man couldn't marry any woman. Now, they can. And since marriage is for reproduction, all discrimination stopped after racial intermarriage was allowed.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except marriage is no longer for reproduction - that is outdated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not only outdated, it's not even true.  Marriage was never about reproduction.  Until recently it wasn't even about love let alone children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were correct, history would be replete with men marrying men and women marrying women. Know what I think? I think arguments like this are simply one more way that the left lies about history to make what they want more palatable to the "sheep".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is plenty of history, you just don't know it, or want to, because it would mean that your mentality is based upon a lie, which it is.  And even if marriage once was only meant for reproduction it now no longer is and hasn't been for a very long time, so you're fucked from all sides, and apparently can't deal with like an adult and accept that You Have Lost, period.  You will just have to move on because we ain't going back.
Click to expand...

Plenty of history? Put some links where your mouth is.

Mark


----------



## AVG-JOE

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?



How can you live with a vengeful Deity constantly looking over your shoulder with threats of eternal judgement?  


The question goes both ways Bro'.  I sleep like a baby because, in my humble opinion, The God of Abraham, as defined in The Torah, The New Testament and The Koran is fictitious.  Simple as that.

And if God is, He/She/It doesn't seem to mind my railing against those particular ancient stories... quite to the contrary, I'm one of the luckiest little Monkeys I know.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Any man couldn't marry any woman. Now, they can. And since marriage is for reproduction, all discrimination stopped after racial intermarriage was allowed.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except marriage is no longer for reproduction - that is outdated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not only outdated, it's not even true.  Marriage was never about reproduction.  Until recently it wasn't even about love let alone children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were correct, history would be replete with men marrying men and women marrying women. Know what I think? I think arguments like this are simply one more way that the left lies about history to make what they want more palatable to the "sheep".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is plenty of history, you just don't know it, or want to, because it would mean that your mentality is based upon a lie, which it is.  And even if marriage once was only meant for reproduction it now no longer is and hasn't been for a very long time, so you're fucked from all sides, and apparently can't deal with like an adult and accept that You Have Lost, period.  You will just have to move on because we ain't going back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plenty of history? Put some links where your mouth is.
Click to expand...

I gave you the link to start with.  I'm not here to spoon-feed stupid reactionaries on what they should already have looked up, like the History of Marriage.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

AVG-JOE said:


> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> thats because the gayz are only 3-4% of the pop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
Click to expand...


Extremely minute minority... when means that you people are _*irrelevant*_.

That you seek to increase the volume of the disease you represent, makes you a threat to the security of the culture itself.  Which became apparent in the months preceding the last election; the results of which indicating that people have finally awakened to the threat you represent... and THAT may mean that you're finally going to gain the RELEVANCE YOU CRAVE.

But ... not in the 'Will and Grace" way you hoped to...  It's probably gonna be closer to a "World War Z" sorta way.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

AVG-JOE said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you live with a vengeful Deity constantly looking over your shoulder with threats of eternal judgement?
Click to expand...


Is there an option?  

All behavior brings consequences... you act a if there's a choice.  

But to provide you the courtesy of considering your appeal... what would BE such an option?


----------



## Carib Gyal

PMH taking a Monty Python style assin


----------



## AVG-JOE

80zephyr said:


> Because marriage, by its very nature, is for reproduction. Now, we understand that people can marry without having children, but that it is the exception to the basis for the existence of marriage. That is doesn't happen every time doesn't change that fact.



There is NOTHING natural about marriage.  Marriage is a construct of Monkey evolution as a society - Marriage is 100% human.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you live with a vengeful Deity constantly looking over your shoulder with threats of eternal judgement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there an option?
Click to expand...

Yeah there's an option.  You could stop believing in worn out Fairy Tales from a religion for fools, slaves, and children.  In other words you could grow the fuck up and deal with the fact that dead is dead like a man instead of demanding eternal life in a paradise that you don't even have to work for.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is a social construct. It is whatever we say it is.
> 
> 
> 
> No, marriage is a legal arrangement. People live together without marriages. I do agree though that we are on a slippery slope since there's nothing to prevent bisexuals from marrying a male and female, it's just a matter of time and being a squeaky wheel like the homosexuals.
> 
> It's time government abandons marriage definitions and legal status and it DOES become a social construct and is whatever you want it to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...  You're reasoning is that because the Left is squeaky... we must compromise with them until all standards are eliminated.
> 
> The problem with that is that standards are what provide for the viability of any institution... eliminate standards and you eliminate the institution which is sustained by them.
> 
> The better alternative is to eliminate the Left.
> 
> Culture's routinely survive war... they never survive the infection which attacks the viability of their structure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a Liberal Nation founded by Liberals.  If you do like then get the fuck out.  No one is stopping you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THE LEFT... "The better alternative is to eliminate the Left." You're conflating the context of the word "Liberal", which literally means Proponent of Individual LIBERTY" and The Ideological Left, which axiomatically OPPOSES  Individual Liberty... preferring to tout the ruse of 'Collective Liberty', which nature requires cannot exist absent INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.
> 
> But, LOL!  As a Leftist, you could not have possibly known that. As to_ know it, _requires objectivity and Leftists axiomatically reject objectivity.
> 
> Your concession, is therefore duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll make it simple for you asswipe, we founded the place, it's our nation, fucked as it is, so get out and take for god and guns with you.
Click to expand...


"We"?

As a Moderator on this VERY SITE recently noted: 
*
THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!*

So YOU of the Ideological Left... had no part in Founding the concept America, or the nation: The United States which came as a result of recognizing the laws of nature which govern human behavior and which define America.

Those principles rest in OBJECTIVE REASONING, which the Ideological Left, OKA: YOU ... axiomatically REJECT.

I wish that you possessed the means to reason, so that you could understand... . 

ROFL!  But it is sorta COOL that ya can't.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> thats because the gayz are only 3-4% of the pop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Extremely minute minority... when means that you people are _*irrelevant*_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll let the Jews and Mormons know of your decision.
Click to expand...


They know...


----------



## AVG-JOE

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you live with a vengeful Deity constantly looking over your shoulder with threats of eternal judgement?
> 
> 
> 
> Is there an option?
> 
> All behavior brings consequences... you act a if there's a choice.
> 
> But to provide you the courtesy of considering your appeal... what would BE such an option?
Click to expand...

Sure there is!!!

Stop believing and see what happens.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

AVG-JOE said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because marriage, by its very nature, is for reproduction. Now, we understand that people can marry without having children, but that it is the exception to the basis for the existence of marriage. That is doesn't happen every time doesn't change that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is NOTHING natural about marriage.  Marriage is a construct of Monkey evolution as a society - Marriage is 100% human.
Click to expand...


In truth, thus in reality, Marriage is the natural, logical extension of the human physiological design, wherein the female is protected during gestation and wherein the complimenting traits of the respective genders nurture and train their progeny, as a means to promote the highest probability that such will result in a viable adult, thus promoting the highest potential for the species to propagate through sustainable process, therefore promoting human viability.  Did you not take ANY _*Science* classes_?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> thats because the gayz are only 3-4% of the pop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Extremely minute minority... when means that you people are _*irrelevant*_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll let the Jews and Mormons know of your decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They know...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great to hear, so let's figure out which tiny group you belong to that also doesn't fucking matter?  Let's start with your penis and your brain.  That's two tiny things but I'm sure there are more.
Click to expand...


Belongs? Who said that minorities 'do not belong'?  

Any group can participate.  But insignificant minorities do not get to set the rules.

Infections, they_ do not belong_.  AIDs, Sexual Deviancy and the reasoning which causes it.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because marriage, by its very nature, is for reproduction. Now, we understand that people can marry without having children, but that it is the exception to the basis for the existence of marriage. That is doesn't happen every time doesn't change that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is NOTHING natural about marriage.  Marriage is a construct of Monkey evolution as a society - Marriage is 100% human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In truth, thus in reality, Marriage is the natural, logical extension of the human physiological design, wherein the female is protected during gestation and wherein the complimenting traits of the respective genders nurture and train their progeny, as a means to promote the highest probability that such will result in a viable adult, thus promoting the highest potential for the species to propagate through sustainable process, therefore promoting human viability.  Did you not take ANY _*Science* classes_?
Click to expand...

Just for the hell of it, let's say that all of that is true.  Good so far?

So, are our laws based upon Nature?


----------



## 80zephyr

Londoner said:


> Conservatives who get their information from the Rightwing message system don't understand the libertarian minimalist state, nor do they understand the Constitution, which protects everyone's beliefs, including Muslims and Homosexuals, provided those beliefs don't harm others.
> 
> (Republicans want a powerful state which imposes their values on others. They want to limit the freedom and full civic participation of groups they find evil, abnormal or otherwise inferior. FYI: these groups shift over time. Homosexuals are the flavor of the month.)
> 
> But they weren't always the flavor of the month.  Conservative traditionalists (from both political parties) opposed the progress of blacks and women. To understand the disgust these people have for different value systems, research the reaction of Nixon's "Silent White majority" to the feminist revolution of the 60s.
> 
> The Rightwing czars of morality have an uneasy relationship to science, which is why they needed to create a massive institutional network of think tanks, which enabled them to tailor their scientific findings to their political goals. If science proves that human sexuality is an automatic response, the job of their think tanks is to show that it is a choice. They can get away with this because their voting coalition includes a block of people who have not had much advanced education, and so are quite vulnerable to the many charismatic pundits who seem to thrive on the Right.
> 
> Here is what many Republicans don't understand about the moral duty of the state to protect the sanctity of marriage. Government does not exist to save our souls. This is the job of individuals and families, in the privacy of their own lives. The sacredness of marriage doesn't come from the contract or the state, it comes from free individuals - individuals who are not told by bureaucrats what is good and normal, that is, individuals who are free to practice their own beliefs provided they don't harm others. The marriage contract is only a legal document that stipulates rights and obligations. Only a conservative could confuse a bureaucratic contract with a holy document.
> 
> Government exists merely to hand out and enforce legal contracts. We don't want a bureaucrat at the foot of every bed or hiding in every closet to make sure that each American practices the lifestyle and beliefs of conservatives. We want government not to care about our soul, our sexuality, our book purchases, etc. We want a minimalist state.
> 
> We want a minimalist state that doesn't play an activist role in morality or beliefs.
> 
> We want a minimalist state that hands out contracts and protects our right not to be harmed by others. We don't want Washington to legislate morality and impose a single set of values on all groups. We want maximum freedom for the maximum number of people.
> 
> Conservatives, on the other hand, want a big powerful government that imposes a single set of values on all people. In the 1800s they told us it wasn't natural for women to leave their domestic/biological destiny for public or civic leadership. We were told that women were too irrational to meet the rigorous mental demands of politics, and that they were more suited to being man's helper and providing a nurturing home.
> 
> Thank god we didn't let conservatives and traditionalists win that fight. Thank god we didn't let them define what was moral and normal behavior for women. [You get the picture right? Every generation of conservatives has a unique set of beliefs and values to be imposed by big government on the rest of us. They always find a group which is abnormal, evil or inferior, and who therefore deserves a lower status, with fewer rights]
> 
> Unfortunately, because the centralized power of Washington exists, we are still vulnerable to the centralization and violent imposition of a single value system, one that subjugates all outsiders to a singular  system, much like communism, which itself limited a diversity of beliefs and practices for "the good of society".
> 
> *God help us, because the Nazis were also driven by a very powerful conception of what was good and normal. Study eugenics. All it took was a massive economic downturn, which made the masses vulnerable to a charismatic leader promising moral renewal by expunging from the state all who were not pure.*
> 
> God help us.



So, its the conservatives that want a strong central government?

Lol.

Mark


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Extremely minute minority... when means that you people are _*irrelevant*_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll let the Jews and Mormons know of your decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They know...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great to hear, so let's figure out which tiny group you belong to that also doesn't fucking matter?  Let's start with your penis and your brain.  That's two tiny things but I'm sure there are more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Belongs?
> 
> Any group can participate.  But insignificant minorities do not get to set the rules.
Click to expand...

What part of the minority being protected from the majority here were you not taught?

It's a Whitey nation so why do the ******* have any rights at all?  12%? Fuck that noise.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> In truth, thus in reality, Marriage is the natural, logical extension of the human physiological design, wherein the female is protected during gestation and wherein the complimenting traits of the respective genders nurture and train their progeny, as a means to promote the highest probability that such will result in a viable adult, thus promoting the highest potential for the species to propagate through sustainable process, therefore promoting human viability.  Did you not take ANY _*Science* classes_?



And then there is the reality of evolution and survival of the most fit on a dog-eat-dog world where AMERICAN women didn't get the right to vote until the country was 125 years old.

​


----------



## 80zephyr

Seawytch said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our kids are fine and we're having them whether we're married or not. We're also marrying whether we have kids are not...just like straight folks.
> 
> Some of us DO have children. Gays are having children exactly like straights do....adoption, artificial insemination, IVF, divorce.
> 
> Someone explain why our families, whether with or without children, are less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges associated with civil marriage than straight families (with or without children)? What is your reasonable person standard you use to justify discriminating against our loving partnerships?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I believe that kids should be brought up with a man and a woman as the parents.  I think that nature devised a plan that has worked since the dawn of humankind, and I believe that kids bought up in a one gender household miss out on the guidance of the other gender.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally I'm glad you don't get to make the rules about who gets to be parents or not. I don't think fundamentalist Christians should get to be parents...I've seen more than my share of kids fucked up by having Fundie Parents.
> 
> I'm glad I don't get to make the rules about who can be parents either.
> 
> That doesn't answer the question though...try again. What reasonable person standard to you use to deny our family the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
Click to expand...


I just answered it. The  state shouldn't be condoning gay marriage.

Mark


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our kids are fine and we're having them whether we're married or not. We're also marrying whether we have kids are not...just like straight folks.
> 
> Some of us DO have children. Gays are having children exactly like straights do....adoption, artificial insemination, IVF, divorce.
> 
> Someone explain why our families, whether with or without children, are less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges associated with civil marriage than straight families (with or without children)? What is your reasonable person standard you use to justify discriminating against our loving partnerships?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I believe that kids should be brought up with a man and a woman as the parents.  I think that nature devised a plan that has worked since the dawn of humankind, and I believe that kids bought up in a one gender household miss out on the guidance of the other gender.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally I'm glad you don't get to make the rules about who gets to be parents or not. I don't think fundamentalist Christians should get to be parents...I've seen more than my share of kids fucked up by having Fundie Parents.
> 
> I'm glad I don't get to make the rules about who can be parents either.
> 
> That doesn't answer the question though...try again. What reasonable person standard to you use to deny our family the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just answered it. The  state shouldn't be condoning gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Well, the states disagree.  Now what my little faggot-hater?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

PaintMyHouse said:


> Yeah there's an option.  You could stop believing in worn out Fairy Tales ...



ROFLMNAO!

Anyone need anything else?

We have YET ANOTHER obama constituent declaring that THE LAWS OF NATURE are "Fairy Tales". 

See how that works?  Ya can't see it, taste it or touch it, so it doesn't exist.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

80zephyr said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our kids are fine and we're having them whether we're married or not. We're also marrying whether we have kids are not...just like straight folks.
> 
> Some of us DO have children. Gays are having children exactly like straights do....adoption, artificial insemination, IVF, divorce.
> 
> Someone explain why our families, whether with or without children, are less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges associated with civil marriage than straight families (with or without children)? What is your reasonable person standard you use to justify discriminating against our loving partnerships?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I believe that kids should be brought up with a man and a woman as the parents.  I think that nature devised a plan that has worked since the dawn of humankind, and I believe that kids bought up in a one gender household miss out on the guidance of the other gender.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally I'm glad you don't get to make the rules about who gets to be parents or not. I don't think fundamentalist Christians should get to be parents...I've seen more than my share of kids fucked up by having Fundie Parents.
> 
> I'm glad I don't get to make the rules about who can be parents either.
> 
> That doesn't answer the question though...try again. What reasonable person standard to you use to deny our family the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just answered it. The  state shouldn't be condoning gay marriage.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you live with a vengeful Deity constantly looking over your shoulder with threats of eternal judgement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there an option?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah there's an option.  You could stop believing in worn out Fairy Tales ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Anyone need anything else?
> 
> We have YET ANOTHER obama constituent declaring that THE LAWS OF NATURE are "Fairy Tales".
> 
> See how that works?  Ya can't see it, taste it or touch it, so it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

We were discussing your idiot God, idiot.


----------



## Carib Gyal

If marriage can be defined by a minority, why can't it be defined by ANY minority? Why can't a man marry any number of women who are willing to marry him? Why can't a woman marry any number of men or women she wants?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our kids are fine and we're having them whether we're married or not. We're also marrying whether we have kids are not...just like straight folks.
> 
> Some of us DO have children. Gays are having children exactly like straights do....adoption, artificial insemination, IVF, divorce.
> 
> Someone explain why our families, whether with or without children, are less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges associated with civil marriage than straight families (with or without children)? What is your reasonable person standard you use to justify discriminating against our loving partnerships?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I believe that kids should be brought up with a man and a woman as the parents.  I think that nature devised a plan that has worked since the dawn of humankind, and I believe that kids bought up in a one gender household miss out on the guidance of the other gender.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally I'm glad you don't get to make the rules about who gets to be parents or not. I don't think fundamentalist Christians should get to be parents...I've seen more than my share of kids fucked up by having Fundie Parents.
> 
> I'm glad I don't get to make the rules about who can be parents either.
> 
> That doesn't answer the question though...try again. What reasonable person standard to you use to deny our family the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just answered it. The  state shouldn't be condoning gay marriage.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...

Well the courts disagree.  You've lost, so now what?


----------



## Carib Gyal

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you live with a vengeful Deity constantly looking over your shoulder with threats of eternal judgement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there an option?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah there's an option.  You could stop believing in worn out Fairy Tales ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Anyone need anything else?
> 
> We have YET ANOTHER obama constituent declaring that THE LAWS OF NATURE are "Fairy Tales".
> 
> See how that works?  Ya can't see it, taste it or touch it, so it doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We were discussing your idiot God, idiot.
Click to expand...

The Jewish God made the rules.

"Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."

It's in Genesis.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Carib Gyal said:


> If marriage can be defined by a minority, why can't it be defined by ANY minority? Why can't a man marry any number of women who are willing to marry him? Why can't a woman marry any number of men or women she wants?


When we have legal marriage for any two adults, we'll look into it.  It is Traditional BTW, so you'll approve right?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Carib Gyal said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you live with a vengeful Deity constantly looking over your shoulder with threats of eternal judgement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there an option?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah there's an option.  You could stop believing in worn out Fairy Tales ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Anyone need anything else?
> 
> We have YET ANOTHER obama constituent declaring that THE LAWS OF NATURE are "Fairy Tales".
> 
> See how that works?  Ya can't see it, taste it or touch it, so it doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We were discussing your idiot God, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jewish God made the rules.
> 
> "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."
> 
> It's in Genesis.
Click to expand...

Adam and Eve weren't married, and Cain and Abel fucked their sisters.  Now what?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

PaintMyHouse said:


> Well, the states disagree. ...



In truth, "the State"; at least where "_the State"_ is defined as *the legislative will of the majority...* has sought to set into law the defense of The Laws of Nature, wherein:
_*
Marriage* is the joining of one man and one woman._

What the Left wants to define as "The State" is a handful of subjective (Leftist, Liberal, Progressive, Socialist) jurists.  We're talking, LITERALLY: 20 or so would-be _people..._


----------



## Carib Gyal

PaintMyHouse said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> If marriage can be defined by a minority, why can't it be defined by ANY minority? Why can't a man marry any number of women who are willing to marry him? Why can't a woman marry any number of men or women she wants?
> 
> 
> 
> When we have legal marriage for any two adults, we'll look into it.  It is Traditional BTW, so you'll approve right?
Click to expand...

Why wait? Why stick with tradition?


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  What you said there is your opinion.  Same as me.
> 
> Welcome to America, Bub.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's where you are wrong. In realistic terms, there can not be discrimination when all people are treated the same.
> 
> If marriage is allowed only between one man and one woman, then EVERYONE lives under the same law. That is not an opinion. It is logic.
> 
> And you can disagree if you want, but logic says you are wrong.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you aware that your argument was used before?
> 
> As Reconstruction collapsed in the late 1870s, legislators, policymakers, and, above all, judges began to marshal the arguments they needed to justify the reinstatement--and subsequent expansion--of miscegenation law.
> 
> Here are four of the arguments they used:
> 
> 1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.
> 
> 2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.
> 
> 3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and
> 
> 4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."
> 
> On this fourth point--the supposed "unnaturality" of interracial marriage--judges formed a virtual chorus. Here, for example, is the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878:
> 
> The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.
> 
> *The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.*
> 
> - See more at: History News Network Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Race is not gender, it has no context in this debate, IMO.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...you think equal civil rights under our laws should apply only in the case of race?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. But, in the case of marriage, *either tab A fits into slot B, or its not marriage*. No matter how much you wish it to be.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Using YOUR criteria, a veteran who has has a horrible war wound and lost his junk cannot get legally married.  Is that the case?


----------



## Carib Gyal

PaintMyHouse said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there an option?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah there's an option.  You could stop believing in worn out Fairy Tales ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Anyone need anything else?
> 
> We have YET ANOTHER obama constituent declaring that THE LAWS OF NATURE are "Fairy Tales".
> 
> See how that works?  Ya can't see it, taste it or touch it, so it doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We were discussing your idiot God, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jewish God made the rules.
> 
> "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."
> 
> It's in Genesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Adam and Eve weren't married, and Cain and Abel fucked their sisters.  Now what?
Click to expand...

The law wasn't given until Genesis 2:24. Now what?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

PaintMyHouse said:


> When we have legal marriage for any two adults, ...



Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we have legal marriage for any two adults, ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...

Give it a rest dumbass.  You lost, get over it.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

bodecea said:


> Using YOUR criteria, a veteran who has has a horrible war wound and lost his junk cannot get legally married.  Is that the case?



Sure he can, as long as he applies with a person of the distinct gender.  

(this is very simple stuff, yet it appears to be WELL OVER YOUR HEAD.  You sure ya don't want to go back to the "Fire HOT - Water WET!" thread?  _You were doin' GREAT there..._


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

AVG-JOE said:


> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> thats because the gayz are only 3-4% of the pop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> I'll bet that there's a category you belong to that's a minority... are you sure that you want the government backing mob rule instead of protecting freedom of thought and minority opinion?
Click to expand...


Democracy ensures that a small minority of people can't exercise control over the population, which is an oligarchy. The problem is tiny minorities of deviants have found another way to impose their will on the majority and that's to claim that their choice of lifestyle is a "civil right" and get others who don't know the law or the Constitution to go along with it.  NAMBLA is watching this process with great interest, seeing how all one has to do is draw "rights" out of thin air to gain approval for their lifestyle even if by cudgel. 

Lifestyle choice is not race. It's not gender. It's not anything that's protected under our Constitution.  All the faggot brigade has is their ability to lie and shout down all opposition. 

That's not the same as being right.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Carib Gyal said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah there's an option.  You could stop believing in worn out Fairy Tales ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Anyone need anything else?
> 
> We have YET ANOTHER obama constituent declaring that THE LAWS OF NATURE are "Fairy Tales".
> 
> See how that works?  Ya can't see it, taste it or touch it, so it doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We were discussing your idiot God, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jewish God made the rules.
> 
> "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."
> 
> It's in Genesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Adam and Eve weren't married, and Cain and Abel fucked their sisters.  Now what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law wasn't given until Genesis 2:24. Now what?
Click to expand...

Same answer as before, it doesn't fucking matter since marriage in the Bible would make the Mormons and Muslims jump for joy.  And you never answered the question, are you for Biblical Marriage, and that means more than one spouse, as well as marrying your sister-in-law and the woman you raped?


----------



## boilermaker55

Yes! In that religion. But once again your "kind" step over the boundaries of pushing an agenda onto those that have not allegiance to your faith.
It will take time for your "kind" to understand that your way is not the only way all others think.
But that is to progressive and "liberal" of a thought.









Carib Gyal said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you live with a vengeful Deity constantly looking over your shoulder with threats of eternal judgement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there an option?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah there's an option.  You could stop believing in worn out Fairy Tales ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Anyone need anything else?
> 
> We have YET ANOTHER obama constituent declaring that THE LAWS OF NATURE are "Fairy Tales".
> 
> See how that works?  Ya can't see it, taste it or touch it, so it doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We were discussing your idiot God, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jewish God made the rules.
> 
> "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."
> 
> It's in Genesis.
Click to expand...


----------



## Carib Gyal

PaintMyHouse said:


> Give it a rest dumbass.  You lost, get over it.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we have legal marriage for any two adults, ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give it a rest dumbass.  You lost, get over it.
Click to expand...


Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.


----------



## boilermaker55

It would be wonderful if you held that thought and belief of "oligarchy" when it comes to an economic standpoint. 
How easily and quickly thoughts seem to generate away from your prognosis for morality.








saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> thats because the gayz are only 3-4% of the pop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> I'll bet that there's a category you belong to that's a minority... are you sure that you want the government backing mob rule instead of protecting freedom of thought and minority opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democracy ensures that a small minority of people can't exercise control over the population, which is an oligarchy. The problem is tiny minorities of deviants have found another way to impose their will on the majority and that's to claim that their choice of lifestyle is a "civil right" and get others who don't know the law or the Constitution to go along with it.  NAMBLA is watching this process with great interest, seeing how all one has to do is draw "rights" out of thin air to gain approval for their lifestyle even if by cudgel.
> 
> Lifestyle choice is not race. It's not gender. It's not anything that's protected under our Constitution.  All the faggot brigade has is their ability to lie and shout down all opposition.
> 
> That's not the same as being right.
Click to expand...


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kids of gay parents fare worse study finds but research draws fire from experts - CBS News
> A Major Study Reveals What Happens to Children Raised by Same-Sex Couples - Mic
> 
> 
> 
> It Doesn't FUCKING matter.  It has nothing, repeat, nothing to do with Marriage Equality.  Got it now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...

So..Marriage laws require proof of missionary sex to be valid?  What about marriages of convenience?  They're legal too.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> thats because the gayz are only 3-4% of the pop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> I'll bet that there's a category you belong to that's a minority... are you sure that you want the government backing mob rule instead of protecting freedom of thought and minority opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democracy ensures that a small minority of people can't exercise control over the population, which is an oligarchy. The problem is tiny minorities of deviants have found another way to impose their will on the majority and that's to claim that their choice of lifestyle is a "civil right" and get others who don't know the law or the Constitution to go along with it.  NAMBLA is watching this process with great interest, seeing how all one has to do is draw "rights" out of thin air to gain approval for their lifestyle even if by cudgel.
> 
> Lifestyle choice is not race. It's not gender. It's not anything that's protected under our Constitution.  All the faggot brigade has is their ability to lie and shout down all opposition.
> 
> That's not the same as being right.
Click to expand...

Fucking ******* and Jews, with their controlling of our rights.  I hear that one day dumb drunken Indians will have rights, but I sure hope not.  The next thing you know the Catholics will want them as well.


----------



## Carib Gyal

PaintMyHouse said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Anyone need anything else?
> 
> We have YET ANOTHER obama constituent declaring that THE LAWS OF NATURE are "Fairy Tales".
> 
> See how that works?  Ya can't see it, taste it or touch it, so it doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> We were discussing your idiot God, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jewish God made the rules.
> 
> "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."
> 
> It's in Genesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Adam and Eve weren't married, and Cain and Abel fucked their sisters.  Now what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law wasn't given until Genesis 2:24. Now what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same answer as before, it doesn't fucking matter since marriage in the Bible would make the Mormons and Muslims jump for joy.  And you never answered the question, are you for Biblical Marriage, and that means more than one spouse.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question. Why carry on a tradition at all? Why limit it to two people?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's where you are wrong. In realistic terms, there can not be discrimination when all people are treated the same.
> 
> If marriage is allowed only between one man and one woman, then EVERYONE lives under the same law. That is not an opinion. It is logic.
> 
> And you can disagree if you want, but logic says you are wrong.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you aware that your argument was used before?
> 
> As Reconstruction collapsed in the late 1870s, legislators, policymakers, and, above all, judges began to marshal the arguments they needed to justify the reinstatement--and subsequent expansion--of miscegenation law.
> 
> Here are four of the arguments they used:
> 
> 1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.
> 
> 2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.
> 
> 3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and
> 
> 4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."
> 
> On this fourth point--the supposed "unnaturality" of interracial marriage--judges formed a virtual chorus. Here, for example, is the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878:
> 
> The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.
> 
> *The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.*
> 
> - See more at: History News Network Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Race is not gender, it has no context in this debate, IMO.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...you think equal civil rights under our laws should apply only in the case of race?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. But, in the case of marriage, *either tab A fits into slot B, or its not marriage*. No matter how much you wish it to be.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using YOUR criteria, a veteran who has has a horrible war wound and lost his junk cannot get legally married.  Is that the case?
Click to expand...


Only on the perverted, hell bound Left is there this idiotic notion that gender is just a matter of plumbing.  If a man mutilates himself by cutting off his package, he's still a man. He hasn't turned into a woman.  Our gender is encoded in the DNA in every cell of our body; there's no escaping from it.  If the perverted Left weren't so infatuated with appearances they would understand this.


----------



## hipeter924

> *5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.* Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?


Then why is Fox News and CNN still on air? Surely they would have been replaced with the Ben Affleck show, Richard Dawkins, a gay fashion show, gay partner swap, and the Playboy channel.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Carib Gyal said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were discussing your idiot God, idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish God made the rules.
> 
> "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."
> 
> It's in Genesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Adam and Eve weren't married, and Cain and Abel fucked their sisters.  Now what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law wasn't given until Genesis 2:24. Now what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same answer as before, it doesn't fucking matter since marriage in the Bible would make the Mormons and Muslims jump for joy.  And you never answered the question, are you for Biblical Marriage, and that means more than one spouse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't answer my question. Why carry on a tradition at all? Why limit it to two people?
Click to expand...

Because it's at two people now and we haven't made even that equal yet.  After we do, onward.  You'd like it, it's Biblical.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

boilermaker55 said:


> Yes! In that religion. But once again your "kind" step over the boundaries of pushing an agenda onto those that have not allegiance to your faith.



Faith?  

We're talking the physical laws of nature... human physiology.  Inees and outees... Round Pegs designed to go into round wholes which are DESIGNED TO RECEIVE THEM... for biologically essential purposes, critical to the viability of THE SPECIES.

You need 'faith' to accept THAT WHICH IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY DEBATABLE?

If that is true... you're truly helpless and nature will most likely cull you from the herd quite soon.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

AVG-JOE said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> In truth, thus in reality, Marriage is the natural, logical extension of the human physiological design, wherein the female is protected during gestation and wherein the complimenting traits of the respective genders nurture and train their progeny, as a means to promote the highest probability that such will result in a viable adult, thus promoting the highest potential for the species to propagate through sustainable process, therefore promoting human viability.  Did you not take ANY _*Science* classes_?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then there is the reality of evolution and survival of the most fit on a dog-eat-dog world where AMERICAN women didn't get the right to vote until the country was 125 years old.
> 
> ​
Click to expand...


Nonsense.  Laws varied state by state, but the general trend was giving the vote to landowners and taxpayers, people who have a stake in this economy.  Even blacks voted and have done so for our entire history.  There's a certain wisdom that I created a thread about....reserving the right to vote to net contributors to this country and denying it to net consumers. These days that wouldn't fall along the lines of race or gender because all races and genders participate in the economy or suckle from it, one or the other.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you aware that your argument was used before?
> 
> As Reconstruction collapsed in the late 1870s, legislators, policymakers, and, above all, judges began to marshal the arguments they needed to justify the reinstatement--and subsequent expansion--of miscegenation law.
> 
> Here are four of the arguments they used:
> 
> 1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.
> 
> 2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.
> 
> 3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and
> 
> 4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."
> 
> On this fourth point--the supposed "unnaturality" of interracial marriage--judges formed a virtual chorus. Here, for example, is the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878:
> 
> The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.
> 
> *The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.*
> 
> - See more at: History News Network Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Race is not gender, it has no context in this debate, IMO.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...you think equal civil rights under our laws should apply only in the case of race?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. But, in the case of marriage, *either tab A fits into slot B, or its not marriage*. No matter how much you wish it to be.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using YOUR criteria, a veteran who has has a horrible war wound and lost his junk cannot get legally married.  Is that the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only on the perverted, hell bound Left is there this idiotic notion that gender is just a matter of plumbing.  If a man mutilates himself by cutting off his package, he's still a man. He hasn't turned into a woman.  Our gender is encoded in the DNA in every cell of our body; there's no escaping from it.  If the perverted Left weren't so infatuated with appearances they would understand this.
Click to expand...

Tell us, how do you tell the actual gender of a human being?  Are XYs always males, and XXs always females?


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> gay parents will be more likely to sex. abuse, as they were sex. abused themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any unbiased sources that prove this claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's plenty of bias in all the sources that try to deny that gays abusing children is a problem.  Let's not pretend that your sources are unbiased.  The Family Research Council is one of the few groups willing to address the problem and not pretend it doesn't exist.  They cite references for all their claims and they approach the issue scientifically. Since there are no unbiased sources anywhere on this issue, we have to go by who has an interest in protecting the reputation of the gay community no matter what as opposed to who has an interest in protecting children by highlighting venues where they are disproportionately exposed to abuse.
> 
> Facts are facts, no matter what site is showing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts are facts...but how you present them, or link, or the conclusions you attempt to draw or what you choose to omit is something entirely different and that is where bias comes in.
> 
> All facts aren't equal - conclusions that come out of a poorly done study can often be challanged.
> 
> There are more and less biased sources and sources with greater legitimacy than others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Unless every subject can be observed 24/7, the claim is ALWAYS made that a study is poorly done.* As a matter of fact, I find it funny that the left views science as a solid science, unless it disagrees with a result. Then the scientist is an idiot.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.  There is a lot that goes in to a well done study vs. a poorly done study - sample size, accounting for variables, etc etc.
Click to expand...


Yep. UNTIL they don't jibe with a belief, then it is really easy to dismiss.

My area of expertise is construction. After 9/11 I watched engineers on both sides claim that the towers were either knocked down by these airplanes or by bombs. And the "experts" on both sides are adamant in their conclusions.

And that is a single occurrence. And now you are telling me that a "well done" study is more believable?

Nope. Its not.

Mark


----------



## Carib Gyal

hipeter924 said:


> *5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.* Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is Fox News and CNN still on air? Surely they would have been replaced with the Ben Affleck show, Richard Dawkins, a gay fashion show, gay partner swap, and the Playboy channel.
Click to expand...

Who's that silver haired guy on CNN? He's gay as fuck, yo.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

hipeter924 said:


> *5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.* Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is Fox News and CNN still on air? Surely they would have been replaced with the Ben Affleck show, Richard Dawkins, a gay fashion show, gay partner swap, and the Playboy channel.
Click to expand...


The nature of evil is to deceive, the nature of good is truth... Fox News defends good... thus it consistently prospers. 

Need anything else?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.* Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is Fox News and CNN still on air? Surely they would have been replaced with the Ben Affleck show, Richard Dawkins, a gay fashion show, gay partner swap, and the Playboy channel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The nature of evil is to deceive, the nature of good is truth... Fox News defends good... thus it consistently prospers.
> 
> Need anything else?
Click to expand...

Fox, who broadcasts that the FDA is going to ban donut sprinkles and actually believes it.  No wonder you are such a dumbass.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

AVG-JOE said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you live with a vengeful Deity constantly looking over your shoulder with threats of eternal judgement?
> 
> 
> 
> Is there an option?
> 
> All behavior brings consequences... you act a if there's a choice.
> 
> But to provide you the courtesy of considering your appeal... what would BE such an option?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure there is!!!
> 
> Stop believing and see what happens.
Click to expand...


So you cannot actually provide a viable alternative. 

You concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

FTR: 
I tried it... catastrophe.

Changed my mind.  Turns out that rejecting the laws of nature can be HARD ON YA!


----------



## Carib Gyal

PaintMyHouse said:


> Because it's at two people now and we haven't made even that equal yet.  After we do, onward.  You'd like it, it's Biblical.


Dumb ass. I didn't ask you how many people it is now. Answer the fucking question:

Why carry on a tradition at all? Why limit it to two people?


----------



## hipeter924

Carib Gyal said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.* Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is Fox News and CNN still on air? Surely they would have been replaced with the Ben Affleck show, Richard Dawkins, a gay fashion show, gay partner swap, and the Playboy channel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who's that silver haired guy on CNN? He's gay as fuck, yo.
Click to expand...

How would you know, did you date him?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

AVG-JOE said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because marriage, by its very nature, is for reproduction. Now, we understand that people can marry without having children, but that it is the exception to the basis for the existence of marriage. That is doesn't happen every time doesn't change that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is NOTHING natural about marriage.  Marriage is a construct of Monkey evolution as a society - Marriage is 100% human.
Click to expand...


Marriage is a vital component of a strong, thriving, and perpetuating society.  Animals cannot form the complex communities that humans can.  Gazelles will forever run from predators, humans would find a way to kill them and form defenses against them.  We don't have 5 or 6 children because at least a few of them will be eaten by something.  The apparatus of society has its bedrock on strong families, which are only made possible by marriage.  

We can't be compared to animals because we're not animals.  Imago Dei, we are superior to them and create superior institutions.  Marriage.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Carib Gyal said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's at two people now and we haven't made even that equal yet.  After we do, onward.  You'd like it, it's Biblical.
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb ass. I didn't ask you how many people it is now. Answer the fucking question:
> 
> Why carry on a tradition at all? Why limit it to two people?
Click to expand...

We won't, after we fix it for all two people first.  You got a problem with that, because you shouldn't.  And when one of those daughters of yours gets raped, the rapist is now your son-in-law, if we're going Biblical that is.  So, are we?


----------



## 80zephyr

Seawytch said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
> 
> Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are gender and race different when it comes to the discrimination experienced?
> 
> Can you name a state or locality that prohibits civil marriage on an inability to procreate? Can you name a single person in the history of history that was denied a civil marriage license because of an inability or unwillingness to procreate? Are you aware that there are over a million children living in same sex homes?
> 
> I'm sorry but saying "been there done that" does not excuse your wishing to put an arbitrary restriction on gay couples that is not put on straight couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not arbitrary restrictions.  Children have always been adopted only by families that meet a certain criteria, that provide the maximum benefit to the child.  Child protection services being picky about who gets to adopt children has never been called into question before the rainbow brigade decided they wanted to complete their picture of "marriage" by bringing kids into their insane, kooky world. Every gay cohabitation home is insufficient when compared to a mother father home because it intentionally OMITS a mother or a father.  If they're even on the list of potential adoption candidates, they should be dead last.  But instead, true to their evil, Leftist form, they are insisting on affirmative action, so they can gain preference over homes that the children benefit from more.
> 
> How can you people escape eternal judgment by a just God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Saying that gays who cannot procreate with each other cannot marry but sterile or infertile couples that cannot procreate with each other do get to get married is setting an arbitrary standard.
> 
> Children still are being adopted by families that meet a certain criteria...and being gay does not preclude you in most states.
> 
> You have your opinion on children and gays, but it is just your opinion and is not supported by facts and evidence. The facts are that our children are at no disadvantage to yours and studies show that gender is only a factor in parenting in one area...and I guarantee you won't be able to guess what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any "study" that says kids don't suffer from having a man and a woman as parents is wrong. And I really don't care who wrote it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha. You have your opinion, facts don't matter. Good to know.
Click to expand...


Facts that do not comport with reality are not to be believed. Anyone who feels that a child doesn't benefit from influence of both genders didn't do the study correctly.

Reality matters.

Mark


----------



## Carib Gyal

hipeter924 said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.* Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is Fox News and CNN still on air? Surely they would have been replaced with the Ben Affleck show, Richard Dawkins, a gay fashion show, gay partner swap, and the Playboy channel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who's that silver haired guy on CNN? He's gay as fuck, yo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would you know, did you date him?
Click to expand...

He's gay. He doesn't like girls.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> Facts that do not comport with reality are not to be believed. Anyone who feels that a child doesn't benefit from influence of both genders didn't do the study correctly.


Even if true, it doesn't fucking matter.  How long before you get that?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

hipeter924 said:


> *5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.* Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is Fox News and CNN still on air? Surely they would have been replaced with the Ben Affleck show, Richard Dawkins, a gay fashion show, gay partner swap, and the Playboy channel.
Click to expand...


Fox News and CNN drone on and on about gay issues.

Dumbass.


----------



## Carib Gyal

PaintMyHouse said:


> We won't, after we fix it for all two people first.  You got a problem with that, because you shouldn't.  And when one of those daughters of yours gets raped, the rapist is now your son-in-law, if we're going Biblical that is.  So, are we?


You really be toopid. WHY FIX IT FOR TWO PEOPLE FIRST? WHY LIMIT IT TO TWO PEOPLE?

Last chance to answer the question, dumb ass.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because marriage, by its very nature, is for reproduction. Now, we understand that people can marry without having children, but that it is the exception to the basis for the existence of marriage. That is doesn't happen every time doesn't change that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is NOTHING natural about marriage.  Marriage is a construct of Monkey evolution as a society - Marriage is 100% human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is a vital component of a strong, thriving, and perpetuating society.  Animals cannot form the complex communities that humans can.  Gazelles will forever run from predators, humans would find a way to kill them and form defenses against them.  We don't have 5 or 6 children because at least a few of them will be eaten by something.  The apparatus of society has its bedrock on strong families, which are only made possible by marriage.
> 
> We can't be compared to animals because we're not animals.  Imago Dei, we are superior to them and create superior institutions.  Marriage.
Click to expand...


Humanity is part of nature, that you lack the means to understand that, doesn't change that.

That humanity is at the top of the food chain, likewise, does not change that much of humanity is what is considered, in greater nature ... _ FOOD._

With the constituents of the Ideological Left being the bulk of that unenviable herd.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Carib Gyal said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> We won't, after we fix it for all two people first.  You got a problem with that, because you shouldn't.  And when one of those daughters of yours gets raped, the rapist is now your son-in-law, if we're going Biblical that is.  So, are we?
> 
> 
> 
> You really be toopid. WHY FIX IT FOR TWO PEOPLE FIRST? WHY LIMIT IT TO TWO PEOPLE?
> 
> Last chance to answer the question, dumb ass.
Click to expand...

Your question has been answered, there is no reason, we just aren't there yet.  Now answer my questions dumbass.


----------



## hipeter924

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.* Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is Fox News and CNN still on air? Surely they would have been replaced with the Ben Affleck show, Richard Dawkins, a gay fashion show, gay partner swap, and the Playboy channel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The nature of evil is to deceive, the nature of good is truth... Fox News defends good... thus it consistently prospers.
> 
> Need anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fox, who broadcasts that the FDA is going to ban donut sprinkles and actually believes it.  No wonder you are such a dumbass.
Click to expand...

Fox has to be the dominant news channel in America, yet per usual, we hear the 'we are oppressed by liberal media line':  2013 Ratings Fox News 1 For 12 Straight Years Sheds Viewers Too - TVNewser


> Fox News remained on top in 2013, capping off its 12th consecutive year as the most-watched cable news network among both total viewers and A25-54 viewers.


----------



## bodecea

Carib Gyal said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were discussing your idiot God, idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish God made the rules.
> 
> "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."
> 
> It's in Genesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Adam and Eve weren't married, and Cain and Abel fucked their sisters.  Now what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law wasn't given until Genesis 2:24. Now what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same answer as before, it doesn't fucking matter since marriage in the Bible would make the Mormons and Muslims jump for joy.  And you never answered the question, are you for Biblical Marriage, and that means more than one spouse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't answer my question. Why carry on a tradition at all? Why limit it to two people?
Click to expand...

Issues of property rights and child custody come to mind on this one.


----------



## Carib Gyal

PaintMyHouse said:


> there is no reason, we just aren't there yet.


There is no reason. You have lost this argument 1,000 times, dumb ass.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

hipeter924 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.* Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is Fox News and CNN still on air? Surely they would have been replaced with the Ben Affleck show, Richard Dawkins, a gay fashion show, gay partner swap, and the Playboy channel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The nature of evil is to deceive, the nature of good is truth... Fox News defends good... thus it consistently prospers.
> 
> Need anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fox, who broadcasts that the FDA is going to ban donut sprinkles and actually believes it.  No wonder you are such a dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fox has to be the dominant news channel in America, yet per usual, we hear the 'we are oppressed by liberal media line':  2013 Ratings Fox News 1 For 12 Straight Years Sheds Viewers Too - TVNewser
> 
> 
> 
> Fox News remained on top in 2013, capping off its 12th consecutive year as the most-watched cable news network among both total viewers and A25-54 viewers.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Fox is ONE News Channel...


----------



## HUGGY

*The Homosexual Dilemma*

*Top or bottom....*


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.* Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is Fox News and CNN still on air? Surely they would have been replaced with the Ben Affleck show, Richard Dawkins, a gay fashion show, gay partner swap, and the Playboy channel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The nature of evil is to deceive, the nature of good is truth...* Fox News defends good*... thus it consistently prospers.
> 
> Need anything else?
Click to expand...


Good needs to be defended by lies?


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our kids are fine and we're having them whether we're married or not. We're also marrying whether we have kids are not...just like straight folks.
> 
> Some of us DO have children. Gays are having children exactly like straights do....adoption, artificial insemination, IVF, divorce.
> 
> Someone explain why our families, whether with or without children, are less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges associated with civil marriage than straight families (with or without children)? What is your reasonable person standard you use to justify discriminating against our loving partnerships?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I believe that kids should be brought up with a man and a woman as the parents.  I think that nature devised a plan that has worked since the dawn of humankind, and I believe that kids bought up in a one gender household miss out on the guidance of the other gender.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nature doesn't 'devise' shit. Nature focuses on reproduction. If you're reproductively viable, nature's requirements are met. How you reproduce, nature doesn't have much to say about.
> 
> We however, do. While rape is a reproductively viable method of passing on DNA, its also quite awful and denounced by most civilizations. While sex with reproductively viable children might be a viable method of passing on DNA, its fits the same bill as rape in most civilizations.
Click to expand...


Are you really trying to tell me that nature does not dictate that you need a man and a woman to procreate?

Really?

Mark


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.* Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is Fox News and CNN still on air? Surely they would have been replaced with the Ben Affleck show, Richard Dawkins, a gay fashion show, gay partner swap, and the Playboy channel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The nature of evil is to deceive, the nature of good is truth... Fox News defends good... thus it consistently prospers.
> 
> Need anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fox, who broadcasts that the FDA is going to ban donut sprinkles and actually believes it.  No wonder you are such a dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fox has to be the dominant news channel in America, yet per usual, we hear the 'we are oppressed by liberal media line':  2013 Ratings Fox News 1 For 12 Straight Years Sheds Viewers Too - TVNewser
> 
> 
> 
> Fox News remained on top in 2013, capping off its 12th consecutive year as the most-watched cable news network among both total viewers and A25-54 viewers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fox is ONE News Channel...
Click to expand...

No it isn't...only in cable news channel comparison....not close to the Big Three.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Carib Gyal said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> We won't, after we fix it for all two people first.  You got a problem with that, because you shouldn't.  And when one of those daughters of yours gets raped, the rapist is now your son-in-law, if we're going Biblical that is.  So, are we?
> 
> 
> 
> You really be toopid. WHY FIX IT FOR TWO PEOPLE FIRST? WHY LIMIT IT TO TWO PEOPLE?
> 
> Last chance to answer the question, dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your question has been answered, there is no reason, we just aren't there yet.  Now answer my questions dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no reason. You have lost this argument 1,000 times, dumb ass.
Click to expand...

No dumbass, it is you that have lost because you don't want the faggot, the siblings, and the spouse with many spouses to marry.  My side won the first one, and that's probably as far as it will go for now.  I am the winner here and you've lost.  Suck it up pretty panties and move along.


----------



## Carib Gyal

PaintMyHouse said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> We won't, after we fix it for all two people first.  You got a problem with that, because you shouldn't.  And when one of those daughters of yours gets raped, the rapist is now your son-in-law, if we're going Biblical that is.  So, are we?
> 
> 
> 
> You really be toopid. WHY FIX IT FOR TWO PEOPLE FIRST? WHY LIMIT IT TO TWO PEOPLE?
> 
> Last chance to answer the question, dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your question has been answered, there is no reason, we just aren't there yet.  Now answer my questions dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no reason. You have lost this argument 1,000 times, dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No dumbass, it is you that have lost because you don't want the faggot, the siblings, and the spouse with many spouses to marry.  My side won the first one, and that's probably as far as it will go for now.  I am the winner here and you've lost.  Suck it up pretty panties and move along.
Click to expand...




PaintMyHouse said:


> there is no reason


lol


----------



## PaintMyHouse

hipeter924 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.* Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is Fox News and CNN still on air? Surely they would have been replaced with the Ben Affleck show, Richard Dawkins, a gay fashion show, gay partner swap, and the Playboy channel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The nature of evil is to deceive, the nature of good is truth... Fox News defends good... thus it consistently prospers.
> 
> Need anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fox, who broadcasts that the FDA is going to ban donut sprinkles and actually believes it.  No wonder you are such a dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fox has to be the dominant news channel in America, yet per usual, we hear the 'we are oppressed by liberal media line':  2013 Ratings Fox News 1 For 12 Straight Years Sheds Viewers Too - TVNewser
> 
> 
> 
> Fox News remained on top in 2013, capping off its 12th consecutive year as the most-watched cable news network among both total viewers and A25-54 viewers.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Americans are dumb as dog shit asswipe, what else would they be watching.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.* Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is Fox News and CNN still on air? Surely they would have been replaced with the Ben Affleck show, Richard Dawkins, a gay fashion show, gay partner swap, and the Playboy channel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The nature of evil is to deceive, the nature of good is truth...* Fox News defends good*... thus it consistently prospers.
> 
> Need anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good needs to be defended by lies?
Click to expand...



"Fox News lies!"  Yes, go...ride that into the sunset.

Forward the light brigade!


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Carib Gyal said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> We won't, after we fix it for all two people first.  You got a problem with that, because you shouldn't.  And when one of those daughters of yours gets raped, the rapist is now your son-in-law, if we're going Biblical that is.  So, are we?
> 
> 
> 
> You really be toopid. WHY FIX IT FOR TWO PEOPLE FIRST? WHY LIMIT IT TO TWO PEOPLE?
> 
> Last chance to answer the question, dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your question has been answered, there is no reason, we just aren't there yet.  Now answer my questions dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no reason. You have lost this argument 1,000 times, dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No dumbass, it is you that have lost because you don't want the faggot, the siblings, and the spouse with many spouses to marry.  My side won the first one, and that's probably as far as it will go for now.  I am the winner here and you've lost.  Suck it up pretty panties and move along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no reason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol
Click to expand...

If you've got a reason, you'd better find it and post it.  You'll lose that fight as well eventually.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

HUGGY said:


> *The Homosexual Dilemma
> 
> Top or bottom....*


Grow up...


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Carib Gyal said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no reason, we just aren't there yet.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no reason. You have lost this argument 1,000 times, dumb ass.
Click to expand...

I didn't lose pretty panties, you did.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

bodecea said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish God made the rules.
> 
> "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."
> 
> It's in Genesis.
> 
> 
> 
> Adam and Eve weren't married, and Cain and Abel fucked their sisters.  Now what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law wasn't given until Genesis 2:24. Now what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same answer as before, it doesn't fucking matter since marriage in the Bible would make the Mormons and Muslims jump for joy.  And you never answered the question, are you for Biblical Marriage, and that means more than one spouse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't answer my question. Why carry on a tradition at all? Why limit it to two people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Issues of property rights and child custody come to mind on this one.
Click to expand...

Those aren't that hard to solve.  All the kids can make claims now.  A bastard has just as much claim as the rest of them.


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? It is apparent that they suffer from BOTH pedophilia and homosexuality. Why is an "adult" the litmus test for homosexuality? I have news for you, its not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't. *Almost all sexual abusers self identify as heterosexual. *That means they are sexually attracted to women. With 3 in 4 being in a sexual relationship with the male child's mother or female relative. Demonstrating elegantly that one's sexual preference in children isn't necessarily related to one's sexual preference in adults.
> 
> Its apparent that the folks you have to watch out for if you want to prevent sexual abuse are heterosexual men. As they make up 99% of the abusers. *In fact, a child is more than 100 times more likely to be abused by a heterosexual male in a relationship with their mother or female relative than from a homosexual. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As to the "scientific research", I used to be a huge believer in science. Today, science is nothing more than a popularity contest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's anti-intellectual clap trap. You don't like the results of legions of studies that contradict you. So you apply an arbitrary label so you can ignore anything that doesn't fit into your beliefs.
> 
> The obvious problem with that being that the validity of a study has absolutely nothing to do with its agreement with you.
Click to expand...


What they "identify" with is little boys. Their actions speak louder than their words. I truly get a kick out of some people. I could have a study done telling you the sky was green, and you'd believe it.

Mark


----------



## Carib Gyal

PaintMyHouse said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really be toopid. WHY FIX IT FOR TWO PEOPLE FIRST? WHY LIMIT IT TO TWO PEOPLE?
> 
> Last chance to answer the question, dumb ass.
> 
> 
> 
> Your question has been answered, there is no reason, we just aren't there yet.  Now answer my questions dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no reason. You have lost this argument 1,000 times, dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No dumbass, it is you that have lost because you don't want the faggot, the siblings, and the spouse with many spouses to marry.  My side won the first one, and that's probably as far as it will go for now.  I am the winner here and you've lost.  Suck it up pretty panties and move along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no reason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you've got a reason, you'd better find it and post it.  You'll lose that fight as well eventually.
Click to expand...




PaintMyHouse said:


> there is no reason


lol


----------



## hipeter924

bodecea said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.* Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is Fox News and CNN still on air? Surely they would have been replaced with the Ben Affleck show, Richard Dawkins, a gay fashion show, gay partner swap, and the Playboy channel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The nature of evil is to deceive, the nature of good is truth...* Fox News defends good*... thus it consistently prospers.
> 
> Need anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good needs to be defended by lies?
Click to expand...


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? It is apparent that they suffer from BOTH pedophilia and homosexuality. Why is an "adult" the litmus test for homosexuality? I have news for you, its not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't. *Almost all sexual abusers self identify as heterosexual. *That means they are sexually attracted to women. With 3 in 4 being in a sexual relationship with the male child's mother or female relative. Demonstrating elegantly that one's sexual preference in children isn't necessarily related to one's sexual preference in adults.
> 
> Its apparent that the folks you have to watch out for if you want to prevent sexual abuse are heterosexual men. As they make up 99% of the abusers. *In fact, a child is more than 100 times more likely to be abused by a heterosexual male in a relationship with their mother or female relative than from a homosexual. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As to the "scientific research", I used to be a huge believer in science. Today, science is nothing more than a popularity contest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's anti-intellectual clap trap. You don't like the results of legions of studies that contradict you. So you apply an arbitrary label so you can ignore anything that doesn't fit into your beliefs.
> 
> The obvious problem with that being that the validity of a study has absolutely nothing to do with its agreement with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What they "identify" with is little boys. Their actions speak louder than their words. I truly get a kick out of some people. I could have a study done telling you the sky was green, and you'd believe it.
Click to expand...

So far you can't figure out that marriage isn't about kids and what to do now that you are just pissing into the wind and have lost.


----------



## HUGGY

PaintMyHouse said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Homosexual Dilemma
> 
> Top or bottom....*
> 
> 
> 
> Grow up...
Click to expand...


Probably not gonna happen.  MOF at 65 I'll have to start facing the likelihood of losing altitude till this ride is over.


----------



## rightwinger

Love these threads

They show how out of touch conservatives are with society

Keep up the gay hate


----------



## HUGGY

hipeter924 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.* Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is Fox News and CNN still on air? Surely they would have been replaced with the Ben Affleck show, Richard Dawkins, a gay fashion show, gay partner swap, and the Playboy channel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The nature of evil is to deceive, the nature of good is truth...* Fox News defends good*... thus it consistently prospers.
> 
> Need anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good needs to be defended by lies?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Why don't they just sue for the right to lie like they did here?


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our kids are fine and we're having them whether we're married or not. We're also marrying whether we have kids are not...just like straight folks.
> 
> Some of us DO have children. Gays are having children exactly like straights do....adoption, artificial insemination, IVF, divorce.
> 
> Someone explain why our families, whether with or without children, are less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges associated with civil marriage than straight families (with or without children)? What is your reasonable person standard you use to justify discriminating against our loving partnerships?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I believe that kids should be brought up with a man and a woman as the parents.  I think that nature devised a plan that has worked since the dawn of humankind, and I believe that kids bought up in a one gender household miss out on the guidance of the other gender.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nature doesn't 'devise' shit. Nature focuses on reproduction. If you're reproductively viable, nature's requirements are met. How you reproduce, nature doesn't have much to say about.
> 
> We however, do. While rape is a reproductively viable method of passing on DNA, its also quite awful and denounced by most civilizations. While sex with reproductively viable children might be a viable method of passing on DNA, its fits the same bill as rape in most civilizations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really trying to tell me that nature does not dictate that you need a man and a woman to procreate?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Nature needs egg and sperm...but marriage does not need procreation....just like procreation doesn't need marriage.  They are mutually exclusive.


----------



## Carib Gyal

rightwinger said:


> Love these threads
> 
> They show how out of touch conservatives are with society
> 
> Keep up the gay hate


rightwinger, starting out the new year by admitting she's gay.


----------



## HUGGY

rightwinger said:


> Love these threads
> 
> They show how out of touch conservatives are with society
> 
> Keep up the gay hate



It's all they have.  If the leadership of the GOP was completely honest with their agenda I doubt it would really matter to their most ardent(brainwashed) constituents.  What I find interesting is that many of their leadership as it turns out have been proven to be closet homos and it never seems to matter to the underlings.  

Angry queers angry at queers never gets old with these old queers.


----------



## Carib Gyal

HUGGY said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Love these threads
> 
> They show how out of touch conservatives are with society
> 
> Keep up the gay hate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all they have.  If the leadership of the GOP was completely honest with their agenda I doubt it would really matter to their most ardent(brainwashed) constituents.  What I find interesting is that many of their leadership as it turns out have been proven to be closet homos and it never seems to matter to the underlings.
> 
> Angry queers angry at queers never gets old with these old queers.
Click to expand...

But....but.....being queers is a good thing. You a closet constituent?


----------



## bodecea

Carib Gyal said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.* Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is Fox News and CNN still on air? Surely they would have been replaced with the Ben Affleck show, Richard Dawkins, a gay fashion show, gay partner swap, and the Playboy channel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who's that silver haired guy on CNN? He's gay as fuck, yo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would you know, did you date him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's gay. He doesn't like girls.
Click to expand...

I hope YOU don't like girls.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

rightwinger said:


> Love these threads
> 
> They show how out of touch conservatives are with society
> 
> Keep up the gay hate




Really? The same society that by majority consensus passed laws defining marriage as one man and one woman?  If you Leftwat assholes were so in touch with society, why did you have to go through the courts, forcing your will by black robed tyrants instead of prevailing upon the opinions of the people?

I think you already proved that WE are the ones in touch with society beyond all dispute.  It's why you hate democracy because the values of society are something that must be overruled.  

Nice try faggot, your argument has been destroyed.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Love these threads
> 
> They show how out of touch conservatives are with society
> 
> Keep up the gay hate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? The same society that by majority consensus passed laws defining marriage as one man and one woman?  If you Leftwat assholes were so in touch with society, why did you have to go through the courts, forcing your will by black robed tyrants instead of prevailing upon the opinions of the people?
> 
> I think you already proved that WE are the ones in touch with society beyond all dispute.  It's why you hate democracy because the values of society are something that must be overruled.
> 
> Nice try faggot, your argument has been destroyed.
Click to expand...

Society no longer believes as you do dumbass.  Now what?


----------



## bodecea

Carib Gyal said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Love these threads
> 
> They show how out of touch conservatives are with society
> 
> Keep up the gay hate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all they have.  If the leadership of the GOP was completely honest with their agenda I doubt it would really matter to their most ardent(brainwashed) constituents.  What I find interesting is that many of their leadership as it turns out have been proven to be closet homos and it never seems to matter to the underlings.
> 
> Angry queers angry at queers never gets old with these old queers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But....but.....being queers is a good thing. You a closet constituent?
Click to expand...

Being gay just is....just like be straight just is.   But hypocrisy is wrong.  Don't you agree?


----------



## Carib Gyal

bodecea said:


> I hope YOU don't like girls.


I like them fine. 

You?


----------



## Carib Gyal

bodecea said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Love these threads
> 
> They show how out of touch conservatives are with society
> 
> Keep up the gay hate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all they have.  If the leadership of the GOP was completely honest with their agenda I doubt it would really matter to their most ardent(brainwashed) constituents.  What I find interesting is that many of their leadership as it turns out have been proven to be closet homos and it never seems to matter to the underlings.
> 
> Angry queers angry at queers never gets old with these old queers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But....but.....being queers is a good thing. You a closet constituent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being gay just is....just like be straight just is.   But hypocrisy is wrong.  Don't you agree?
Click to expand...

Why do you hate the gays?


----------



## bodecea

Carib Gyal said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope YOU don't like girls.
> 
> 
> 
> I like them fine.
> 
> You?
Click to expand...

I'm into adult women myself.


----------



## bodecea

Carib Gyal said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Love these threads
> 
> They show how out of touch conservatives are with society
> 
> Keep up the gay hate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all they have.  If the leadership of the GOP was completely honest with their agenda I doubt it would really matter to their most ardent(brainwashed) constituents.  What I find interesting is that many of their leadership as it turns out have been proven to be closet homos and it never seems to matter to the underlings.
> 
> Angry queers angry at queers never gets old with these old queers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But....but.....being queers is a good thing. You a closet constituent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being gay just is....just like be straight just is.   But hypocrisy is wrong.  Don't you agree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you hate the gays?
Click to expand...

Why do you say I hate gays?  That's very odd of you.


----------



## Carib Gyal

bodecea said:


> I'm into adult women myself.


Yeah there does exist that grandma niche. I'm not judging you.    


bodecea said:


> Why do you say I hate gays?  That's very odd of you.


It's even more odd of you.


----------



## bodecea

Carib Gyal said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm into adult women myself.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah there does exist that grandma niche. I'm not judging you.
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you say I hate gays?  That's very odd of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's even more odd of you.
Click to expand...

No, really.  Why do you say I hate gays?


----------



## Carib Gyal

bodecea said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm into adult women myself.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah there does exist that grandma niche. I'm not judging you.
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you say I hate gays?  That's very odd of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's even more odd of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, really.  Why do you say I hate gays?
Click to expand...

Think for yourself. Don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope YOU don't like girls.
> 
> 
> 
> I like them fine.
> 
> You?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm into adult women myself.
Click to expand...


When you can afford them?


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope YOU don't like girls.
> 
> 
> 
> I like them fine.
> 
> You?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm into adult women myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you can afford them?
Click to expand...

I'm married to one....and yes, I can afford her.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope YOU don't like girls.
> 
> 
> 
> I like them fine.
> 
> You?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm into adult women myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you can afford them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm married to one....and yes, I can afford her.
Click to expand...


Uh....before I go off in the wrong direction, are you a man?


----------



## Iceweasel

bodecea said:


> Nature needs egg and sperm...but marriage does not need procreation....just like procreation doesn't need marriage.  They are mutually exclusive.


Marriage doesn't even need sex to exist, there's no reason to limit it to two people. That's old fashioned thinking. If ten men want to marry each other they can use your argument.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope YOU don't like girls.
> 
> 
> 
> I like them fine.
> 
> You?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm into adult women myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you can afford them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm married to one....and yes, I can afford her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh....before I go off in the wrong direction, are you a man?
Click to expand...

No...are you?


----------



## bodecea

Iceweasel said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature needs egg and sperm...but marriage does not need procreation....just like procreation doesn't need marriage.  They are mutually exclusive.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage doesn't even need sex to exist, there's no reason to limit it to two people. That's old fashioned thinking. If ten men want to marry each other they can use your argument.
Click to expand...

Except when you add more than two...the property rights and child custody issues get more complicated....instead of A to B....we now have choice...A to B or C.....B to A or C, etc.


----------



## Carib Gyal

bodecea said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature needs egg and sperm...but marriage does not need procreation....just like procreation doesn't need marriage.  They are mutually exclusive.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage doesn't even need sex to exist, there's no reason to limit it to two people. That's old fashioned thinking. If ten men want to marry each other they can use your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except when you add more than two...the property rights and child custody issues get more complicated....instead of A to B....we now have choice...A to B or C.....B to A or C, etc.
Click to expand...

Old fashioned thinking  ^^


----------



## Iceweasel

bodecea said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature needs egg and sperm...but marriage does not need procreation....just like procreation doesn't need marriage.  They are mutually exclusive.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage doesn't even need sex to exist, there's no reason to limit it to two people. That's old fashioned thinking. If ten men want to marry each other they can use your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except when you add more than two...the property rights and child custody issues get more complicated....instead of A to B....we now have choice...A to B or C.....B to A or C, etc.
Click to expand...

Wrong. A women can fuck many men but the paternal father has to pay. Property is divided up every day. Never heard of guys knocking each other up though.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

hipeter924 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.* Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is Fox News and CNN still on air? Surely they would have been replaced with the Ben Affleck show, Richard Dawkins, a gay fashion show, gay partner swap, and the Playboy channel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The nature of evil is to deceive, the nature of good is truth...* Fox News defends good*... thus it consistently prospers.
> 
> Need anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good needs to be defended by lies?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Fox News is *NOT* banned in Canada.

ROFLMNAO!  You can NOT make this crap UP!  These idiots believe ANYTHING they're told, without regard to how ridiculous it is on its face.

What ya have there is a Deceit, Fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the Ignorant.


----------



## bodecea

Iceweasel said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature needs egg and sperm...but marriage does not need procreation....just like procreation doesn't need marriage.  They are mutually exclusive.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage doesn't even need sex to exist, there's no reason to limit it to two people. That's old fashioned thinking. If ten men want to marry each other they can use your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except when you add more than two...the property rights and child custody issues get more complicated....instead of A to B....we now have choice...A to B or C.....B to A or C, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. A women can fuck many men but the paternal father has to pay. Property is divided up every day. Never heard of guys knocking each other up though.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you would need something above and beyond a marriage license for BOTH of those scenerios.....which complicates things more than what legal marriage contracts provide.   There is your difference.  Unsurmountable?  No....but not doable with the current marriage license while there is no need to change marriage contracts with gay marriage.....just remove the legal restrictions (as many states have now done).


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because marriage, by its very nature, is for reproduction. Now, we understand that people can marry without having children, but that it is the exception to the basis for the existence of marriage. That is doesn't happen every time doesn't change that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> That is entirely untrue, and it if were true, and it isn't, millions upon millions of people could not get married, and they can, as long as they are male and female, the only contract on the books that requires such a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No its not untrue. It is the logical building block of society. And "marriage" happened long before societies developed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it didn't.  You believe lies, plain and simple.  Start here: 13 Facts on the History of Marriage
> 
> And answer the damn question, how long are you going to keep beating your head against the wall while the rest of your society waves goodbye?
Click to expand...


Lol. I can show you links which state that America wasn't founded as a Christian nation, Or that the framers intended firearm ownership to be a militia, or that there is no such thing as race. Only an idiot would believe it because some "expert" happened to write it down.

Or, are you one who believes that because its on the internet, it must be true?

Mark


bodecea said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> The faggots, and logic, won.  Exactly how long are you little homophobes going to beat this issue, forever?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably. Since you and yours beat it forever and worn down Americans finally gave in. So tell me, why didn't you just give up when most Americans didn't agree with you?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why didn't the Patriots give up in 1777?  Why didn't the blacks give up in 1955?  Why didn't women give up in 1979 when the ERA failed?
Click to expand...


Thanks for making my point. Why should I give up?

Mark


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because marriage, by its very nature, is for reproduction. Now, we understand that people can marry without having children, but that it is the exception to the basis for the existence of marriage. That is doesn't happen every time doesn't change that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> That is entirely untrue, and it if were true, and it isn't, millions upon millions of people could not get married, and they can, as long as they are male and female, the only contract on the books that requires such a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No its not untrue. It is the logical building block of society. And "marriage" happened long before societies developed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it didn't.  You believe lies, plain and simple.  Start here: 13 Facts on the History of Marriage
> 
> And answer the damn question, how long are you going to keep beating your head against the wall while the rest of your society waves goodbye?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. I can show you links which state that America wasn't founded as a Christian nation, Or that the framers intended firearm ownership to be a militia, or that there is no such thing as race. Only an idiot would believe it because some "expert" happened to write it down.
> 
> Or, are you one who believes that because its on the internet, it must be true?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> The faggots, and logic, won.  Exactly how long are you little homophobes going to beat this issue, forever?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably. Since you and yours beat it forever and worn down Americans finally gave in. So tell me, why didn't you just give up when most Americans didn't agree with you?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why didn't the Patriots give up in 1777?  Why didn't the blacks give up in 1955?  Why didn't women give up in 1979 when the ERA failed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for making my point. Why should I give up?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

It's your head versus my wall.  Knock yourself out, literally.


----------



## Carib Gyal

bodecea said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature needs egg and sperm...but marriage does not need procreation....just like procreation doesn't need marriage.  They are mutually exclusive.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage doesn't even need sex to exist, there's no reason to limit it to two people. That's old fashioned thinking. If ten men want to marry each other they can use your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except when you add more than two...the property rights and child custody issues get more complicated....instead of A to B....we now have choice...A to B or C.....B to A or C, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. A women can fuck many men but the paternal father has to pay. Property is divided up every day. Never heard of guys knocking each other up though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, but you would need something above and beyond a marriage license for BOTH of those scenerios.....which complicates things more than what legal marriage contracts provide.   There is your difference.  Unsurmountable?  No....but not doable with the current marriage license while there is no need to change marriage contracts with gay marriage.....just remove the legal restrictions (as many states have now done).
Click to expand...

Why do you want to deny the rights of 250 people who want to marry each other? It's so bigoted and hateful.


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have news for you little faggot haters, children are not part of this discussion over rights.  I don't give a fuck if it is worse for the children, we don't do what is best for the child in this country because if we did we wouldn't let so many biological but unfit parents raise them.  This is about rights and equality.  Take your concerns for the children and start doing something about the homes where they are being bounced off the walls and fucked like whores.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct. Nobody cares about the kids. Our lenient divorce laws are proof of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So stop using them as part of your argument since they don't fucking matter in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, since I do care about the kids, I suppose it is a valid part of my argument.  So...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't since the debate is about Marriage Equality not what's best for children.
Click to expand...



I'll make you a deal. You can discuss marriage in the context that is important to you, and I can do it as well. Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.

Mark


----------



## AVG-JOE

Carib Gyal said:


> If marriage can be defined by a minority, why can't it be defined by ANY minority? Why can't a man marry any number of women who are willing to marry him? Why can't a woman marry any number of men or women she wants?


Because we can limit the number of partners a Monkey can have at any one time and that's not discriminatory.  

As long as the rule applies to all marriages and all Monkeys the same, limiting the political benefits of a marriage relationship to couples only is not discriminatory.


----------



## 80zephyr

bodecea said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well.  If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.
> 
> And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me.  I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture.  Double standard perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.
> 
> What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.
> 
> *Marriage is for reproduction*, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But I will, because it's pertinent.
> 
> Marriage today is for many things and reproduction is not the only thing and insisting on that would deprive many of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depriving marriage doesn't bother me. We do it everyday.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Based on what exactly?
Click to expand...


Age. Number of participants. Relationship. If I want to marry someone who is already married, the law currently doesn't allow me to do so.

Mark


----------



## bodecea

Carib Gyal said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature needs egg and sperm...but marriage does not need procreation....just like procreation doesn't need marriage.  They are mutually exclusive.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage doesn't even need sex to exist, there's no reason to limit it to two people. That's old fashioned thinking. If ten men want to marry each other they can use your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except when you add more than two...the property rights and child custody issues get more complicated....instead of A to B....we now have choice...A to B or C.....B to A or C, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. A women can fuck many men but the paternal father has to pay. Property is divided up every day. Never heard of guys knocking each other up though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, but you would need something above and beyond a marriage license for BOTH of those scenerios.....which complicates things more than what legal marriage contracts provide.   There is your difference.  Unsurmountable?  No....but not doable with the current marriage license while there is no need to change marriage contracts with gay marriage.....just remove the legal restrictions (as many states have now done).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you want to deny the rights of 250 people who want to marry each other? It's so bigoted and hateful.
Click to expand...

Why do you put words in my mouth....who says I want to deny them rights?


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have news for you little faggot haters, children are not part of this discussion over rights.  I don't give a fuck if it is worse for the children, we don't do what is best for the child in this country because if we did we wouldn't let so many biological but unfit parents raise them.  This is about rights and equality.  Take your concerns for the children and start doing something about the homes where they are being bounced off the walls and fucked like whores.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct. Nobody cares about the kids. Our lenient divorce laws are proof of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So stop using them as part of your argument since they don't fucking matter in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, since I do care about the kids, I suppose it is a valid part of my argument.  So...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't since the debate is about Marriage Equality not what's best for children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'll make you a deal. You can discuss marriage in the context that is important to you, and I can do it as well. Children are part of what a marriage is.* At least a real marriage.*
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Ah...so, to you, childless marriages are NOT real marriages....and marriages with children are real.   I guess my wife and I have a real marriage then.


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because marriage, by its very nature, is for reproduction. Now, we understand that people can marry without having children, but that it is the exception to the basis for the existence of marriage. That is doesn't happen every time doesn't change that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> That is entirely untrue, and it if were true, and it isn't, millions upon millions of people could not get married, and they can, as long as they are male and female, the only contract on the books that requires such a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No its not untrue. It is the logical building block of society. And "marriage" happened long before societies developed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it didn't.  You believe lies, plain and simple.  Start here: 13 Facts on the History of Marriage
> 
> And answer the damn question, how long are you going to keep beating your head against the wall while the rest of your society waves goodbye?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. I can show you links which state that America wasn't founded as a Christian nation, Or that the framers intended firearm ownership to be a militia, or that there is no such thing as race. Only an idiot would believe it because some "expert" happened to write it down.
> 
> Or, are you one who believes that because its on the internet, it must be true?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> The faggots, and logic, won.  Exactly how long are you little homophobes going to beat this issue, forever?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably. Since you and yours beat it forever and worn down Americans finally gave in. So tell me, why didn't you just give up when most Americans didn't agree with you?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why didn't the Patriots give up in 1777?  Why didn't the blacks give up in 1955?  Why didn't women give up in 1979 when the ERA failed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for making my point. Why should I give up?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's your head versus my wall.  Knock yourself out, literally.
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure that 20 years ago, people thought you were knocking your head against a wall as well. Why didn't you give up?

Mark


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have news for you little faggot haters, children are not part of this discussion over rights.  I don't give a fuck if it is worse for the children, we don't do what is best for the child in this country because if we did we wouldn't let so many biological but unfit parents raise them.  This is about rights and equality.  Take your concerns for the children and start doing something about the homes where they are being bounced off the walls and fucked like whores.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct. Nobody cares about the kids. Our lenient divorce laws are proof of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So stop using them as part of your argument since they don't fucking matter in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, since I do care about the kids, I suppose it is a valid part of my argument.  So...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't since the debate is about Marriage Equality not what's best for children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'll make you a deal. You can discuss marriage in the context that is important to you, and I can do it as well. Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.
Click to expand...

I'll be sure to let the infertile, or those who choose not to have children, that their marriages aren't real.  My wife will tell you otherwise, and should she ever hire a divorce attorney I suspect they would be even more emphatic but you just go right along on your happy way, while the courts and anyone with common calls you a damn fool.


----------



## Carib Gyal

AVG-JOE said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> If marriage can be defined by a minority, why can't it be defined by ANY minority? Why can't a man marry any number of women who are willing to marry him? Why can't a woman marry any number of men or women she wants?
> 
> 
> 
> Because we can limit the number of partners a Monkey can have at any one time and that's not discriminatory.
> 
> As long as the rule applies to all marriages and all Monkeys the same, limiting the political benefits of a marriage relationship to couples only is not discriminatory.
Click to expand...

Why can we limit the number of partners? Why can't the rule apply to as many partners as love each other and want to marry? All equally, of course.


----------



## Carib Gyal

bodecea said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage doesn't even need sex to exist, there's no reason to limit it to two people. That's old fashioned thinking. If ten men want to marry each other they can use your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Except when you add more than two...the property rights and child custody issues get more complicated....instead of A to B....we now have choice...A to B or C.....B to A or C, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. A women can fuck many men but the paternal father has to pay. Property is divided up every day. Never heard of guys knocking each other up though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, but you would need something above and beyond a marriage license for BOTH of those scenerios.....which complicates things more than what legal marriage contracts provide.   There is your difference.  Unsurmountable?  No....but not doable with the current marriage license while there is no need to change marriage contracts with gay marriage.....just remove the legal restrictions (as many states have now done).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you want to deny the rights of 250 people who want to marry each other? It's so bigoted and hateful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you put words in my mouth....who says I want to deny them rights?
Click to expand...

The right to marry is guaranteed to everyone. Why do you hate America?


----------



## 80zephyr

AVG-JOE said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> If marriage can be defined by a minority, why can't it be defined by ANY minority? Why can't a man marry any number of women who are willing to marry him? Why can't a woman marry any number of men or women she wants?
> 
> 
> 
> Because we can limit the number of partners a Monkey can have at any one time and that's not discriminatory.
> 
> As long as the rule applies to all marriages and all Monkeys the same, limiting the political benefits of a marriage relationship to couples only is not discriminatory.
Click to expand...

And we can use that exact argument towards not allowing gay marriage. So, you have no point.

Mark


----------



## WorldWatcher

80zephyr said:


> I'll make you a deal. You can discuss marriage in the context that is important to you, and I can do it as well. Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.
> 
> Mark



So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?


>>>>


----------



## AVG-JOE

Carib Gyal said:


> The Jewish God made the rules.
> "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."
> 
> It's in Genesis.



Problem:  Some of us believe that The God of Abraham, as defined in The Torah, The New Testament and The Koran, is fictitious and the ancient Arab stories that lay out the rules of The Jewish God are no more binding than the suggestions proposed in "A Hitchhikers  Guide to the Galaxy".

Now what?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Iceweasel said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature needs egg and sperm...but marriage does not need procreation....just like procreation doesn't need marriage.  They are mutually exclusive.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage doesn't even need sex to exist, there's no reason to limit it to two people. That's old fashioned thinking. If ten men want to marry each other they can use your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except when you add more than two...the property rights and child custody issues get more complicated....instead of A to B....we now have choice...A to B or C.....B to A or C, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. A women can fuck many men but the paternal father has to pay. Property is divided up every day. Never heard of guys knocking each other up though.
Click to expand...




AVG-JOE said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> If marriage can be defined by a minority, why can't it be defined by ANY minority? Why can't a man marry any number of women who are willing to marry him? Why can't a woman marry any number of men or women she wants?
> 
> 
> 
> Because we can limit the number of partners a Monkey can have at any one time and that's not discriminatory.
> 
> As long as the rule applies to all marriages and all Monkeys the same, limiting the political benefits of a marriage relationship to couples only is not discriminatory.
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO!  THAT is the absolutely most pathetic example of a _'human being'_  trying to reason that has ever been witnessed in the interwebz.  CONGRATS DUMBASS!


----------



## Carib Gyal

AVG-JOE said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish God made the rules.
> "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."
> 
> It's in Genesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem:  Some of us believe that The God of Abraham, as defined in The Torah, The New Testament and The Koran, is fictitious and the ancient Arab stories that lay out the rules of The Jewish God are no more binding than the suggestions proposed in "A Hitchhikers  Guide to the Galaxy".
> 
> Now what?
Click to expand...

Now we allow as many people to marry each other as they like.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is entirely untrue, and it if were true, and it isn't, millions upon millions of people could not get married, and they can, as long as they are male and female, the only contract on the books that requires such a thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No its not untrue. It is the logical building block of society. And "marriage" happened long before societies developed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it didn't.  You believe lies, plain and simple.  Start here: 13 Facts on the History of Marriage
> 
> And answer the damn question, how long are you going to keep beating your head against the wall while the rest of your society waves goodbye?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. I can show you links which state that America wasn't founded as a Christian nation, Or that the framers intended firearm ownership to be a militia, or that there is no such thing as race. Only an idiot would believe it because some "expert" happened to write it down.
> 
> Or, are you one who believes that because its on the internet, it must be true?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> The faggots, and logic, won.  Exactly how long are you little homophobes going to beat this issue, forever?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably. Since you and yours beat it forever and worn down Americans finally gave in. So tell me, why didn't you just give up when most Americans didn't agree with you?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why didn't the Patriots give up in 1777?  Why didn't the blacks give up in 1955?  Why didn't women give up in 1979 when the ERA failed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for making my point. Why should I give up?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's your head versus my wall.  Knock yourself out, literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that 20 years ago, people thought you were knocking your head against a wall as well. Why didn't you give up?
Click to expand...

Because I wasn't, I just had to wait for society to grow the fuck and realize the obvious.  In America that is a slow process but this has gone a lot faster than I expected.  It's over and done with now.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

WorldWatcher said:


> So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> >>>>



Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I will, because it's pertinent.
> 
> Marriage today is for many things and reproduction is not the only thing and insisting on that would deprive many of marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> Sex isn't even for reproduction, usually, but somehow marriage is?  Morons here, total fucking morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the context of our society, your damn right it is. It is the reason why childbirth outside of marriage was shunned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because fucking outside of marriage was shunned dumbass.  It had nothing to do with marriage.  And it was also shunned if you were married but fucking someone other than your spouse, along with fucking animals, children, and your same sex.  It was the fucking that mattered, the out-of-wedlock child was just the evidence that you were a slut who couldn't keep her legs crossed and so were the other bastards men produced on the side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. You are getting it. Yep, fucking outside of marriage was socially unacceptable because this was before birth control and abortion, and the child wouldn't be brought up in a two parent household.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God you dumb as a box of fucking hammers.  Who raised the child was of no concern, who you fucked to get it was.
Click to expand...

Who raised the child was of no concern? In which universe?

Mark


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?
Click to expand...

It helps to have a HS education to understand.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sex isn't even for reproduction, usually, but somehow marriage is?  Morons here, total fucking morons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of our society, your damn right it is. It is the reason why childbirth outside of marriage was shunned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because fucking outside of marriage was shunned dumbass.  It had nothing to do with marriage.  And it was also shunned if you were married but fucking someone other than your spouse, along with fucking animals, children, and your same sex.  It was the fucking that mattered, the out-of-wedlock child was just the evidence that you were a slut who couldn't keep her legs crossed and so were the other bastards men produced on the side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. You are getting it. Yep, fucking outside of marriage was socially unacceptable because this was before birth control and abortion, and the child wouldn't be brought up in a two parent household.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God you dumb as a box of fucking hammers.  Who raised the child was of no concern, who you fucked to get it was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who raised the child was of no concern? In which universe?
Click to expand...

This one.  It's human history.


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> No its not untrue. It is the logical building block of society. And "marriage" happened long before societies developed.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it didn't.  You believe lies, plain and simple.  Start here: 13 Facts on the History of Marriage
> 
> And answer the damn question, how long are you going to keep beating your head against the wall while the rest of your society waves goodbye?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. I can show you links which state that America wasn't founded as a Christian nation, Or that the framers intended firearm ownership to be a militia, or that there is no such thing as race. Only an idiot would believe it because some "expert" happened to write it down.
> 
> Or, are you one who believes that because its on the internet, it must be true?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably. Since you and yours beat it forever and worn down Americans finally gave in. So tell me, why didn't you just give up when most Americans didn't agree with you?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why didn't the Patriots give up in 1777?  Why didn't the blacks give up in 1955?  Why didn't women give up in 1979 when the ERA failed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for making my point. Why should I give up?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's your head versus my wall.  Knock yourself out, literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that 20 years ago, people thought you were knocking your head against a wall as well. Why didn't you give up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I wasn't, I just had to wait for society to grow the fuck and realize the obvious.  In America that is a slow process but this has gone a lot faster than I expected.  It's over and done with now.
Click to expand...


No, its not. It will never "be over". Just like abortion.

Mark


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it didn't.  You believe lies, plain and simple.  Start here: 13 Facts on the History of Marriage
> 
> And answer the damn question, how long are you going to keep beating your head against the wall while the rest of your society waves goodbye?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. I can show you links which state that America wasn't founded as a Christian nation, Or that the framers intended firearm ownership to be a militia, or that there is no such thing as race. Only an idiot would believe it because some "expert" happened to write it down.
> 
> Or, are you one who believes that because its on the internet, it must be true?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't the Patriots give up in 1777?  Why didn't the blacks give up in 1955?  Why didn't women give up in 1979 when the ERA failed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for making my point. Why should I give up?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's your head versus my wall.  Knock yourself out, literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that 20 years ago, people thought you were knocking your head against a wall as well. Why didn't you give up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I wasn't, I just had to wait for society to grow the fuck and realize the obvious.  In America that is a slow process but this has gone a lot faster than I expected.  It's over and done with now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, its not. It will never "be over". Just like abortion.
Click to expand...

Oh but it is.  No one but the little faggot-haters like give a damn.  The rest are well aware of which side won.


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of our society, your damn right it is. It is the reason why childbirth outside of marriage was shunned.
> 
> 
> 
> That's because fucking outside of marriage was shunned dumbass.  It had nothing to do with marriage.  And it was also shunned if you were married but fucking someone other than your spouse, along with fucking animals, children, and your same sex.  It was the fucking that mattered, the out-of-wedlock child was just the evidence that you were a slut who couldn't keep her legs crossed and so were the other bastards men produced on the side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. You are getting it. Yep, fucking outside of marriage was socially unacceptable because this was before birth control and abortion, and the child wouldn't be brought up in a two parent household.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God you dumb as a box of fucking hammers.  Who raised the child was of no concern, who you fucked to get it was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who raised the child was of no concern? In which universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one.  It's human history.
Click to expand...


Proof? Are you really claiming that the shunning of children before marriage had nothing to do with those children?

Wow.

Mark


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

AVG-JOE said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish God made the rules.
> "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."
> 
> It's in Genesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem:  Some of us believe that The God of Abraham, as defined in The Torah, The New Testament and The Koran, is fictitious and the ancient Arab stories that lay out the rules of The Jewish God are no more binding than the suggestions proposed in "A Hitchhikers  Guide to the Galaxy".
> 
> Now what?
Click to expand...


Well in fairness... you are also the ones that 'believe' that things which are ABNORMAL are normal... that paying people to NOT WORK will encourage them to seek employment and that there is a RIGHT to MURDER THE MOST INNOCENT of human beings, EVEN WHILE THEY'RE STILL IN THEIR MOTHER'S WOMB!

So... LOL!  That means that you're crazy; which is to say that you suffer a perverse form of human reasoning; meaning that you're insane... and healthy people, like healthy cultures... disregard the 'feelings' of the insane.


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because fucking outside of marriage was shunned dumbass.  It had nothing to do with marriage.  And it was also shunned if you were married but fucking someone other than your spouse, along with fucking animals, children, and your same sex.  It was the fucking that mattered, the out-of-wedlock child was just the evidence that you were a slut who couldn't keep her legs crossed and so were the other bastards men produced on the side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. You are getting it. Yep, fucking outside of marriage was socially unacceptable because this was before birth control and abortion, and the child wouldn't be brought up in a two parent household.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God you dumb as a box of fucking hammers.  Who raised the child was of no concern, who you fucked to get it was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who raised the child was of no concern? In which universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one.  It's human history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof? Are you really claiming that the shunning of children before marriage had nothing to do with those children?
> 
> Wow.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

It's not our fault that people like you called children "bastards" and held it against them.


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. I can show you links which state that America wasn't founded as a Christian nation, Or that the framers intended firearm ownership to be a militia, or that there is no such thing as race. Only an idiot would believe it because some "expert" happened to write it down.
> 
> Or, are you one who believes that because its on the internet, it must be true?
> 
> Mark
> Thanks for making my point. Why should I give up?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> It's your head versus my wall.  Knock yourself out, literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that 20 years ago, people thought you were knocking your head against a wall as well. Why didn't you give up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I wasn't, I just had to wait for society to grow the fuck and realize the obvious.  In America that is a slow process but this has gone a lot faster than I expected.  It's over and done with now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, its not. It will never "be over". Just like abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh but it is.  No one but the little faggot-haters like give a damn.  The rest are well aware of which side won.
Click to expand...


Said the people who thought the abortion question was over.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

bodecea said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. You are getting it. Yep, fucking outside of marriage was socially unacceptable because this was before birth control and abortion, and the child wouldn't be brought up in a two parent household.
> 
> 
> 
> God you dumb as a box of fucking hammers.  Who raised the child was of no concern, who you fucked to get it was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who raised the child was of no concern? In which universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one.  It's human history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof? Are you really claiming that the shunning of children before marriage had nothing to do with those children?
> 
> Wow.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not our fault that people like you called children "bastards" and held it against them.
Click to expand...


Lol. If you were even close to answering what I stated...

Mark


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science has established that Nature designed the human being with two complimenting genders.  Therefore it logically follows that Marriage is designed by nature, which requires that Marriage is the natural joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence fallacy. Confusing fact with opinion.
Click to expand...


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because fucking outside of marriage was shunned dumbass.  It had nothing to do with marriage.  And it was also shunned if you were married but fucking someone other than your spouse, along with fucking animals, children, and your same sex.  It was the fucking that mattered, the out-of-wedlock child was just the evidence that you were a slut who couldn't keep her legs crossed and so were the other bastards men produced on the side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. You are getting it. Yep, fucking outside of marriage was socially unacceptable because this was before birth control and abortion, and the child wouldn't be brought up in a two parent household.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God you dumb as a box of fucking hammers.  Who raised the child was of no concern, who you fucked to get it was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who raised the child was of no concern? In which universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one.  It's human history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof? Are you really claiming that the shunning of children before marriage had nothing to do with those children?
Click to expand...

It had to do with fucking, which people, wrongly, believed was a sin outside of marriage, usually.  It's interesting to note that the lower classes of Victorian times, and many people of other times, were fine with fucking after you were engaged.  Testing the waters so to speak.


----------



## 80zephyr

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to get rid of those too, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're FOR Divorce?
> 
> LOL!  And they claim that they're not the purveyors of Evil in our time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am certainly in agreement that divorce is a legal option.  You want divorce eliminated legally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want divorce to be virtually impossible when children under 18 are involved. The kids didn't decide to be a dumbass, you did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus, go watch some I Love Lucy episodes and dream of when there was actual support for your backwards mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 80... you have a ^ concession ^ waiting to be noted and accepted up there.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I don't follow..

Mark


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's your head versus my wall.  Knock yourself out, literally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that 20 years ago, people thought you were knocking your head against a wall as well. Why didn't you give up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I wasn't, I just had to wait for society to grow the fuck and realize the obvious.  In America that is a slow process but this has gone a lot faster than I expected.  It's over and done with now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, its not. It will never "be over". Just like abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh but it is.  No one but the little faggot-haters like give a damn.  The rest are well aware of which side won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Said the people who thought the abortion question was over.
Click to expand...

No one thought that but the law of the land is settled.  Now the fight is over the details and there will be no such thing in this case.


----------



## 80zephyr

AVG-JOE said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our government policies were set up to help families raise children. It is the only reason these laws exist. Since gays cannot have children, having the government give them the same benefits is unreasonable.
> 
> Government discriminates every day. Tell me, is it discrimination if I have to pay taxes to provide for some one elses welfare?
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a government like ours wants to establish economic rules that either enhance or tax partnerships that government MUST enforce those rules equally across the board.  The only other option is to eliminate the special treatment that's given to ALL married couples.
> 
> What is so fucking hard to understand about the demand that our constitution makes for equal treatment under the law for ALL?
> 
> Either eliminate all the rules that treat married couples differently than non married partners, or grant those benefits to ALL who're willing to make the kind of legally binding commitment to each other that "marriage" means in 21st Century America.
> 
> This is not rocket science...  Just a willingness to live and let live.
Click to expand...


Not one of us is treated equally. Some pay taxes, some do not. If you want your "equality" then man up and demand that everyone pays the same tax.

If you don't then you really don't believe in equality, so, you are just like me.

Mark


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish God made the rules.
> "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."
> 
> It's in Genesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem:  Some of us believe that The God of Abraham, as defined in The Torah, The New Testament and The Koran, is fictitious and the ancient Arab stories that lay out the rules of The Jewish God are no more binding than the suggestions proposed in "A Hitchhikers  Guide to the Galaxy".
> 
> Now what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well in fairness... you are also the ones that 'believe' that things which are ABNORMAL are normal... that paying people to NOT WORK will encourage them to seek employment and that there is a RIGHT to MURDER THE MOST INNOCENT of human beings, EVEN WHILE THEY'RE STILL IN THEIR MOTHER'S WOMB!
> 
> So... LOL!  That means that you're crazy; which is to say that you suffer a perverse form of human reasoning; meaning that you're insane... and healthy people, like healthy cultures... disregard the 'feelings' of the insane.
Click to expand...

And there he goes.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our government policies were set up to help families raise children. It is the only reason these laws exist. Since gays cannot have children, having the government give them the same benefits is unreasonable.
> 
> Government discriminates every day. Tell me, is it discrimination if I have to pay taxes to provide for some one elses welfare?
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a government like ours wants to establish economic rules that either enhance or tax partnerships that government MUST enforce those rules equally across the board.  The only other option is to eliminate the special treatment that's given to ALL married couples.
> 
> What is so fucking hard to understand about the demand that our constitution makes for equal treatment under the law for ALL?
> 
> Either eliminate all the rules that treat married couples differently than non married partners, or grant those benefits to ALL who're willing to make the kind of legally binding commitment to each other that "marriage" means in 21st Century America.
> 
> This is not rocket science...  Just a willingness to live and let live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not one of us is treated equally. Some pay taxes, some do not. If you want your "equality" then man up and demand that everyone pays the same tax.
> 
> If you don't then you really don't believe in equality, so, you are just like me.
Click to expand...

I can fix that for you, everyone gets paid the same amount so the taxes are the same as well.  Happy now?


----------



## WorldWatcher

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?
Click to expand...


The statement was: "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".

I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.

Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?


Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what was said.

>>>>


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

80zephyr said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're FOR Divorce?
> 
> LOL!  And they claim that they're not the purveyors of Evil in our time.
> 
> 
> 
> I am certainly in agreement that divorce is a legal option.  You want divorce eliminated legally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want divorce to be virtually impossible when children under 18 are involved. The kids didn't decide to be a dumbass, you did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus, go watch some I Love Lucy episodes and dream of when there was actual support for your backwards mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 80... you have a ^ concession ^ waiting to be noted and accepted up there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't follow..
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


The relevant contributor had conceded to your point.  I was merely letting you know.  It's a well established courtesy that when someone concedes to your point, that ya duly note such and accept it.


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. You are getting it. Yep, fucking outside of marriage was socially unacceptable because this was before birth control and abortion, and the child wouldn't be brought up in a two parent household.
> 
> 
> 
> God you dumb as a box of fucking hammers.  Who raised the child was of no concern, who you fucked to get it was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who raised the child was of no concern? In which universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one.  It's human history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof? Are you really claiming that the shunning of children before marriage had nothing to do with those children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It had to do with fucking, which people, wrongly, believed was a sin outside of marriage, usually.  It's interesting to note that the lower classes of Victorian times, and many people of other times, were fine with fucking after you were engaged.  Testing the waters so to speak.
Click to expand...



And why did they condemn sex before marriage? Could it be that they wanted a stable couple to raise that child?

These old beliefs are easy to understand when taken in the context of the times they were in. They simply understood that a family was needed to bring up a child.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that 20 years ago, people thought you were knocking your head against a wall as well. Why didn't you give up?
> 
> 
> 
> Because I wasn't, I just had to wait for society to grow the fuck and realize the obvious.  In America that is a slow process but this has gone a lot faster than I expected.  It's over and done with now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, its not. It will never "be over". Just like abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh but it is.  No one but the little faggot-haters like give a damn.  The rest are well aware of which side won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Said the people who thought the abortion question was over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one thought that but the law of the land is settled.  Now the fight is over the details and there will be no such thing in this case.
Click to expand...


We'll see. In any case, I will not sit back quietly while I think our society is being destroyed. Hopefully, nobody would.

Mark


----------



## Carib Gyal

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our government policies were set up to help families raise children. It is the only reason these laws exist. Since gays cannot have children, having the government give them the same benefits is unreasonable.
> 
> Government discriminates every day. Tell me, is it discrimination if I have to pay taxes to provide for some one elses welfare?
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a government like ours wants to establish economic rules that either enhance or tax partnerships that government MUST enforce those rules equally across the board.  The only other option is to eliminate the special treatment that's given to ALL married couples.
> 
> What is so fucking hard to understand about the demand that our constitution makes for equal treatment under the law for ALL?
> 
> Either eliminate all the rules that treat married couples differently than non married partners, or grant those benefits to ALL who're willing to make the kind of legally binding commitment to each other that "marriage" means in 21st Century America.
> 
> This is not rocket science...  Just a willingness to live and let live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not one of us is treated equally. Some pay taxes, some do not. If you want your "equality" then man up and demand that everyone pays the same tax.
> 
> If you don't then you really don't believe in equality, so, you are just like me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can fix that for you, everyone gets paid the same amount so the taxes are the same as well.  Happy now?
Click to expand...

I like it. The gardener will make the same as the doctor who's gone to college for 8 years. Course they'll both be fucking your wives and husbands because you'll all be married.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> God you dumb as a box of fucking hammers.  Who raised the child was of no concern, who you fucked to get it was.
> 
> 
> 
> Who raised the child was of no concern? In which universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one.  It's human history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof? Are you really claiming that the shunning of children before marriage had nothing to do with those children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It had to do with fucking, which people, wrongly, believed was a sin outside of marriage, usually.  It's interesting to note that the lower classes of Victorian times, and many people of other times, were fine with fucking after you were engaged.  Testing the waters so to speak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And why did they condemn sex before marriage? Could it be that they wanted a stable couple to raise that child?
Click to expand...

Nope.  They didn't want you fucking around because it was immoral, period.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I wasn't, I just had to wait for society to grow the fuck and realize the obvious.  In America that is a slow process but this has gone a lot faster than I expected.  It's over and done with now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, its not. It will never "be over". Just like abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh but it is.  No one but the little faggot-haters like give a damn.  The rest are well aware of which side won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Said the people who thought the abortion question was over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one thought that but the law of the land is settled.  Now the fight is over the details and there will be no such thing in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll see. In any case, I will not sit back quietly while I think our society is being destroyed. Hopefully, nobody would.
Click to expand...

We aren't being destroyed drama queen, but your backwards mentality is, which is why you are fighting the over and done with.  Society is moving on, and leaving you in the past where you belong.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

WorldWatcher said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".
> 
> I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.
> 
> Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


First, I didn't say that...

But since ya brought it up: 

Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for. 

_Did you want to contest *that*?_ 

LOL!  No WAIT!

ROFL!

You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?

LMAO!

Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species. 

A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.

Now... having been educated on the issue. 

Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is _for... . _

Don't be shy now... go ahead.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".
> 
> I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.
> 
> Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children as the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect.  Sex is for pleasure, and bonding, and reproduction hitches a ride now and then.  It's why you can jerk off, and why nearly all sex that is had wasn't meant to produce children.  My favorite sex could never produce a child but the wife does usually brush her teeth afterwards while I pour her a drink as a reward.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".
> 
> I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.
> 
> Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I didn't say that...
> 
> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_
> 
> LOL!  No WAIT!
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.
> 
> A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.
> 
> Now... having been educated on the issue.
> 
> Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is _for... . _
> 
> Don't be shy now... go ahead.
Click to expand...


State for the record and swear on the lives of your loved ones that you have never engaged in sexual intercourse for any other reason than reproduction.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".
> 
> I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.
> 
> Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I didn't say that...
> 
> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_
> 
> LOL!  No WAIT!
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.
> 
> A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.
> 
> Now... having been educated on the issue.
> 
> Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is _for... . _
> 
> Don't be shy now... go ahead.
Click to expand...


99% of all human sexual intercourse occurs for reasons other than reproduction.

By your logic, that makes 99% of all human sexual intercourse unnatural,

which is, of course, nonsensical on its face.  As are you.


----------



## Carib Gyal

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".
> 
> I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.
> 
> Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children as the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is incorrect.  Sex is for pleasure, and bonding, and reproduction hitches a ride now and then.  It's why you can jerk off, and why nearly all sex that is had wasn't meant to produce children.  My favorite sex could never produce a child but the wife does usually brush her teeth afterwards while I pour her a drink as a reward.
Click to expand...

I'm sure watching you jerk off and finger yourself leaves a bad taste in her mouth and requires a shot of tequila.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> First, I didn't say that...



I caught that almost immediately and edited the post.



Where_r_my_Keys said:


> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_




_Nope._

And none of the rest of your blather relates to the post to which I responded.


>>>>


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our government policies were set up to help families raise children. It is the only reason these laws exist. Since gays cannot have children, having the government give them the same benefits is unreasonable.
> 
> Government discriminates every day. Tell me, is it discrimination if I have to pay taxes to provide for some one elses welfare?
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a government like ours wants to establish economic rules that either enhance or tax partnerships that government MUST enforce those rules equally across the board.  The only other option is to eliminate the special treatment that's given to ALL married couples.
> 
> What is so fucking hard to understand about the demand that our constitution makes for equal treatment under the law for ALL?
> 
> Either eliminate all the rules that treat married couples differently than non married partners, or grant those benefits to ALL who're willing to make the kind of legally binding commitment to each other that "marriage" means in 21st Century America.
> 
> This is not rocket science...  Just a willingness to live and let live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not one of us is treated equally. Some pay taxes, some do not. If you want your "equality" then man up and demand that everyone pays the same tax.
> 
> If you don't then you really don't believe in equality, so, you are just like me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can fix that for you, everyone gets paid the same amount so the taxes are the same as well.  Happy now?
Click to expand...


You have no means to ever be paid what I earn, as you lack the cognitive means to do so.  And I would not get out of BED to 'earn' what you earn, because, that which your intellectual means could, in the wildest fantasy, would not pay my grocery bill... .

So... no thanks.  I'll pass.

(The reader should recognize that the Left always assumes that their little 'rules for radicals' will produce for THEM what normal people produce in earnings, when in truth, the only means for their 'feelings' to ever come to pass, is for them to keep earning their pitiful stipend... which everyone else must also 'adjust to'.  

It turns out that 'equality' as defiend by the US Declaration of Independence, spoke ONLY of Equality before God; in terms of our rights; which speaks to on that which we will ALL be judged BY GOD.  It had absolutely NOTHING to do with 'FAIRNESS', or equal pay, or equal outcomes or any of the endless misnomers that the Intellectually Less Fortunate have conjured... . 

And THAT is why the US Revolution went as it went and why the French Revolution wen the other way.

The former was founded upon the objective reasoning wherein' God is the supreme authority of the Universe and that our liberty is AUTHORIZED by God... the latter on the idiocy that the Individual is the authority and his liberty rests upon his joining with others of like mind and  that the collective means to project their power determines their liberty; feeling that such was only 'Fair'.  

The Former emanates from good... the Latter from Evil.  

Simple stuff.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

WorldWatcher said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, I didn't say that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I caught that almost immediately and edited the post.
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Nope._
> 
> And none of the rest of your blather relates to the post to which I responded.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


My position relates precisely to your point, refuting it in its entirety.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

LOL!

(You did the very BEST you could... and I want you to know that I see that.)


----------



## WorldWatcher

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, I didn't say that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I caught that almost immediately and edited the post.
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Nope._
> 
> And none of the rest of your blather relates to the post to which I responded.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> LOL!
> 
> (You did the very BEST you could... and I want you to know that I see that.)
Click to expand...




No concession, and claiming victory for something that didn't occur only makes you look silly.

A statement was made that without children it's not a "real marriage".

I asked the poster about States that require by law certain couples to be infertile and are they not "real marriages".

That was it.


>>>>


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

NYcarbineer said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".
> 
> I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.
> 
> Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I didn't say that...
> 
> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_
> 
> LOL!  No WAIT!
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.
> 
> A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.
> 
> Now... having been educated on the issue.
> 
> Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is _for... . _
> 
> Don't be shy now... go ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State for the record and swear on the lives of your loved ones that you have never engaged in sexual intercourse for any other reason than reproduction.
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO!  And we have ANOTHER of the _"Sex is Pleasurable... therefore Sex was designed to give pleasure"_ idiots.

Folks, you cannot make this crap UP!

And that is how we can "KNOW" that the would-be 'People', are truly, what in greater nature is that which is known as: FOOD!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

WorldWatcher said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, I didn't say that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I caught that almost immediately and edited the post.
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Nope._
> 
> And none of the rest of your blather relates to the post to which I responded.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> LOL!
> 
> (You did the very BEST you could... and I want you to know that I see that.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No concession, and claiming victory for something that didn't occur only makes you look silly.
> 
> A statement was made that without children it's not a "real marriage".
> 
> I asked the poster about States that require by law certain couples to be infertile and are they not "real marriages".
> 
> That was it.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...



LOL!  I had no difficulties understanding the 'feelings' you were trying to express and the pitiful little query... .

Which is how I can 'know' that you did, in fact: "concede"... and ya did so SPECIFICALLY wherein you yielded from the standing points, which answered your query.


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct. Nobody cares about the kids. Our lenient divorce laws are proof of that.
> 
> 
> 
> So stop using them as part of your argument since they don't fucking matter in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, since I do care about the kids, I suppose it is a valid part of my argument.  So...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't since the debate is about Marriage Equality not what's best for children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'll make you a deal. You can discuss marriage in the context that is important to you, and I can do it as well. Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll be sure to let the infertile, or those who choose not to have children, that their marriages aren't real.  My wife will tell you otherwise, and should she ever hire a divorce attorney I suspect they would be even more emphatic but you just go right along on your happy way, while the courts and anyone with common calls you a damn fool.
Click to expand...


That you don't understand what I said is not my problem.

Mark


----------



## Iceweasel

bodecea said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature needs egg and sperm...but marriage does not need procreation....just like procreation doesn't need marriage.  They are mutually exclusive.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage doesn't even need sex to exist, there's no reason to limit it to two people. That's old fashioned thinking. If ten men want to marry each other they can use your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except when you add more than two...the property rights and child custody issues get more complicated....instead of A to B....we now have choice...A to B or C.....B to A or C, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. A women can fuck many men but the paternal father has to pay. Property is divided up every day. Never heard of guys knocking each other up though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, but you would need something above and beyond a marriage license for BOTH of those scenerios.....which complicates things more than what legal marriage contracts provide.   There is your difference.  Unsurmountable?  No....but not doable with the current marriage license while there is no need to change marriage contracts with gay marriage.....just remove the legal restrictions (as many states have now done).
Click to expand...

You're making shit up! Paternity obligations are ordered even without marriage. So no, you don't need something more complicated than marriage. Gay marriage doesn't change marriage? WTF? 

If states are going to remove legal restrictions for gays there's no reason to stop there. Ten guys should be able to marry if they want. You don't have an argument against it.


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our government policies were set up to help families raise children. It is the only reason these laws exist. Since gays cannot have children, having the government give them the same benefits is unreasonable.
> 
> Government discriminates every day. Tell me, is it discrimination if I have to pay taxes to provide for some one elses welfare?
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a government like ours wants to establish economic rules that either enhance or tax partnerships that government MUST enforce those rules equally across the board.  The only other option is to eliminate the special treatment that's given to ALL married couples.
> 
> What is so fucking hard to understand about the demand that our constitution makes for equal treatment under the law for ALL?
> 
> Either eliminate all the rules that treat married couples differently than non married partners, or grant those benefits to ALL who're willing to make the kind of legally binding commitment to each other that "marriage" means in 21st Century America.
> 
> This is not rocket science...  Just a willingness to live and let live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not one of us is treated equally. Some pay taxes, some do not. If you want your "equality" then man up and demand that everyone pays the same tax.
> 
> If you don't then you really don't believe in equality, so, you are just like me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can fix that for you, everyone gets paid the same amount so the taxes are the same as well.  Happy now?
Click to expand...


Nope. If the government wants equality, then


PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who raised the child was of no concern? In which universe?
> 
> 
> 
> This one.  It's human history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof? Are you really claiming that the shunning of children before marriage had nothing to do with those children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It had to do with fucking, which people, wrongly, believed was a sin outside of marriage, usually.  It's interesting to note that the lower classes of Victorian times, and many people of other times, were fine with fucking after you were engaged.  Testing the waters so to speak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And why did they condemn sex before marriage? Could it be that they wanted a stable couple to raise that child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  They didn't want you fucking around because it was immoral, period.
Click to expand...


Why was it immoral?

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, its not. It will never "be over". Just like abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh but it is.  No one but the little faggot-haters like give a damn.  The rest are well aware of which side won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Said the people who thought the abortion question was over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one thought that but the law of the land is settled.  Now the fight is over the details and there will be no such thing in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll see. In any case, I will not sit back quietly while I think our society is being destroyed. Hopefully, nobody would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We aren't being destroyed drama queen, but your backwards mentality is, which is why you are fighting the over and done with.  Society is moving on, and leaving you in the past where you belong.
Click to expand...


You can't know that. Neither can I. But, I will continue to fight for what I believe to be the best situation for the human condition.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".
> 
> I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.
> 
> Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I didn't say that...
> 
> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_
> 
> LOL!  No WAIT!
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.
> 
> A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.
> 
> Now... having been educated on the issue.
> 
> Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is _for... . _
> 
> Don't be shy now... go ahead.
Click to expand...


Nailed it.

Mark


----------



## bodecea

Iceweasel said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature needs egg and sperm...but marriage does not need procreation....just like procreation doesn't need marriage.  They are mutually exclusive.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage doesn't even need sex to exist, there's no reason to limit it to two people. That's old fashioned thinking. If ten men want to marry each other they can use your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except when you add more than two...the property rights and child custody issues get more complicated....instead of A to B....we now have choice...A to B or C.....B to A or C, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. A women can fuck many men but the paternal father has to pay. Property is divided up every day. Never heard of guys knocking each other up though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, but you would need something above and beyond a marriage license for BOTH of those scenerios.....which complicates things more than what legal marriage contracts provide.   There is your difference.  Unsurmountable?  No....but not doable with the current marriage license while there is no need to change marriage contracts with gay marriage.....just remove the legal restrictions (as many states have now done).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're making shit up! *Paternity obligations are ordered even without marriage. *So no, you don't need something more complicated than marriage. Gay marriage doesn't change marriage? WTF?
> 
> If states are going to remove legal restrictions for gays there's no reason to stop there. Ten guys should be able to marry if they want. You don't have an argument against it.
Click to expand...

Of course they are.....after lawyers and documents and dna tests etc.   However, a marriage license covers that quite easily along with over 1000 other protections, obligations etc. one gets with one simple marriage license.


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".
> 
> I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.
> 
> Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children as the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is incorrect.  Sex is for pleasure, and bonding, and reproduction hitches a ride now and then.  It's why you can jerk off, and why nearly all sex that is had wasn't meant to produce children.  My favorite sex could never produce a child but the wife does usually brush her teeth afterwards while I pour her a drink as a reward.
Click to expand...


So the sex drive in humans is there to "have fun", and not for procreation?

Again. Wow.

Mark


----------



## Iceweasel

bodecea said:


> Of course they are.....after lawyers and documents and dna tests etc.   However, a marriage license covers that quite easily along with over 1000 other protections, obligations etc. one gets with one simple marriage license.


Any contract can cover anything the parties want, happens everyday. And you don't need state permission. You don't know what you're talking about. Or you are lying.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".
> 
> I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.
> 
> Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I didn't say that...
> 
> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_
> 
> LOL!  No WAIT!
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.
> 
> A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.
> 
> Now... having been educated on the issue.
> 
> Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is _for... . _
> 
> Don't be shy now... go ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State for the record and swear on the lives of your loved ones that you have never engaged in sexual intercourse for any other reason than reproduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  And we have ANOTHER of the _"Sex is Pleasurable... therefore Sex was designed to give pleasure"_ idiots.
> 
> Folks, you cannot make this crap UP!
> 
> And that is how we can "KNOW" that the would-be 'People', are truly, what in greater nature is that which is known as: FOOD!
Click to expand...


The repeated question that you refuse to answer is,

do you only engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction?


----------



## NYcarbineer

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".
> 
> I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.
> 
> Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children as the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is incorrect.  Sex is for pleasure, and bonding, and reproduction hitches a ride now and then.  It's why you can jerk off, and why nearly all sex that is had wasn't meant to produce children.  My favorite sex could never produce a child but the wife does usually brush her teeth afterwards while I pour her a drink as a reward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the sex drive in humans is there to "have fun", and not for procreation?
> 
> Again. Wow.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


why would the two be mutually exclusive?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, its not. It will never "be over". Just like abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh but it is.  No one but the little faggot-haters like give a damn.  The rest are well aware of which side won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Said the people who thought the abortion question was over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one thought that but the law of the land is settled.  Now the fight is over the details and there will be no such thing in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll see. In any case, I will not sit back quietly while I think our society is being destroyed. Hopefully, nobody would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We aren't being destroyed drama queen, but your backwards mentality is...
Click to expand...


And by _backwards mentality, _it means to say: Soundly reasoned argument... . 

It is through this, that we can readily see that the Leftist feels that the perversion that it represents, is 'winning'.

Which if true, simply means that the infected cultures will soon implode due to the failure of its own structure and another culture will replace it.  A culture which does not suffer from insanity, thus which stores its homosexuals, out of sight, neatly in the back, on the top shelf of the closet... where such which one should toss but doesn't and which one doesn't want to otherwise clutter its environment... belongs.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".
> 
> I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.
> 
> Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I didn't say that...
> 
> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_
> 
> LOL!  No WAIT!
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.
> 
> A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.
> 
> Now... having been educated on the issue.
> 
> Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is _for... . _
> 
> Don't be shy now... go ahead.
Click to expand...


Then the natural age for females to begin to have intercourse is when they've become sexually mature?  Capable of reproducing?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

NYcarbineer said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".
> 
> I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.
> 
> Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I didn't say that...
> 
> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_
> 
> LOL!  No WAIT!
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.
> 
> A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.
> 
> Now... having been educated on the issue.
> 
> Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is _for... . _
> 
> Don't be shy now... go ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State for the record and swear on the lives of your loved ones that you have never engaged in sexual intercourse for any other reason than reproduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  And we have ANOTHER of the _"Sex is Pleasurable... therefore Sex was designed to give pleasure"_ idiots.
> 
> Folks, you cannot make this crap UP!
> 
> And that is how we can "KNOW" that the would-be 'People', are truly, what in greater nature is that which is known as: FOOD!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The repeated question that you refuse to answer is,
> 
> do you only engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction?
Click to expand...


OH!  You 'feel' your little query wasn't answered... LOL!  Now isn't that _PRECIOUS?_

Here's a clue scamp... "Why" one engages in sex, has no bearing on "_WHAT NATURE DESIGNED SEX FOR"_.  

But it_ DOES,_ however, demonstrate the efficacy of nature's design.


----------



## boilermaker55

Yes because that is what all of your kind eventually refer too.
This world is about adversity and diversity and acceptance.
No one group and govern implicitly. If that happens then it goes against all the laws of real nature.
Not the selective group you decided to live in.
It does strike odd that the ones that profess faith the most seem to have the least grasp of what they believe.
They want it to fit into their microcosm world. It become deplorable.





Where_r_my_Keys said:


> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! In that religion. But once again your "kind" step over the boundaries of pushing an agenda onto those that have not allegiance to your faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faith?
> 
> We're talking the physical laws of nature... human physiology.  Inees and outees... Round Pegs designed to go into round wholes which are DESIGNED TO RECEIVE THEM... for biologically essential purposes, critical to the viability of THE SPECIES.
> 
> You need 'faith' to accept THAT WHICH IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY DEBATABLE?
> 
> If that is true... you're truly helpless and nature will most likely cull you from the herd quite soon.
Click to expand...


----------



## NYcarbineer

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".
> 
> I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.
> 
> Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, I didn't say that...
> 
> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_
> 
> LOL!  No WAIT!
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.
> 
> A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.
> 
> Now... having been educated on the issue.
> 
> Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is _for... . _
> 
> Don't be shy now... go ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State for the record and swear on the lives of your loved ones that you have never engaged in sexual intercourse for any other reason than reproduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  And we have ANOTHER of the _"Sex is Pleasurable... therefore Sex was designed to give pleasure"_ idiots.
> 
> Folks, you cannot make this crap UP!
> 
> And that is how we can "KNOW" that the would-be 'People', are truly, what in greater nature is that which is known as: FOOD!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The repeated question that you refuse to answer is,
> 
> do you only engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!  You 'feel' your little query wasn't answered... LOL!  Now isn't that _PRECIOUS?_
> 
> Here's a clue scamp... "Why" one engages in sex, has no bearing on "_WHAT NATURE DESIGNED SEX FOR"_.
> 
> But it_ DOES,_ however, demonstrate the efficacy of nature's design.
Click to expand...


Nature made human females receptive to sex at any time, in stark contrast to almost every other species.

Why was that?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

NYcarbineer said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".
> 
> I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.
> 
> Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I didn't say that...
> 
> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_
> 
> LOL!  No WAIT!
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.
> 
> A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.
> 
> Now... having been educated on the issue.
> 
> Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is _for... . _
> 
> Don't be shy now... go ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the natural age for females to begin to have intercourse is when they've become sexually mature?  Capable of reproducing?
Click to expand...


Is it?

Based upon what?  The natural age for reproduction is the age wherein the female is sufficiently emotionally mature to nurture and raise her child; which would, of course, reqire that she be sufficiently mature to have secured a husband, to sustain her through gestation and the years where caring for her child requires nearly constant attention.

This is all FUNDAMENTAL STUFF... yet it appears that you're absolutely ignorant of ALL OF IT!

How old are you?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".
> 
> I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.
> 
> Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, I didn't say that...
> 
> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_
> 
> LOL!  No WAIT!
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.
> 
> A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.
> 
> Now... having been educated on the issue.
> 
> Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is _for... . _
> 
> Don't be shy now... go ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State for the record and swear on the lives of your loved ones that you have never engaged in sexual intercourse for any other reason than reproduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  And we have ANOTHER of the _"Sex is Pleasurable... therefore Sex was designed to give pleasure"_ idiots.
> 
> Folks, you cannot make this crap UP!
> 
> And that is how we can "KNOW" that the would-be 'People', are truly, what in greater nature is that which is known as: FOOD!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The repeated question that you refuse to answer is,
> 
> do you only engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!  You 'feel' your little query wasn't answered... LOL!  Now isn't that _PRECIOUS?_
> 
> Here's a clue scamp... "Why" one engages in sex, has no bearing on "_WHAT NATURE DESIGNED SEX FOR"_.
> 
> But it_ DOES,_ however, demonstrate the efficacy of nature's design.
Click to expand...


Kissing is non-reproductive, does that make it unnatural and perverted?

And again, to the question.

Will you state for the record that you never engage in sex for purposes other than reproduction, because you consider that unnatural?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

boilermaker55 said:


> Yes because that is what all of your kind eventually refer too.
> This world is about adversity and diversity and acceptance.
> No one group and govern implicitly. If that happens then it goes against all the laws of real nature.
> Not the selective group you decided to live in.
> It does strike odd that the ones that profess faith the most seem to have the least grasp of what they believe.
> They want it to fit into their microcosm world. It become deplorable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! In that religion. But once again your "kind" step over the boundaries of pushing an agenda onto those that have not allegiance to your faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faith?
> 
> We're talking the physical laws of nature... human physiology.  Inees and outees... Round Pegs designed to go into round wholes which are DESIGNED TO RECEIVE THEM... for biologically essential purposes, critical to the viability of THE SPECIES.
> 
> You need 'faith' to accept THAT WHICH IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY DEBATABLE?
> 
> If that is true... you're truly helpless and nature will most likely cull you from the herd quite soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Go to bed Karl... you're drunk.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".
> 
> I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.
> 
> Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I didn't say that...
> 
> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_
> 
> LOL!  No WAIT!
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.
> 
> A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.
> 
> Now... having been educated on the issue.
> 
> Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is _for... . _
> 
> Don't be shy now... go ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the natural age for females to begin to have intercourse is when they've become sexually mature?  Capable of reproducing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it?
> 
> Based upon what?  The natural age for reproduction is the age wherein the female is sufficiently emotionally mature to nurture and raise her child; which would, of course, reqire that she be sufficiently mature to have secured a husband, to sustain her through gestation and the years where caring for her child requires nearly constant attention.
> 
> This is all FUNDAMENTAL STUFF... yet it appears that you're absolutely ignorant of ALL OF IT!
> 
> How old are you?
Click to expand...


So 13 year olds should be allowed to consent to sex.


----------



## Carib Gyal

boilermaker55 said:


> Yes because that is what all of your kind eventually refer too.
> This world is about adversity and diversity and acceptance.
> No one group and govern implicitly. If that happens then it goes against all the laws of real nature.
> Not the selective group you decided to live in.
> It does strike odd that the ones that profess faith the most seem to have the least grasp of what they believe.
> They want it to fit into their microcosm world. It become deplorable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! In that religion. But once again your "kind" step over the boundaries of pushing an agenda onto those that have not allegiance to your faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faith?
> 
> We're talking the physical laws of nature... human physiology.  Inees and outees... Round Pegs designed to go into round wholes which are DESIGNED TO RECEIVE THEM... for biologically essential purposes, critical to the viability of THE SPECIES.
> 
> You need 'faith' to accept THAT WHICH IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY DEBATABLE?
> 
> If that is true... you're truly helpless and nature will most likely cull you from the herd quite soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The problem with this reasoning is that you do the same yourself. If marriage is to be redefined, why not define it as between 20, 30, 500, or 2,000 people? The purpose of marriage isn't love, or sex, or even being between humans. Why can't a man marry a cow? Marriage will be redefined and mean something completely different than it does now.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

NYcarbineer said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, I didn't say that...
> 
> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_
> 
> LOL!  No WAIT!
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.
> 
> A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.
> 
> Now... having been educated on the issue.
> 
> Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is _for... . _
> 
> Don't be shy now... go ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> State for the record and swear on the lives of your loved ones that you have never engaged in sexual intercourse for any other reason than reproduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  And we have ANOTHER of the _"Sex is Pleasurable... therefore Sex was designed to give pleasure"_ idiots.
> 
> Folks, you cannot make this crap UP!
> 
> And that is how we can "KNOW" that the would-be 'People', are truly, what in greater nature is that which is known as: FOOD!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The repeated question that you refuse to answer is,
> 
> do you only engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!  You 'feel' your little query wasn't answered... LOL!  Now isn't that _PRECIOUS?_
> 
> Here's a clue scamp... "Why" one engages in sex, has no bearing on "_WHAT NATURE DESIGNED SEX FOR"_.
> 
> But it_ DOES,_ however, demonstrate the efficacy of nature's design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kissing is non-reproductive, does that make it unnatural and perverted? ...
Click to expand...


Again... how old are you?

I believe this site requires a person to be at least 18 to participate.  Please get off the computer and tell your mother to get out from underneath Uncle Lately and put you to BED! 

(Folks, if that is not a child of 10 years or less... then it's an imbecile. )


----------



## NYcarbineer

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".
> 
> I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.
> 
> Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I didn't say that...
> 
> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_
> 
> LOL!  No WAIT!
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.
> 
> A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.
> 
> Now... having been educated on the issue.
> 
> Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is _for... . _
> 
> Don't be shy now... go ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the natural age for females to begin to have intercourse is when they've become sexually mature?  Capable of reproducing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it?
> 
> Based upon what?  The natural age for reproduction is the age wherein the female is sufficiently emotionally mature to nurture and raise her child; which would, of course, reqire that she be sufficiently mature to have secured a husband, to sustain her through gestation and the years where caring for her child requires nearly constant attention.
> 
> This is all FUNDAMENTAL STUFF... yet it appears that you're absolutely ignorant of ALL OF IT!
> 
> How old are you?
Click to expand...


Rushing from one side of the boat to the other trying to defend your asinine opinions is going to wear you out, Cubby.

Take a break and come back when your brain has matured.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Carib Gyal said:


> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes because that is what all of your kind eventually refer too.
> This world is about adversity and diversity and acceptance.
> No one group and govern implicitly. If that happens then it goes against all the laws of real nature.
> Not the selective group you decided to live in.
> It does strike odd that the ones that profess faith the most seem to have the least grasp of what they believe.
> They want it to fit into their microcosm world. It become deplorable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! In that religion. But once again your "kind" step over the boundaries of pushing an agenda onto those that have not allegiance to your faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faith?
> 
> We're talking the physical laws of nature... human physiology.  Inees and outees... Round Pegs designed to go into round wholes which are DESIGNED TO RECEIVE THEM... for biologically essential purposes, critical to the viability of THE SPECIES.
> 
> You need 'faith' to accept THAT WHICH IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY DEBATABLE?
> 
> If that is true... you're truly helpless and nature will most likely cull you from the herd quite soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem with this reasoning is that you do the same yourself. If marriage is to be redefined, why not define it as between 20, 30, 500, or 2,000 people? The purpose of marriage isn't love, or sex, or even being between humans. Why can't a man marry a cow? Marriage will be redefined and mean something completely different than it does now.
Click to expand...


Why can two senior citizens marry?  Why can men or women who cannot reproduce marry?


----------



## Carib Gyal

NYcarbineer said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes because that is what all of your kind eventually refer too.
> This world is about adversity and diversity and acceptance.
> No one group and govern implicitly. If that happens then it goes against all the laws of real nature.
> Not the selective group you decided to live in.
> It does strike odd that the ones that profess faith the most seem to have the least grasp of what they believe.
> They want it to fit into their microcosm world. It become deplorable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! In that religion. But once again your "kind" step over the boundaries of pushing an agenda onto those that have not allegiance to your faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faith?
> 
> We're talking the physical laws of nature... human physiology.  Inees and outees... Round Pegs designed to go into round wholes which are DESIGNED TO RECEIVE THEM... for biologically essential purposes, critical to the viability of THE SPECIES.
> 
> You need 'faith' to accept THAT WHICH IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY DEBATABLE?
> 
> If that is true... you're truly helpless and nature will most likely cull you from the herd quite soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem with this reasoning is that you do the same yourself. If marriage is to be redefined, why not define it as between 20, 30, 500, or 2,000 people? The purpose of marriage isn't love, or sex, or even being between humans. Why can't a man marry a cow? Marriage will be redefined and mean something completely different than it does now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can two senior citizens marry?  Why can men or women who cannot reproduce marry?
Click to expand...

They can, but that's not my question. Your position is that marriage can occur regardless of love, or sex, or any other reason. What is the objection to marriage between a mouse and a woman, or 10,000 men and women and birds, or anything else?


----------



## Coyote

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".
> 
> I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.
> 
> Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, I didn't say that...
> 
> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_
> 
> LOL!  No WAIT!
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.
> 
> A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.
> 
> Now... having been educated on the issue.
> 
> Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is _for... . _
> 
> Don't be shy now... go ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State for the record and swear on the lives of your loved ones that you have never engaged in sexual intercourse for any other reason than reproduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  And we have ANOTHER of the _"Sex is Pleasurable... therefore Sex was designed to give pleasure"_ idiots.
> 
> Folks, you cannot make this crap UP!
> 
> And that is how we can "KNOW" that the would-be 'People', are truly, what in greater nature is that which is known as: FOOD!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The repeated question that you refuse to answer is,
> 
> do you only engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!  You 'feel' your little query wasn't answered... LOL!  Now isn't that _PRECIOUS?_
> 
> Here's a clue scamp... "Why" one engages in sex, has no bearing on "_WHAT NATURE DESIGNED SEX FOR"_.
> 
> But it_ DOES,_ however, demonstrate the efficacy of nature's design.
Click to expand...


Pubes, hon....nature is remarkably creative.  Sex may have at one time been designed soley for procreation way back when we were primative amphibious slimewads - but it is not just procreative anymore.  Ever read about Bonobos?


----------



## Antares

NYcarbineer said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, I didn't say that...
> 
> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_
> 
> LOL!  No WAIT!
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.
> 
> A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.
> 
> Now... having been educated on the issue.
> 
> Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is _for... . _
> 
> Don't be shy now... go ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> State for the record and swear on the lives of your loved ones that you have never engaged in sexual intercourse for any other reason than reproduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  And we have ANOTHER of the _"Sex is Pleasurable... therefore Sex was designed to give pleasure"_ idiots.
> 
> Folks, you cannot make this crap UP!
> 
> And that is how we can "KNOW" that the would-be 'People', are truly, what in greater nature is that which is known as: FOOD!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The repeated question that you refuse to answer is,
> 
> do you only engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!  You 'feel' your little query wasn't answered... LOL!  Now isn't that _PRECIOUS?_
> 
> Here's a clue scamp... "Why" one engages in sex, has no bearing on "_WHAT NATURE DESIGNED SEX FOR"_.
> 
> But it_ DOES,_ however, demonstrate the efficacy of nature's design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nature made human females receptive to sex at any time, in stark contrast to almost every other species.
> 
> Why was that?
Click to expand...


It did?

Wait you mean those that get paid for it?


----------



## 80zephyr

NYcarbineer said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".
> 
> I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.
> 
> Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children as the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is incorrect.  Sex is for pleasure, and bonding, and reproduction hitches a ride now and then.  It's why you can jerk off, and why nearly all sex that is had wasn't meant to produce children.  My favorite sex could never produce a child but the wife does usually brush her teeth afterwards while I pour her a drink as a reward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the sex drive in humans is there to "have fun", and not for procreation?
> 
> Again. Wow.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why would the two be mutually exclusive?
Click to expand...



Like "keys" stated, pleasure was built into sex to "force" humans to engage in it for procreation. In evolutionary terms, there is no other reason.

Whether you can have sex for fun is not he question. The question was whether fun was the driver. Fun is not the driver. Procreation is the driver. Fun is the impetus.

Mark


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

NYcarbineer said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, I didn't say that...
> 
> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_
> 
> LOL!  No WAIT!
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.
> 
> A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.
> 
> Now... having been educated on the issue.
> 
> Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is _for... . _
> 
> Don't be shy now... go ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> State for the record and swear on the lives of your loved ones that you have never engaged in sexual intercourse for any other reason than reproduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  And we have ANOTHER of the _"Sex is Pleasurable... therefore Sex was designed to give pleasure"_ idiots.
> 
> Folks, you cannot make this crap UP!
> 
> And that is how we can "KNOW" that the would-be 'People', are truly, what in greater nature is that which is known as: FOOD!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The repeated question that you refuse to answer is,
> 
> do you only engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!  You 'feel' your little query wasn't answered... LOL!  Now isn't that _PRECIOUS?_
> 
> Here's a clue scamp... "Why" one engages in sex, has no bearing on "_WHAT NATURE DESIGNED SEX FOR"_.
> 
> But it_ DOES,_ however, demonstrate the efficacy of nature's design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nature made human females receptive to sex at any time, in stark contrast to almost every other species.
> 
> Why was that?
Click to expand...


Because Nature gave humans the means to reason.


----------



## Coyote

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".
> 
> I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.
> 
> Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I didn't say that...
> 
> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_
> 
> LOL!  No WAIT!
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.
> 
> A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.
> 
> Now... having been educated on the issue.
> 
> Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is _for... . _
> 
> Don't be shy now... go ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the natural age for females to begin to have intercourse is when they've become sexually mature?  Capable of reproducing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it?
> 
> Based upon what?  The natural age for reproduction is the age wherein the female is sufficiently emotionally mature to nurture and raise her child; which would, of course, reqire that she be sufficiently mature to have secured a husband, to sustain her through gestation and the years where caring for her child requires nearly constant attention.
> 
> This is all FUNDAMENTAL STUFF... yet it appears that you're absolutely ignorant of ALL OF IT!
> 
> How old are you?
Click to expand...


Lord do you need some tutoring here.  Sweetcheeks - reproduction is strictly biology.  As soon as a female reaches puberty (in humans)...estrus in other species - she is ready and able to be impregnated.  Emotional maturity has zip to do with it.  All that is the overlay of culture.

That is FUNDAMENTAL STUFF dude


----------



## 80zephyr

NYcarbineer said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".
> 
> I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.
> 
> Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I didn't say that...
> 
> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_
> 
> LOL!  No WAIT!
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.
> 
> A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.
> 
> Now... having been educated on the issue.
> 
> Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is _for... . _
> 
> Don't be shy now... go ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the natural age for females to begin to have intercourse is when they've become sexually mature?  Capable of reproducing?
Click to expand...


In a "natural" world, absolutely. Why do you think they were designed that way?

Mark


----------



## Conservative65

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing?  Who's forcing you to marry a gay guy?
> 
> Also, do you honestly think civil rights should be determined by popular opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What special rights are they given that are not given to others?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that really such an issue and why exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither is Teebowing but some are going to do it.  In the end, it's a 24 hour moment of attention and then how they play becomes more important - gay or straight or Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It only pervades if you obsess over it and look for it everywhere.  I hardly notice it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  How DARE those damn homos be open about what they are!  OMG.  They need to stay in the closet where they belong.
> 
> Now....can we do something about those annoying hetero's shoving their lifestyles in our faces?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you keep your heterosexuality private?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...and you say you don't hate homosexuals?  Want to rethink that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ugandans (under the guidance of American megachurches) tried to institute the death penalty for homosexuality.  Now it's just prison time, publishing their names so they can be lynched and imprisoning anyone who knowingly withholds information about known homosexuals.  Maybe that's what we should be doing, yessiree bubby!
Click to expand...




Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing?  Who's forcing you to marry a gay guy?
> 
> Also, do you honestly think civil rights should be determined by popular opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What special rights are they given that are not given to others?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that really such an issue and why exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither is Teebowing but some are going to do it.  In the end, it's a 24 hour moment of attention and then how they play becomes more important - gay or straight or Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It only pervades if you obsess over it and look for it everywhere.  I hardly notice it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  How DARE those damn homos be open about what they are!  OMG.  They need to stay in the closet where they belong.
> 
> Now....can we do something about those annoying hetero's shoving their lifestyles in our faces?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you keep your heterosexuality private?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...and you say you don't hate homosexuals?  Want to rethink that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ugandans (under the guidance of American megachurches) tried to institute the death penalty for homosexuality.  Now it's just prison time, publishing their names so they can be lynched and imprisoning anyone who knowingly withholds information about known homosexuals.  Maybe that's what we should be doing, yessiree bubby!
Click to expand...


1. The homos are damn sure demanding the rest of us not just acknowledge their choice but that we agree with it and don't say anything other than you agree with it.

2.  You have to watch every word in order that those freaks don't get their panties in a wad.

3.  It would be for the freak of nature that thought HE was a girl and approached my daughter.

4.  Teebowing happens when someone actually accomplishes something.  

5.  You think being a freak is normal.  When daily new stories put those abnormal freaks on the screen, you don't have to look.


----------



## NYcarbineer

80zephyr said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".
> 
> I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.
> 
> Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I didn't say that...
> 
> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_
> 
> LOL!  No WAIT!
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.
> 
> A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.
> 
> Now... having been educated on the issue.
> 
> Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is _for... . _
> 
> Don't be shy now... go ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the natural age for females to begin to have intercourse is when they've become sexually mature?  Capable of reproducing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a "natural" world, absolutely. Why do you think they were designed that way?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Tell that to the idiot who's trying to song and dance the facts.


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, I didn't say that...
> 
> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_
> 
> LOL!  No WAIT!
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.
> 
> A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.
> 
> Now... having been educated on the issue.
> 
> Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is _for... . _
> 
> Don't be shy now... go ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> State for the record and swear on the lives of your loved ones that you have never engaged in sexual intercourse for any other reason than reproduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  And we have ANOTHER of the _"Sex is Pleasurable... therefore Sex was designed to give pleasure"_ idiots.
> 
> Folks, you cannot make this crap UP!
> 
> And that is how we can "KNOW" that the would-be 'People', are truly, what in greater nature is that which is known as: FOOD!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The repeated question that you refuse to answer is,
> 
> do you only engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!  You 'feel' your little query wasn't answered... LOL!  Now isn't that _PRECIOUS?_
> 
> Here's a clue scamp... "Why" one engages in sex, has no bearing on "_WHAT NATURE DESIGNED SEX FOR"_.
> 
> But it_ DOES,_ however, demonstrate the efficacy of nature's design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pubes, hon....nature is remarkably creative.  Sex may have at one time been designed soley for procreation way back when we were primative amphibious slimewads - but it is not just procreative anymore.  Ever read about Bonobos?
Click to expand...


Wrong. The sex drive is deeply ingrained in us, even today. It is so powerful that we do it a lot. The way nature intended to propagate the species. You have fun doing it because nature requires you to do it.

Why do you think young girls get knocked up by young boys? Because the "fun" of having sex does what it was intended to do.

Mark


----------



## NYcarbineer

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> State for the record and swear on the lives of your loved ones that you have never engaged in sexual intercourse for any other reason than reproduction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  And we have ANOTHER of the _"Sex is Pleasurable... therefore Sex was designed to give pleasure"_ idiots.
> 
> Folks, you cannot make this crap UP!
> 
> And that is how we can "KNOW" that the would-be 'People', are truly, what in greater nature is that which is known as: FOOD!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The repeated question that you refuse to answer is,
> 
> do you only engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!  You 'feel' your little query wasn't answered... LOL!  Now isn't that _PRECIOUS?_
> 
> Here's a clue scamp... "Why" one engages in sex, has no bearing on "_WHAT NATURE DESIGNED SEX FOR"_.
> 
> But it_ DOES,_ however, demonstrate the efficacy of nature's design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nature made human females receptive to sex at any time, in stark contrast to almost every other species.
> 
> Why was that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Nature gave humans the means to reason.
Click to expand...


And since almost all human beings have concluded that there is nothing wrong with sex for non-reproductive reasons,

you've just proven my point.


----------



## Conservative65

Howey said:


> Why is it homophobic heteros like to talk about something being "shoved down their throat"?



Why is it that homos use that phrase when someone, because of their religious beliefs, says homosexuality is wrong?  

Don't worry about me freak.  NOTHING about fags scares me.  You disgust me but don't think I have any fear of you abnormal freaks.


----------



## Conservative65

Tom Sweetnam said:


> Only combat veterans kill themselves more often than gay men. And gay men kill themselves 5 times as often as the general populous. Somebody isn't happy, wouldn't you say?



I'd kill myself if I chose to be gay.


----------



## Antares

I could never be a Catholic...too much work and guilt.


----------



## NYcarbineer

80zephyr said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".
> 
> I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.
> 
> Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Children as the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is incorrect.  Sex is for pleasure, and bonding, and reproduction hitches a ride now and then.  It's why you can jerk off, and why nearly all sex that is had wasn't meant to produce children.  My favorite sex could never produce a child but the wife does usually brush her teeth afterwards while I pour her a drink as a reward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the sex drive in humans is there to "have fun", and not for procreation?
> 
> Again. Wow.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why would the two be mutually exclusive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like "keys" stated, pleasure was built into sex to "force" humans to engage in it for procreation. In evolutionary terms, there is no other reason.
> 
> Whether you can have sex for fun is not he question. The question was whether fun was the driver. Fun is not the driver. Procreation is the driver. Fun is the impetus.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


You don't know that.  Sex is clearly a act for humans that is both for reproduction and for pleasure without reproduction.


----------



## 80zephyr

NYcarbineer said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".
> 
> I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.
> 
> Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I didn't say that...
> 
> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_
> 
> LOL!  No WAIT!
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.
> 
> A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.
> 
> Now... having been educated on the issue.
> 
> Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is _for... . _
> 
> Don't be shy now... go ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the natural age for females to begin to have intercourse is when they've become sexually mature?  Capable of reproducing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a "natural" world, absolutely. Why do you think they were designed that way?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the idiot who's trying to song and dance the facts.
Click to expand...


What facts did he deny? Like me, he acknowledges "natural" law, but also stated that because of the humans ability to reason, things change.

Mark


----------



## Carib Gyal

NYcarbineer said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Children as the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> 
> 
> That is incorrect.  Sex is for pleasure, and bonding, and reproduction hitches a ride now and then.  It's why you can jerk off, and why nearly all sex that is had wasn't meant to produce children.  My favorite sex could never produce a child but the wife does usually brush her teeth afterwards while I pour her a drink as a reward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the sex drive in humans is there to "have fun", and not for procreation?
> 
> Again. Wow.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why would the two be mutually exclusive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like "keys" stated, pleasure was built into sex to "force" humans to engage in it for procreation. In evolutionary terms, there is no other reason.
> 
> Whether you can have sex for fun is not he question. The question was whether fun was the driver. Fun is not the driver. Procreation is the driver. Fun is the impetus.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know that.  Sex is clearly a act for humans that is both for reproduction and for pleasure without reproduction.
Click to expand...

I asked you about marriage, not sex. Why are you so old fashioned and bigoted to insist marriage be restricted to mean between only two humans?


----------



## Coyote

Conservative65 said:


> 1. The homos are damn sure demanding the rest of us not just acknowledge their choice but that we agree with it and don't say anything other than you agree with it.



Really now?  No one is saying you have to agree with it or even acknowledge it.  Hyperbole much?



> 2.  You have to watch every word in order that those freaks don't get their panties in a wad.



No.  You can say what you want.  However there is such a thing as manners.  You may lack them.



> 3.  It would be for the freak of nature that thought HE was a girl and approached my daughter.



Seriously dude - if a transgender person felt he was a female he's hardly likely to approach your daughter.



> 4.  Teebowing happens when someone actually accomplishes something.



Like what?



> 5.  You think being a freak is normal.  When daily new stories put those abnormal freaks on the screen, you don't have to look.



I don't care about what's normal or abnormal - a lot of that is cultural.  Inside it are real people with feelings.  And they aren't hurting you any.  So if you can't stomach it - change the channel.  I get nauseous at the overflow of hate from fundamentalists.  So I change the channel.  UInless you're a quadroplegic..I suggest you do the same.


----------



## NYcarbineer

80zephyr said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".
> 
> I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.
> 
> Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, I didn't say that...
> 
> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_
> 
> LOL!  No WAIT!
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.
> 
> A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.
> 
> Now... having been educated on the issue.
> 
> Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is _for... . _
> 
> Don't be shy now... go ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the natural age for females to begin to have intercourse is when they've become sexually mature?  Capable of reproducing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a "natural" world, absolutely. Why do you think they were designed that way?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the idiot who's trying to song and dance the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What facts did he deny? Like me, he acknowledges "natural" law, but also stated that because of the humans ability to reason, things change.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


He denies that humans might reason that gay sexual relations are natural.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

80zephyr said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".
> 
> I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.
> 
> Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Children as the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is incorrect.  Sex is for pleasure, and bonding, and reproduction hitches a ride now and then.  It's why you can jerk off, and why nearly all sex that is had wasn't meant to produce children.  My favorite sex could never produce a child but the wife does usually brush her teeth afterwards while I pour her a drink as a reward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the sex drive in humans is there to "have fun", and not for procreation?
> 
> Again. Wow.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why would the two be mutually exclusive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like "keys" stated, pleasure was built into sex to "force" humans to engage in it for procreation. In evolutionary terms, there is no other reason.
> 
> Whether you can have sex for fun is not he question. The question was whether fun was the driver. Fun is not the driver. Procreation is the driver. Fun is the impetus.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Well said.  

One needs to understand that the Ideological Left lacks the objectivity which is essential to sound reason.

In effect what you see in the Left is roughly what would be expected from animals who were gifted with some potential for higher reasoning.  

Nature, for instance, regulates sex drive in animals as a means to regulate procreation, IF nature provided the same sense and memory of pleasure in animals, they would procreate themselves into catastrophe.

We see this in humanity... where ever the Left is found in bulging, uncontrolled populations.  Such is their limited cognition that they lack any sense of responsibility, or the need to discipline their base appetites. 

It is not an overstatement that these people are sub-standard human beings, or 'sub-human'.  

Sadly, our culture will not survive as a result of our failure to recognize that such people should never be allowed to speak publicly... .  In the post apocalypse, people will laugh at the idea that we allowed such people to influence others, and ROLL ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING that we allowed them to vote.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Carib Gyal said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is incorrect.  Sex is for pleasure, and bonding, and reproduction hitches a ride now and then.  It's why you can jerk off, and why nearly all sex that is had wasn't meant to produce children.  My favorite sex could never produce a child but the wife does usually brush her teeth afterwards while I pour her a drink as a reward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the sex drive in humans is there to "have fun", and not for procreation?
> 
> Again. Wow.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why would the two be mutually exclusive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like "keys" stated, pleasure was built into sex to "force" humans to engage in it for procreation. In evolutionary terms, there is no other reason.
> 
> Whether you can have sex for fun is not he question. The question was whether fun was the driver. Fun is not the driver. Procreation is the driver. Fun is the impetus.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know that.  Sex is clearly a act for humans that is both for reproduction and for pleasure without reproduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked you about marriage, not sex. Why are you so old fashioned and bigoted to insist marriage be restricted to mean between only two humans?
Click to expand...


If you can find enough voters to sanction humans marrying their television sets then the People have spoken.


----------



## 80zephyr

NYcarbineer said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Children as the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> 
> 
> That is incorrect.  Sex is for pleasure, and bonding, and reproduction hitches a ride now and then.  It's why you can jerk off, and why nearly all sex that is had wasn't meant to produce children.  My favorite sex could never produce a child but the wife does usually brush her teeth afterwards while I pour her a drink as a reward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the sex drive in humans is there to "have fun", and not for procreation?
> 
> Again. Wow.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why would the two be mutually exclusive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like "keys" stated, pleasure was built into sex to "force" humans to engage in it for procreation. In evolutionary terms, there is no other reason.
> 
> Whether you can have sex for fun is not he question. The question was whether fun was the driver. Fun is not the driver. Procreation is the driver. Fun is the impetus.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know that.  Sex is clearly a act for humans that is both for reproduction and for pleasure without reproduction.
Click to expand...


Wrong. Tell me, what would be the impetus for sex if it wasn't fun? Since nature needs reproduction, it pulls out all the stops and makes the sex drive the second most intense next to self preservation.

And you can pretty much guess why self preservation is the first. Without that, there might not be procreation.

Mark


----------



## NYcarbineer

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Children as the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> 
> 
> That is incorrect.  Sex is for pleasure, and bonding, and reproduction hitches a ride now and then.  It's why you can jerk off, and why nearly all sex that is had wasn't meant to produce children.  My favorite sex could never produce a child but the wife does usually brush her teeth afterwards while I pour her a drink as a reward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the sex drive in humans is there to "have fun", and not for procreation?
> 
> Again. Wow.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why would the two be mutually exclusive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like "keys" stated, pleasure was built into sex to "force" humans to engage in it for procreation. In evolutionary terms, there is no other reason.
> 
> Whether you can have sex for fun is not he question. The question was whether fun was the driver. Fun is not the driver. Procreation is the driver. Fun is the impetus.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well said.
> 
> One needs to understand that the Ideological Left lacks the objectivity which is essential to sound reason.
> 
> In effect what you see in the Left is roughly what would be expected from animals who were gifted with some potential for higher reasoning.
> 
> Nature, for instance, regulates sex drive in animals as a means to regulate procreation, IF nature provided the same sense and memory of pleasure in animals, they would procreate themselves into catastrophe.
> 
> We see this in humanity... where ever the Left is found in bulging, uncontrolled populations.  Such is their limited cognition that they lack any sense of responsibility, or the need to discipline their base appetites.
> 
> It is not an overstatement that these people are sub-standard human beings, or 'sub-human'.
> 
> Sadly, our culture will not survive as a result of our failure to recognize that such people should never be allowed to speak publicly... .  In the post apocalypse, people will laugh at the idea that we allowed such people to influence others, and ROLL ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING that we allowed them to vote.
Click to expand...


The unanswered question remains, coward.  Do you only ever engage in sex when you are trying to reproduce?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The homos are damn sure demanding the rest of us not just acknowledge their choice but that we agree with it and don't say anything other than you agree with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really now?  No one is saying you have to agree with it or even acknowledge it.
Click to expand...


So... which is it?  Are you lying outright?  Or are ya an imbecile?

I ask because what you've advanced as truth, is demonstrably false.  SO FALSE IS IT, that in truth, you must either be attempting to deceive the readers of this board or you lack the cognitive means common to a popsicle.


----------



## NYcarbineer

80zephyr said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is incorrect.  Sex is for pleasure, and bonding, and reproduction hitches a ride now and then.  It's why you can jerk off, and why nearly all sex that is had wasn't meant to produce children.  My favorite sex could never produce a child but the wife does usually brush her teeth afterwards while I pour her a drink as a reward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the sex drive in humans is there to "have fun", and not for procreation?
> 
> Again. Wow.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why would the two be mutually exclusive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like "keys" stated, pleasure was built into sex to "force" humans to engage in it for procreation. In evolutionary terms, there is no other reason.
> 
> Whether you can have sex for fun is not he question. The question was whether fun was the driver. Fun is not the driver. Procreation is the driver. Fun is the impetus.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know that.  Sex is clearly a act for humans that is both for reproduction and for pleasure without reproduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. Tell me, what would be the impetus for sex if it wasn't fun? Since nature needs reproduction, it pulls out all the stops and makes the sex drive the second most intense next to self preservation.
> 
> And you can pretty much guess why self preservation is the first. Without that, there might not be procreation.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Do you only ever engage in sex when you're trying to reproduce?


----------



## 1751_Texan

Conservative65 said:


> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only combat veterans kill themselves more often than gay men. And gay men kill themselves 5 times as often as the general populous. Somebody isn't happy, wouldn't you say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd kill myself if I chose to be gay.
Click to expand...


That statement is idiotic. If you chose to be gay why would you kill yourself???


----------



## Carib Gyal

NYcarbineer said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, I didn't say that...
> 
> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_
> 
> LOL!  No WAIT!
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.
> 
> A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.
> 
> Now... having been educated on the issue.
> 
> Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is _for... . _
> 
> Don't be shy now... go ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the natural age for females to begin to have intercourse is when they've become sexually mature?  Capable of reproducing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a "natural" world, absolutely. Why do you think they were designed that way?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the idiot who's trying to song and dance the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What facts did he deny? Like me, he acknowledges "natural" law, but also stated that because of the humans ability to reason, things change.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He denies that humans might reason that gay sexual relations are natural.
Click to expand...

Good lord. And tell us why it is natural. Is it because it feels good, it turns them on sexually? So if it felt good and turned someone on to fuck chickens, that would be reason to allow them to marry? What if someone felt the same about a whole barnyard? Marriage is natural?


----------



## Antares

80zephyr said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> State for the record and swear on the lives of your loved ones that you have never engaged in sexual intercourse for any other reason than reproduction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  And we have ANOTHER of the _"Sex is Pleasurable... therefore Sex was designed to give pleasure"_ idiots.
> 
> Folks, you cannot make this crap UP!
> 
> And that is how we can "KNOW" that the would-be 'People', are truly, what in greater nature is that which is known as: FOOD!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The repeated question that you refuse to answer is,
> 
> do you only engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!  You 'feel' your little query wasn't answered... LOL!  Now isn't that _PRECIOUS?_
> 
> Here's a clue scamp... "Why" one engages in sex, has no bearing on "_WHAT NATURE DESIGNED SEX FOR"_.
> 
> But it_ DOES,_ however, demonstrate the efficacy of nature's design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pubes, hon....nature is remarkably creative.  Sex may have at one time been designed soley for procreation way back when we were primative amphibious slimewads - but it is not just procreative anymore.  Ever read about Bonobos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. The sex drive is deeply ingrained in us, even today. It is so powerful that we do it a lot. The way nature intended to propagate the species. You have fun doing it because nature requires you to do it.
> 
> Why do you think young girls get knocked up by young boys? Because the "fun" of having sex does what it was intended to do.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


*"You have fun doing it because nature requires you to do it."
*
Requires?

Horse hockey.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

NYcarbineer said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is incorrect.  Sex is for pleasure, and bonding, and reproduction hitches a ride now and then.  It's why you can jerk off, and why nearly all sex that is had wasn't meant to produce children.  My favorite sex could never produce a child but the wife does usually brush her teeth afterwards while I pour her a drink as a reward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the sex drive in humans is there to "have fun", and not for procreation?
> 
> Again. Wow.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why would the two be mutually exclusive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like "keys" stated, pleasure was built into sex to "force" humans to engage in it for procreation. In evolutionary terms, there is no other reason.
> 
> Whether you can have sex for fun is not he question. The question was whether fun was the driver. Fun is not the driver. Procreation is the driver. Fun is the impetus.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well said.
> 
> One needs to understand that the Ideological Left lacks the objectivity which is essential to sound reason.
> 
> In effect what you see in the Left is roughly what would be expected from animals who were gifted with some potential for higher reasoning.
> 
> Nature, for instance, regulates sex drive in animals as a means to regulate procreation, IF nature provided the same sense and memory of pleasure in animals, they would procreate themselves into catastrophe.
> 
> We see this in humanity... where ever the Left is found in bulging, uncontrolled populations.  Such is their limited cognition that they lack any sense of responsibility, or the need to discipline their base appetites.
> 
> It is not an overstatement that these people are sub-standard human beings, or 'sub-human'.
> 
> Sadly, our culture will not survive as a result of our failure to recognize that such people should never be allowed to speak publicly... .  In the post apocalypse, people will laugh at the idea that we allowed such people to influence others, and ROLL ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING that we allowed them to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The unanswered question remains, coward.  Do you only ever engage in sex when you are trying to reproduce?
Click to expand...


There is no question which has gone unanswered.  That you lack the minimal intellectual means to recognize that, doesn't change reality.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Should married couples who have 2 children and want no more cease having sex?

Lest they be engaging in an unnatural activity?


----------



## Carib Gyal

NYcarbineer said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the sex drive in humans is there to "have fun", and not for procreation?
> 
> Again. Wow.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why would the two be mutually exclusive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like "keys" stated, pleasure was built into sex to "force" humans to engage in it for procreation. In evolutionary terms, there is no other reason.
> 
> Whether you can have sex for fun is not he question. The question was whether fun was the driver. Fun is not the driver. Procreation is the driver. Fun is the impetus.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know that.  Sex is clearly a act for humans that is both for reproduction and for pleasure without reproduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked you about marriage, not sex. Why are you so old fashioned and bigoted to insist marriage be restricted to mean between only two humans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you can find enough voters to sanction humans marrying their television sets then the People have spoken.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And marriage is redefined as something else entirely.

btw, what is enough people? One judge? One court?


----------



## Coyote

80zephyr said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> State for the record and swear on the lives of your loved ones that you have never engaged in sexual intercourse for any other reason than reproduction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  And we have ANOTHER of the _"Sex is Pleasurable... therefore Sex was designed to give pleasure"_ idiots.
> 
> Folks, you cannot make this crap UP!
> 
> And that is how we can "KNOW" that the would-be 'People', are truly, what in greater nature is that which is known as: FOOD!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The repeated question that you refuse to answer is,
> 
> do you only engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!  You 'feel' your little query wasn't answered... LOL!  Now isn't that _PRECIOUS?_
> 
> Here's a clue scamp... "Why" one engages in sex, has no bearing on "_WHAT NATURE DESIGNED SEX FOR"_.
> 
> But it_ DOES,_ however, demonstrate the efficacy of nature's design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pubes, hon....nature is remarkably creative.  Sex may have at one time been designed soley for procreation way back when we were primative amphibious slimewads - but it is not just procreative anymore.  Ever read about Bonobos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. The sex drive is deeply ingrained in us, even today. It is so powerful that we do it a lot. The way nature intended to propagate the species. You have fun doing it because nature requires you to do it.
> 
> Why do you think young girls get knocked up by young boys? Because the "fun" of having sex does what it was intended to do.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Not wrong.  

Procreation may be the main component of the drive but that does not mean it is SOLEY procreative anymore.  Look at the Bonobos.  There is a social construct to sexual behavior that goes beyondmere procreation which does not have to be and isn't in many species.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

NYcarbineer said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the sex drive in humans is there to "have fun", and not for procreation?
> 
> Again. Wow.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why would the two be mutually exclusive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like "keys" stated, pleasure was built into sex to "force" humans to engage in it for procreation. In evolutionary terms, there is no other reason.
> 
> Whether you can have sex for fun is not he question,. The question was whether fun was the driver. Fun is not the driver. Procreation is the driver. Fun is the impetus.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well said.
> 
> One needs to understand that the Ideological Left lacks the objectivity which is essential to sound reason.
> 
> In effect what you see in the Left is roughly what would be expected from animals who were gifted with some potential for higher reasoning.
> 
> Nature, for instance, regulates sex drive in animals as a means to regulate procreation, IF nature provided the same sense and memory of pleasure in animals, they would procreate themselves into catastrophe.
> 
> We see this in humanity... where ever the Left is found in bulging, uncontrolled populations.  Such is their limited cognition that they lack any sense of responsibility, or the need to discipline their base appetites.
> 
> It is not an overstatement that these people are sub-standard human beings, or 'sub-human'.
> 
> Sadly, our culture will not survive as a result of our failure to recognize that such people should never be allowed to speak publicly... .  In the post apocalypse, people will laugh at the idea that we allowed such people to influence others, and ROLL ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING that we allowed them to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The unanswered question remains, coward.  Do you only ever engage in sex when you are trying to reproduce?
Click to expand...


There is no question which has gone unanswered. (Except the one which asked you how old you are.) That you lack the minimal intellectual means to recognize that, doesn't change reality.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the sex drive in humans is there to "have fun", and not for procreation?
> 
> Again. Wow.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why would the two be mutually exclusive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like "keys" stated, pleasure was built into sex to "force" humans to engage in it for procreation. In evolutionary terms, there is no other reason.
> 
> Whether you can have sex for fun is not he question. The question was whether fun was the driver. Fun is not the driver. Procreation is the driver. Fun is the impetus.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well said.
> 
> One needs to understand that the Ideological Left lacks the objectivity which is essential to sound reason.
> 
> In effect what you see in the Left is roughly what would be expected from animals who were gifted with some potential for higher reasoning.
> 
> Nature, for instance, regulates sex drive in animals as a means to regulate procreation, IF nature provided the same sense and memory of pleasure in animals, they would procreate themselves into catastrophe.
> 
> We see this in humanity... where ever the Left is found in bulging, uncontrolled populations.  Such is their limited cognition that they lack any sense of responsibility, or the need to discipline their base appetites.
> 
> It is not an overstatement that these people are sub-standard human beings, or 'sub-human'.
> 
> Sadly, our culture will not survive as a result of our failure to recognize that such people should never be allowed to speak publicly... .  In the post apocalypse, people will laugh at the idea that we allowed such people to influence others, and ROLL ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING that we allowed them to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The unanswered question remains, coward.  Do you only ever engage in sex when you are trying to reproduce?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no question which has gone unanswered.  That you lack the minimal intellectual means to recognize that, doesn't change reality.
Click to expand...


Cite the post where you answered the question.


----------



## 80zephyr

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Children as the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> 
> 
> That is incorrect.  Sex is for pleasure, and bonding, and reproduction hitches a ride now and then.  It's why you can jerk off, and why nearly all sex that is had wasn't meant to produce children.  My favorite sex could never produce a child but the wife does usually brush her teeth afterwards while I pour her a drink as a reward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the sex drive in humans is there to "have fun", and not for procreation?
> 
> Again. Wow.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why would the two be mutually exclusive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like "keys" stated, pleasure was built into sex to "force" humans to engage in it for procreation. In evolutionary terms, there is no other reason.
> 
> Whether you can have sex for fun is not he question. The question was whether fun was the driver. Fun is not the driver. Procreation is the driver. Fun is the impetus.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well said.
> 
> One needs to understand that the Ideological Left lacks the objectivity which is essential to sound reason.
> 
> In effect what you see in the Left is roughly what would be expected from animals who were gifted with some potential for higher reasoning.
> 
> Nature, for instance, regulates sex drive in animals as a means to regulate procreation, IF nature provided the same sense and memory of pleasure in animals, they would procreate themselves into catastrophe.
> 
> We see this in humanity... where ever the Left is found in bulging, uncontrolled populations.  Such is their limited cognition that they lack any sense of responsibility, or the need to discipline their base appetites.
> 
> It is not an overstatement that these people are sub-standard human beings, or 'sub-human'.
> 
> Sadly, our culture will not survive as a result of our failure to recognize that such people should never be allowed to speak publicly... .  In the post apocalypse, people will laugh at the idea that we allowed such people to influence others, and ROLL ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING that we allowed them to vote.
Click to expand...



Yep. Its funny, ennit, that the only time most animals have sex for fun is when they are ready to procreate.  

Mark


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> Procreation may be the main component of the drive but that does not mean it is SOLEY procreative anymore.



ROFLMNAO!  

Oh... So natural principle is subject to antiquation?  

LOL!  
You cannot make this crap up folks.  AGAIN!: In greater nature, these idiots are what is OKA: *FOOD!*


----------



## Coyote

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The homos are damn sure demanding the rest of us not just acknowledge their choice but that we agree with it and don't say anything other than you agree with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really now?  No one is saying you have to agree with it or even acknowledge it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... which is it?  Are you lying outright?  Or are ya an imbecile?
> 
> I ask because what you've advanced as truth, is demonstrably false.  SO FALSE IS IT, that in truth, you must either be attempting to deceive the readers of this board or you lack the cognitive means common to a popsicle.
Click to expand...


Hon, calm down a second and take a deep breath.  Now.  Is someone holding a gun to your head and demanding you agree with their choice?

Take your time


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

NYcarbineer said:


> Cite the post where you answered the question.



No problem: #582, #587, #594


----------



## 80zephyr

NYcarbineer said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, I didn't say that...
> 
> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_
> 
> LOL!  No WAIT!
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.
> 
> A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.
> 
> Now... having been educated on the issue.
> 
> Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is _for... . _
> 
> Don't be shy now... go ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> State for the record and swear on the lives of your loved ones that you have never engaged in sexual intercourse for any other reason than reproduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  And we have ANOTHER of the _"Sex is Pleasurable... therefore Sex was designed to give pleasure"_ idiots.
> 
> Folks, you cannot make this crap UP!
> 
> And that is how we can "KNOW" that the would-be 'People', are truly, what in greater nature is that which is known as: FOOD!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The repeated question that you refuse to answer is,
> 
> do you only engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!  You 'feel' your little query wasn't answered... LOL!  Now isn't that _PRECIOUS?_
> 
> Here's a clue scamp... "Why" one engages in sex, has no bearing on "_WHAT NATURE DESIGNED SEX FOR"_.
> 
> But it_ DOES,_ however, demonstrate the efficacy of nature's design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nature made human females receptive to sex at any time, in stark contrast to almost every other species.
> 
> Why was that?
Click to expand...


And why do women seek to have more "fun" during ovulation?

Mark


----------



## Coyote

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Procreation may be the main component of the drive but that does not mean it is SOLEY procreative anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Oh... So natural principle is subject to antiquation?
> 
> LOL!
> You cannot make this crap up folks.  AGAIN!: In greater nature, these idiots are what is OKA: *FOOD!*
Click to expand...


Sex is used for a variety of purposes pubes.  Surely you are aware of this?  Most of us grasp this fundemental principle in our teens.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The homos are damn sure demanding the rest of us not just acknowledge their choice but that we agree with it and don't say anything other than you agree with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really now?  No one is saying you have to agree with it or even acknowledge it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... which is it?  Are you lying outright?  Or are ya an imbecile?
> 
> I ask because what you've advanced as truth, is demonstrably false.  SO FALSE IS IT, that in truth, you must either be attempting to deceive the readers of this board or you lack the cognitive means common to a popsicle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hon, calm down a second and take a deep breath.  Now.  Is someone holding a gun to your head and demanding you agree with their choice?
> 
> Take your time
Click to expand...


Sweety... thank you so much for your recent concession.

And I want you to know that I can see how hard you're tryin' and how despite the stark deficiencies... that you're doing the VERY BEST YOU CAN!  Bless you're pititful lil' heart!  

And I am going to do for you just what I do for the grown ups: 

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted!  

(Now you run on back to the "FIRE HOT - WATER WET!" thread... you were doin' SO WELL over there.)


----------



## Carib Gyal

Coyote said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The homos are damn sure demanding the rest of us not just acknowledge their choice but that we agree with it and don't say anything other than you agree with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really now?  No one is saying you have to agree with it or even acknowledge it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... which is it?  Are you lying outright?  Or are ya an imbecile?
> 
> I ask because what you've advanced as truth, is demonstrably false.  SO FALSE IS IT, that in truth, you must either be attempting to deceive the readers of this board or you lack the cognitive means common to a popsicle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hon, calm down a second and take a deep breath.  Now.  Is someone holding a gun to your head and demanding you agree with their choice?
> 
> Take your time
Click to expand...

I think he has the option to disagree with something. He has that choice. He's doing a decent job in giving his reasons why he does.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cite the post where you answered the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No problem: #582, #587, #594
Click to expand...


Since 582 doesn't answer the question I'm not wasting my time with the others.

It's clear that you have sex for non-reproductive purposes which makes you, by your own measure, a pervert no different than gays.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Well in fairness... you are also the ones that 'believe' that things which are ABNORMAL are normal... that paying people to NOT WORK will encourage them to seek employment and that there is a RIGHT to MURDER THE MOST INNOCENT of human beings, EVEN WHILE THEY'RE STILL IN THEIR MOTHER'S WOMB!
> 
> So... LOL!  That means that you're crazy; which is to say that you suffer a perverse form of human reasoning; meaning that you're insane... and healthy people, like healthy cultures... disregard the 'feelings' of the insane.



Normal and abnormal are matters of opinion. 

This is why a dynamic Civil Law MUST trump all Religious Law whenever the two come in to conflict.

If you want to raise your kids under Sharia Law or other, similar nonsense based on ancient Arab stories you knock yourself out.  Just remember that this is America and all I and mine have to comply with is the Civil Laws of whatever jurisdiction we find ourselves behaving and voting in.


----------



## 80zephyr

NYcarbineer said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, I didn't say that...
> 
> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_
> 
> LOL!  No WAIT!
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.
> 
> A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.
> 
> Now... having been educated on the issue.
> 
> Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is _for... . _
> 
> Don't be shy now... go ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the natural age for females to begin to have intercourse is when they've become sexually mature?  Capable of reproducing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a "natural" world, absolutely. Why do you think they were designed that way?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the idiot who's trying to song and dance the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What facts did he deny? Like me, he acknowledges "natural" law, but also stated that because of the humans ability to reason, things change.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He denies that humans might reason that gay sexual relations are natural.
Click to expand...


Licking your own ass is natural as well. It does not mean it should be acceptable.

Mark


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Procreation may be the main component of the drive but that does not mean it is SOLEY procreative anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Oh... So natural principle is subject to antiquation?
> 
> LOL!
> You cannot make this crap up folks.  AGAIN!: In greater nature, these idiots are what is OKA: *FOOD!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sex is used for a variety of purposes pubes.  Surely you are aware of this?  Most of us grasp this fundemental principle in our teens.
Click to expand...


I'll thank you to cease these sexual references.  They're not welcome.  

Now with regard to your 'feeings' of the uses of sex... none of that has any relevance to he PURPOSE of such.

One could use their forehead to drive nails... that in no way would mean that such was designed or even appropriate for such, despite your 'feeling' otherwise.

Again... you couldn't had no way to know that, because this is a discussion best suited for _grown ups._


----------



## NYcarbineer

Carib Gyal said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The homos are damn sure demanding the rest of us not just acknowledge their choice but that we agree with it and don't say anything other than you agree with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really now?  No one is saying you have to agree with it or even acknowledge it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... which is it?  Are you lying outright?  Or are ya an imbecile?
> 
> I ask because what you've advanced as truth, is demonstrably false.  SO FALSE IS IT, that in truth, you must either be attempting to deceive the readers of this board or you lack the cognitive means common to a popsicle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hon, calm down a second and take a deep breath.  Now.  Is someone holding a gun to your head and demanding you agree with their choice?
> 
> Take your time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think he has the option to disagree with something. He has that choice. He's doing a decent job in giving his reasons why he does.
Click to expand...


No, he's making a fool of himself, but it's hardly surprising you can't tell the difference.


----------



## Carib Gyal

NYcarbineer said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cite the post where you answered the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No problem: #582, #587, #594
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since 582 doesn't answer the question I'm not wasting my time with the others.
> 
> It's clear that you have sex for non-reproductive purposes which makes you, by your own measure, a pervert no different than gays.
Click to expand...

Gays NEVER have sex for reproduction. Unless they name their turds.


----------



## Carib Gyal

NYcarbineer said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The homos are damn sure demanding the rest of us not just acknowledge their choice but that we agree with it and don't say anything other than you agree with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really now?  No one is saying you have to agree with it or even acknowledge it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... which is it?  Are you lying outright?  Or are ya an imbecile?
> 
> I ask because what you've advanced as truth, is demonstrably false.  SO FALSE IS IT, that in truth, you must either be attempting to deceive the readers of this board or you lack the cognitive means common to a popsicle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hon, calm down a second and take a deep breath.  Now.  Is someone holding a gun to your head and demanding you agree with their choice?
> 
> Take your time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think he has the option to disagree with something. He has that choice. He's doing a decent job in giving his reasons why he does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he's making a fool of himself, but it's hardly surprising you can't tell the difference.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who wants to marry his TV.


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The homos are damn sure demanding the rest of us not just acknowledge their choice but that we agree with it and don't say anything other than you agree with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really now?  No one is saying you have to agree with it or even acknowledge it.  Hyperbole much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  You have to watch every word in order that those freaks don't get their panties in a wad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  You can say what you want.  However there is such a thing as manners.  You may lack them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  It would be for the freak of nature that thought HE was a girl and approached my daughter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously dude - if a transgender person felt he was a female he's hardly likely to approach your daughter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  Teebowing happens when someone actually accomplishes something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  You think being a freak is normal.  When daily new stories put those abnormal freaks on the screen, you don't have to look.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care about what's normal or abnormal - a lot of that is cultural.  Inside it are real people with feelings.  And they aren't hurting you any.  So if you can't stomach it - change the channel.  I get nauseous at the overflow of hate from fundamentalists.  So I change the channel.  UInless you're a quadroplegic..I suggest you do the same.
Click to expand...


You don't care about normal or abnormal? Then, you are OK with pedophilia?

Mark


----------



## NYcarbineer

80zephyr said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the natural age for females to begin to have intercourse is when they've become sexually mature?  Capable of reproducing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a "natural" world, absolutely. Why do you think they were designed that way?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the idiot who's trying to song and dance the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What facts did he deny? Like me, he acknowledges "natural" law, but also stated that because of the humans ability to reason, things change.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He denies that humans might reason that gay sexual relations are natural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Licking your own ass is natural as well. It does not mean it should be acceptable.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


So now you're throwing all that's natural under the bus as irrelevant?

lol


----------



## 80zephyr

NYcarbineer said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cite the post where you answered the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No problem: #582, #587, #594
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since 582 doesn't answer the question I'm not wasting my time with the others.
> 
> It's clear that you have sex for non-reproductive purposes which makes you, by your own measure, a pervert no different than gays.
Click to expand...


For the record, two gays are not "having sex". Sex is when a penis goes into a vagina. Anything else is not sex.

Mark


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

AVG-JOE said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well in fairness... you are also the ones that 'believe' that things which are ABNORMAL are normal... that paying people to NOT WORK will encourage them to seek employment and that there is a RIGHT to MURDER THE MOST INNOCENT of human beings, EVEN WHILE THEY'RE STILL IN THEIR MOTHER'S WOMB!
> 
> So... LOL!  That means that you're crazy; which is to say that you suffer a perverse form of human reasoning; meaning that you're insane... and healthy people, like healthy cultures... disregard the 'feelings' of the insane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Normal and abnormal are matters of opinion.
Click to expand...


No.  Normal is the standard which is established, in the case of human sexuality, by the human physiological design.

That standard, like all legitimate standard rests upon objectivity... favoring only the purpose of the exercise. 

Abnormal is that which deviates from that standard of normality.  We call this 'deviation' and those who present such: Deviants.  

But again, you would have no way to know that... as these are things that people of sound mind would understand.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like them fine.
> 
> You?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm into adult women myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you can afford them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm married to one....and yes, I can afford her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh....before I go off in the wrong direction, are you a man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No...are you?
Click to expand...


As my profile would indicate yes.  Apparently you don't want people to know what gender you are. Insecure?


----------



## Coyote

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Procreation may be the main component of the drive but that does not mean it is SOLEY procreative anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Oh... So natural principle is subject to antiquation?
> 
> LOL!
> You cannot make this crap up folks.  AGAIN!: In greater nature, these idiots are what is OKA: *FOOD!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sex is used for a variety of purposes pubes.  Surely you are aware of this?  Most of us grasp this fundemental principle in our teens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll thank you to cease these sexual references.  They're not welcome.
> 
> Now with regard to your 'feeings' of the uses of sex... none of that has any relevance to he PURPOSE of such.
> 
> One could use their forehead to drive nails... that in no way would mean that such was designed or even appropriate for such, despite your 'feeling' otherwise.
> 
> Again... you couldn't had no way to know that, because this is a discussion best suited for _grown ups._
Click to expand...


Like I said pubes (not a sexual reference) - check out the bonobos.  Nature is nothing if not a recycler and a multi-tasker.  Sex may have started out for procreation but evolved in some species to be more than that.  Humans are the best example.  Bonobos another easy example.  Now, I don't base that on "feelings" hon, but science.  Try it some time.


----------



## 80zephyr

NYcarbineer said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a "natural" world, absolutely. Why do you think they were designed that way?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the idiot who's trying to song and dance the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What facts did he deny? Like me, he acknowledges "natural" law, but also stated that because of the humans ability to reason, things change.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He denies that humans might reason that gay sexual relations are natural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Licking your own ass is natural as well. It does not mean it should be acceptable.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now you're throwing all that's natural under the bus as irrelevant?
> 
> lol
Click to expand...


Not any more than you are. Pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia are also natural. Are you for allowing these activities as well?

Mark


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

NYcarbineer said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, I didn't say that...
> 
> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_
> 
> LOL!  No WAIT!
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.
> 
> A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.
> 
> Now... having been educated on the issue.
> 
> Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is _for... . _
> 
> Don't be shy now... go ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the natural age for females to begin to have intercourse is when they've become sexually mature?  Capable of reproducing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a "natural" world, absolutely. Why do you think they were designed that way?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the idiot who's trying to song and dance the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What facts did he deny? Like me, he acknowledges "natural" law, but also stated that because of the humans ability to reason, things change.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He denies that humans might reason that gay sexual relations are natural.
Click to expand...


That human's may reason some given conclusion, does not mean that such reasoning is valid and sound. 


But again... you had no way to know that... as such is known only to actual humans.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.* Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is Fox News and CNN still on air? Surely they would have been replaced with the Ben Affleck show, Richard Dawkins, a gay fashion show, gay partner swap, and the Playboy channel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The nature of evil is to deceive, the nature of good is truth...* Fox News defends good*... thus it consistently prospers.
> 
> Need anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good needs to be defended by lies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fox News is *NOT* banned in Canada.
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  You can NOT make this crap UP!  These idiots believe ANYTHING they're told, without regard to how ridiculous it is on its face.
> 
> What ya have there is a Deceit, Fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the Ignorant.
Click to expand...


It's endlessly hilarious how much a hard on the Left has for Fox News.


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Procreation may be the main component of the drive but that does not mean it is SOLEY procreative anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Oh... So natural principle is subject to antiquation?
> 
> LOL!
> You cannot make this crap up folks.  AGAIN!: In greater nature, these idiots are what is OKA: *FOOD!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sex is used for a variety of purposes pubes.  Surely you are aware of this?  Most of us grasp this fundemental principle in our teens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll thank you to cease these sexual references.  They're not welcome.
> 
> Now with regard to your 'feeings' of the uses of sex... none of that has any relevance to he PURPOSE of such.
> 
> One could use their forehead to drive nails... that in no way would mean that such was designed or even appropriate for such, despite your 'feeling' otherwise.
> 
> Again... you couldn't had no way to know that, because this is a discussion best suited for _grown ups._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said pubes (not a sexual reference) - check out the bonobos.  Nature is nothing if not a recycler and a multi-tasker.  Sex may have started out for procreation but evolved in some species to be more than that.  Humans are the best example.  Bonobos another easy example.  Now, I don't base that on "feelings" hon, but science.  Try it some time.
Click to expand...


What about the bonobos confuses you?

Mark


----------



## Coyote

80zephyr said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The homos are damn sure demanding the rest of us not just acknowledge their choice but that we agree with it and don't say anything other than you agree with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really now?  No one is saying you have to agree with it or even acknowledge it.  Hyperbole much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  You have to watch every word in order that those freaks don't get their panties in a wad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  You can say what you want.  However there is such a thing as manners.  You may lack them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  It would be for the freak of nature that thought HE was a girl and approached my daughter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously dude - if a transgender person felt he was a female he's hardly likely to approach your daughter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  Teebowing happens when someone actually accomplishes something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  You think being a freak is normal.  When daily new stories put those abnormal freaks on the screen, you don't have to look.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care about what's normal or abnormal - a lot of that is cultural.  Inside it are real people with feelings.  And they aren't hurting you any.  So if you can't stomach it - change the channel.  I get nauseous at the overflow of hate from fundamentalists.  So I change the channel.  UInless you're a quadroplegic..I suggest you do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't care about normal or abnormal? Then, you are OK with pedophilia?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


As long as they don't act on it, I could care less.


----------



## beagle9

Carib Gyal said:


> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes because that is what all of your kind eventually refer too.
> This world is about adversity and diversity and acceptance.
> No one group and govern implicitly. If that happens then it goes against all the laws of real nature.
> Not the selective group you decided to live in.
> It does strike odd that the ones that profess faith the most seem to have the least grasp of what they believe.
> They want it to fit into their microcosm world. It become deplorable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! In that religion. But once again your "kind" step over the boundaries of pushing an agenda onto those that have not allegiance to your faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faith?
> 
> We're talking the physical laws of nature... human physiology.  Inees and outees... Round Pegs designed to go into round wholes which are DESIGNED TO RECEIVE THEM... for biologically essential purposes, critical to the viability of THE SPECIES.
> 
> You need 'faith' to accept THAT WHICH IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY DEBATABLE?
> 
> If that is true... you're truly helpless and nature will most likely cull you from the herd quite soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem with this reasoning is that you do the same yourself. If marriage is to be redefined, why not define it as between 20, 30, 500, or 2,000 people? The purpose of marriage isn't love, or sex, or even being between humans. Why can't a man marry a cow? Marriage will be redefined and mean something completely different than it does now.
Click to expand...

It's like anything, where as once the door gets pryed off of the cellar (upsetting the very foundation), and this by these storms that are raging outside it now, then who knows what someone will try next...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Procreation may be the main component of the drive but that does not mean it is SOLEY procreative anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Oh... So natural principle is subject to antiquation?
> 
> LOL!
> You cannot make this crap up folks.  AGAIN!: In greater nature, these idiots are what is OKA: *FOOD!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sex is used for a variety of purposes pubes.  Surely you are aware of this?  Most of us grasp this fundemental principle in our teens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll thank you to cease these sexual references.  They're not welcome.
> 
> Now with regard to your 'feeings' of the uses of sex... none of that has any relevance to he PURPOSE of such.
> 
> One could use their forehead to drive nails... that in no way would mean that such was designed or even appropriate for such, despite your 'feeling' otherwise.
> 
> Again... you couldn't had no way to know that, because this is a discussion best suited for _grown ups._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said pubes (not a sexual reference) - check out the bonobos.  Nature is nothing if not a recycler and a multi-tasker.  Sex may have started out for procreation but evolved in some species to be more than that.  Humans are the best example.  Bonobos another easy example.  Now, I don't base that on "feelings" hon, but science.  Try it some time.
Click to expand...


Does anyone know the procedure for reporting sexual abuse by a moderator?  This 'contributor' is a moderator and as such I am unable to ignore them, so when a Moderator is found to be abusive, what is the procedure for reporting them?

If no one knows... I'll happily open a thread.  But I'd appreciate the info if someone has it.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature needs egg and sperm...but marriage does not need procreation....just like procreation doesn't need marriage.  They are mutually exclusive.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage doesn't even need sex to exist, there's no reason to limit it to two people. That's old fashioned thinking. If ten men want to marry each other they can use your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except when you add more than two...the property rights and child custody issues get more complicated....instead of A to B....we now have choice...A to B or C.....B to A or C, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. A women can fuck many men but the paternal father has to pay. Property is divided up every day. Never heard of guys knocking each other up though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, but you would need something above and beyond a marriage license for BOTH of those scenerios.....which complicates things more than what legal marriage contracts provide.   There is your difference.  Unsurmountable?  No....but not doable with the current marriage license while there is no need to change marriage contracts with gay marriage.....just remove the legal restrictions (as many states have now done).
Click to expand...


And remove the age barrier too, right? Or are we getting ahead of ourselves with that one?


----------



## AVG-JOE

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> God you dumb as a box of fucking hammers.  Who raised the child was of no concern, who you fucked to get it was.
> 
> 
> 
> Who raised the child was of no concern? In which universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This one.  It's human history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof? Are you really claiming that the shunning of children before marriage had nothing to do with those children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It had to do with fucking, which people, wrongly, believed was a sin outside of marriage, usually.  It's interesting to note that the lower classes of Victorian times, and many people of other times, were fine with fucking after you were engaged.  Testing the waters so to speak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And why did they condemn sex before marriage? Could it be that they wanted a stable couple to raise that child?
> 
> These old beliefs are easy to understand when taken in the context of the times they were in. They simply understood that a family was needed to bring up a child.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...



Remember...  in Victorian times women were owned by their fathers until sold in to the bondage of holy matrimony. 

Perspective counts.
​


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

In truth, sex has not _evolved_, in the slightest since the first human beings engaged in it.  What has happened is that a large segment of the species has devolved, which is having the catastrophic effect that reason requires it must.


----------



## 80zephyr

NYcarbineer said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the sex drive in humans is there to "have fun", and not for procreation?
> 
> Again. Wow.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why would the two be mutually exclusive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like "keys" stated, pleasure was built into sex to "force" humans to engage in it for procreation. In evolutionary terms, there is no other reason.
> 
> Whether you can have sex for fun is not he question. The question was whether fun was the driver. Fun is not the driver. Procreation is the driver. Fun is the impetus.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know that.  Sex is clearly a act for humans that is both for reproduction and for pleasure without reproduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. Tell me, what would be the impetus for sex if it wasn't fun? Since nature needs reproduction, it pulls out all the stops and makes the sex drive the second most intense next to self preservation.
> 
> And you can pretty much guess why self preservation is the first. Without that, there might not be procreation.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you only ever engage in sex when you're trying to reproduce?
Click to expand...


Absolutely. The natural urge to reproduce is a powerful one. "Nature" is hoping that with enough exposure, the woman will become pregnant. We all know that all sex doesn't result in pregnancy. Therefore, nature needs you to try to reproduce as often as possible. Why do you think men can ejaculate so often?

Mark


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature needs egg and sperm...but marriage does not need procreation....just like procreation doesn't need marriage.  They are mutually exclusive.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage doesn't even need sex to exist, there's no reason to limit it to two people. That's old fashioned thinking. If ten men want to marry each other they can use your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except when you add more than two...the property rights and child custody issues get more complicated....instead of A to B....we now have choice...A to B or C.....B to A or C, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. A women can fuck many men but the paternal father has to pay. Property is divided up every day. Never heard of guys knocking each other up though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, but you would need something above and beyond a marriage license for BOTH of those scenerios.....which complicates things more than what legal marriage contracts provide.   There is your difference.  Unsurmountable?  No....but not doable with the current marriage license while there is no need to change marriage contracts with gay marriage.....just remove the legal restrictions (as many states have now done).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And remove the age barrier too, right? Or are we getting ahead of ourselves with that one?
Click to expand...



The barriers to the age of consent are presently being challenged.  And if we concede to the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, within the next generation Adult sexual pursuit of children for sexual gratification will be legalized.

In truth, such is the purpose of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.  

The founder of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is also a founding member of the North American Man-Boy Love Association, OKA: NAMBLA.  He is also the founder of the Kinsey Institute which is largely responsible for the 'legalizing of Sodomy' and the assault on the culture by the culture of sexual deviancy.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Procreation may be the main component of the drive but that does not mean it is SOLEY procreative anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Oh... So natural principle is subject to antiquation?
> 
> LOL!
> You cannot make this crap up folks.  AGAIN!: In greater nature, these idiots are what is OKA: *FOOD!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sex is used for a variety of purposes pubes.  Surely you are aware of this?  Most of us grasp this fundemental principle in our teens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll thank you to cease these sexual references.  They're not welcome.
> 
> Now with regard to your 'feeings' of the uses of sex... none of that has any relevance to he PURPOSE of such.
> 
> One could use their forehead to drive nails... that in no way would mean that such was designed or even appropriate for such, despite your 'feeling' otherwise.
> 
> Again... you couldn't had no way to know that, because this is a discussion best suited for _grown ups._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said pubes (not a sexual reference) - check out the bonobos.  Nature is nothing if not a recycler and a multi-tasker.  Sex may have started out for procreation but evolved in some species to be more than that.  Humans are the best example.  Bonobos another easy example.  Now, I don't base that on "feelings" hon, but science.  Try it some time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does anyone know the procedure for reporting sexual abuse by a moderator?  This 'contributor' is a moderator and as such I am unable to ignore them, so when a Moderator is found to be abusive, what is the procedure for reporting them?
> 
> If no one knows... I'll happily open a thread.  But I'd appreciate the info if someone has it.
Click to expand...


Coyote is good people even though we don't agree on this issue...not a troll.  Since it's against the rules to discuss moderators let's not proceed any further down this path.  Just PM her about any issue you have and you'll find she's very reasonable to talk to.


----------



## Carib Gyal

wtf is up with the bonobos? Are humans supposed to take their cue from them? Why not the black widow spider, who eats her mate after sex?

Although I don't know that cannibalism would make for a happy marriage.


----------



## 80zephyr

Antares said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  And we have ANOTHER of the _"Sex is Pleasurable... therefore Sex was designed to give pleasure"_ idiots.
> 
> Folks, you cannot make this crap UP!
> 
> And that is how we can "KNOW" that the would-be 'People', are truly, what in greater nature is that which is known as: FOOD!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The repeated question that you refuse to answer is,
> 
> do you only engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!  You 'feel' your little query wasn't answered... LOL!  Now isn't that _PRECIOUS?_
> 
> Here's a clue scamp... "Why" one engages in sex, has no bearing on "_WHAT NATURE DESIGNED SEX FOR"_.
> 
> But it_ DOES,_ however, demonstrate the efficacy of nature's design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pubes, hon....nature is remarkably creative.  Sex may have at one time been designed soley for procreation way back when we were primative amphibious slimewads - but it is not just procreative anymore.  Ever read about Bonobos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. The sex drive is deeply ingrained in us, even today. It is so powerful that we do it a lot. The way nature intended to propagate the species. You have fun doing it because nature requires you to do it.
> 
> Why do you think young girls get knocked up by young boys? Because the "fun" of having sex does what it was intended to do.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"You have fun doing it because nature requires you to do it."
> *
> Requires?
> 
> Horse hockey.
Click to expand...


Nature doesn't?  As a man, I can tell you that the longer I go without sex, the greater the urge is to have sex. That is nature telling me it is time to try to reproduce, because nature doesn't give a fuck whether I enjoy it or not.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

AVG-JOE said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who raised the child was of no concern? In which universe?
> 
> 
> 
> This one.  It's human history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof? Are you really claiming that the shunning of children before marriage had nothing to do with those children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It had to do with fucking, which people, wrongly, believed was a sin outside of marriage, usually.  It's interesting to note that the lower classes of Victorian times, and many people of other times, were fine with fucking after you were engaged.  Testing the waters so to speak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And why did they condemn sex before marriage? Could it be that they wanted a stable couple to raise that child?
> 
> These old beliefs are easy to understand when taken in the context of the times they were in. They simply understood that a family was needed to bring up a child.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Remember...  in Victorian times women were owned by their fathers until sold in to the bondage of holy matrimony.
> 
> Perspective counts.
> ​
Click to expand...


And?

Mark


----------



## Antares

80zephyr said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The repeated question that you refuse to answer is,
> 
> do you only engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OH!  You 'feel' your little query wasn't answered... LOL!  Now isn't that _PRECIOUS?_
> 
> Here's a clue scamp... "Why" one engages in sex, has no bearing on "_WHAT NATURE DESIGNED SEX FOR"_.
> 
> But it_ DOES,_ however, demonstrate the efficacy of nature's design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pubes, hon....nature is remarkably creative.  Sex may have at one time been designed soley for procreation way back when we were primative amphibious slimewads - but it is not just procreative anymore.  Ever read about Bonobos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. The sex drive is deeply ingrained in us, even today. It is so powerful that we do it a lot. The way nature intended to propagate the species. You have fun doing it because nature requires you to do it.
> 
> Why do you think young girls get knocked up by young boys? Because the "fun" of having sex does what it was intended to do.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"You have fun doing it because nature requires you to do it."
> *
> Requires?
> 
> Horse hockey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nature doesn't?  As a man, I can tell you that the longer I go without sex, the greater the urge is to have sex. That is nature telling me it is time to try to reproduce, because nature doesn't give a fuck whether I enjoy it or not.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...



Nothing "requires" man to have sex.

How much do you usually spend to have sex?


----------



## 80zephyr

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Oh... So natural principle is subject to antiquation?
> 
> LOL!
> You cannot make this crap up folks.  AGAIN!: In greater nature, these idiots are what is OKA: *FOOD!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is used for a variety of purposes pubes.  Surely you are aware of this?  Most of us grasp this fundemental principle in our teens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll thank you to cease these sexual references.  They're not welcome.
> 
> Now with regard to your 'feeings' of the uses of sex... none of that has any relevance to he PURPOSE of such.
> 
> One could use their forehead to drive nails... that in no way would mean that such was designed or even appropriate for such, despite your 'feeling' otherwise.
> 
> Again... you couldn't had no way to know that, because this is a discussion best suited for _grown ups._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said pubes (not a sexual reference) - check out the bonobos.  Nature is nothing if not a recycler and a multi-tasker.  Sex may have started out for procreation but evolved in some species to be more than that.  Humans are the best example.  Bonobos another easy example.  Now, I don't base that on "feelings" hon, but science.  Try it some time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does anyone know the procedure for reporting sexual abuse by a moderator?  This 'contributor' is a moderator and as such I am unable to ignore them, so when a Moderator is found to be abusive, what is the procedure for reporting them?
> 
> If no one knows... I'll happily open a thread.  But I'd appreciate the info if someone has it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coyote is good people even though we don't agree on this issue...not a troll.  Since it's against the rules to discuss moderators let's not proceed any further down this path.  Just PM her about any issue you have and you'll find she's very reasonable to talk to.
Click to expand...



I'll be honest. For the most part, this has been a very good debate, with everyone making good points.

Refreshing.

Mark


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Oh... So natural principle is subject to antiquation?
> 
> LOL!
> You cannot make this crap up folks.  AGAIN!: In greater nature, these idiots are what is OKA: *FOOD!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is used for a variety of purposes pubes.  Surely you are aware of this?  Most of us grasp this fundemental principle in our teens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll thank you to cease these sexual references.  They're not welcome.
> 
> Now with regard to your 'feeings' of the uses of sex... none of that has any relevance to he PURPOSE of such.
> 
> One could use their forehead to drive nails... that in no way would mean that such was designed or even appropriate for such, despite your 'feeling' otherwise.
> 
> Again... you couldn't had no way to know that, because this is a discussion best suited for _grown ups._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said pubes (not a sexual reference) - check out the bonobos.  Nature is nothing if not a recycler and a multi-tasker.  Sex may have started out for procreation but evolved in some species to be more than that.  Humans are the best example.  Bonobos another easy example.  Now, I don't base that on "feelings" hon, but science.  Try it some time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does anyone know the procedure for reporting sexual abuse by a moderator?  This 'contributor' is a moderator and as such I am unable to ignore them, so when a Moderator is found to be abusive, what is the procedure for reporting them?
> 
> If no one knows... I'll happily open a thread.  But I'd appreciate the info if someone has it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coyote is good people even though we don't agree on this issue...not a troll.  Since it's against the rules to discuss moderators let's not proceed any further down this path.  Just PM her about any issue you have and you'll find she's very reasonable to talk to.
Click to expand...


I'll have no more communication with a sexual predator.  I will report her to the ownership of this board.  And if such continues, I'll report such to the authorities. 

I'm a 54 year old man... and if she will so blatantly abuse me sexually, one can only imagine what she would do to a child who may happen in here.


----------



## 80zephyr

Antares said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> OH!  You 'feel' your little query wasn't answered... LOL!  Now isn't that _PRECIOUS?_
> 
> Here's a clue scamp... "Why" one engages in sex, has no bearing on "_WHAT NATURE DESIGNED SEX FOR"_.
> 
> But it_ DOES,_ however, demonstrate the efficacy of nature's design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pubes, hon....nature is remarkably creative.  Sex may have at one time been designed soley for procreation way back when we were primative amphibious slimewads - but it is not just procreative anymore.  Ever read about Bonobos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. The sex drive is deeply ingrained in us, even today. It is so powerful that we do it a lot. The way nature intended to propagate the species. You have fun doing it because nature requires you to do it.
> 
> Why do you think young girls get knocked up by young boys? Because the "fun" of having sex does what it was intended to do.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"You have fun doing it because nature requires you to do it."
> *
> Requires?
> 
> Horse hockey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nature doesn't?  As a man, I can tell you that the longer I go without sex, the greater the urge is to have sex. That is nature telling me it is time to try to reproduce, because nature doesn't give a fuck whether I enjoy it or not.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing "requires" man to have sex.
> 
> How much do you usually spend to have sex?
Click to expand...


What do you mean by "sex"?

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  And we have ANOTHER of the _"Sex is Pleasurable... therefore Sex was designed to give pleasure"_ idiots.
> 
> Folks, you cannot make this crap UP!
> 
> And that is how we can "KNOW" that the would-be 'People', are truly, what in greater nature is that which is known as: FOOD!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The repeated question that you refuse to answer is,
> 
> do you only engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!  You 'feel' your little query wasn't answered... LOL!  Now isn't that _PRECIOUS?_
> 
> Here's a clue scamp... "Why" one engages in sex, has no bearing on "_WHAT NATURE DESIGNED SEX FOR"_.
> 
> But it_ DOES,_ however, demonstrate the efficacy of nature's design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pubes, hon....nature is remarkably creative.  Sex may have at one time been designed soley for procreation way back when we were primative amphibious slimewads - but it is not just procreative anymore.  Ever read about Bonobos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. The sex drive is deeply ingrained in us, even today. It is so powerful that we do it a lot. The way nature intended to propagate the species. You have fun doing it because nature requires you to do it.
> 
> Why do you think young girls get knocked up by young boys? Because the "fun" of having sex does what it was intended to do.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not wrong.
> 
> Procreation may be the main component of the drive but that does not mean it is SOLEY procreative anymore.  Look at the Bonobos.  There is a social construct to sexual behavior that goes beyondmere procreation which does not have to be and isn't in many species.
Click to expand...


So let me ask you, without the "urge" would you want to have sex for fun?

Mark


----------



## AVG-JOE

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> No.  Normal is the standard which is established, in the case of human sexuality, by the human physiological design.
> 
> That standard, like all legitimate standard rests upon objectivity... favoring only the purpose of the exercise.
> 
> Abnormal is that which deviates from that standard of normality.  We call this 'deviation' and those who present such: Deviants.
> 
> But again, you would have no way to know that... as these are things that people of sound mind would understand.



Congratulations, you have an opinion.  

That and $4 will get you a tasty beverage at Starbuck$


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The homos are damn sure demanding the rest of us not just acknowledge their choice but that we agree with it and don't say anything other than you agree with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really now?  No one is saying you have to agree with it or even acknowledge it.  Hyperbole much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  You have to watch every word in order that those freaks don't get their panties in a wad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  You can say what you want.  However there is such a thing as manners.  You may lack them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  It would be for the freak of nature that thought HE was a girl and approached my daughter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously dude - if a transgender person felt he was a female he's hardly likely to approach your daughter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  Teebowing happens when someone actually accomplishes something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  You think being a freak is normal.  When daily new stories put those abnormal freaks on the screen, you don't have to look.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care about what's normal or abnormal - a lot of that is cultural.  Inside it are real people with feelings.  And they aren't hurting you any.  So if you can't stomach it - change the channel.  I get nauseous at the overflow of hate from fundamentalists.  So I change the channel.  UInless you're a quadroplegic..I suggest you do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't care about normal or abnormal? Then, you are OK with pedophilia?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as they don't act on it, I could care less.
Click to expand...


So then, you do care.

So noted.

Mark


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

AVG-JOE said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well in fairness... you are also the ones that 'believe' that things which are ABNORMAL are normal... that paying people to NOT WORK will encourage them to seek employment and that there is a RIGHT to MURDER THE MOST INNOCENT of human beings, EVEN WHILE THEY'RE STILL IN THEIR MOTHER'S WOMB!
> 
> So... LOL!  That means that you're crazy; which is to say that you suffer a perverse form of human reasoning; meaning that you're insane... and healthy people, like healthy cultures... disregard the 'feelings' of the insane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Normal and abnormal are matters of opinion.
> 
> This is why a dynamic Civil Law MUST trump all Religious Law whenever the two come in to conflict.
> 
> If you want to raise your kids under Sharia Law or other, similar nonsense based on ancient Arab stories you knock yourself out.  Just remember that this is America and all I and mine have to comply with is the Civil Laws of whatever jurisdiction we find ourselves behaving and voting in.
Click to expand...



Tell that to all the atheists who think gay marriage is a bad idea, including Charles Darwin...well he's dead, but you get my point.  There's very practical reasons for promoting the values of marriage and family that don't necessarily involve religion.


----------



## mdk

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is used for a variety of purposes pubes.  Surely you are aware of this?  Most of us grasp this fundemental principle in our teens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll thank you to cease these sexual references.  They're not welcome.
> 
> Now with regard to your 'feeings' of the uses of sex... none of that has any relevance to he PURPOSE of such.
> 
> One could use their forehead to drive nails... that in no way would mean that such was designed or even appropriate for such, despite your 'feeling' otherwise.
> 
> Again... you couldn't had no way to know that, because this is a discussion best suited for _grown ups._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said pubes (not a sexual reference) - check out the bonobos.  Nature is nothing if not a recycler and a multi-tasker.  Sex may have started out for procreation but evolved in some species to be more than that.  Humans are the best example.  Bonobos another easy example.  Now, I don't base that on "feelings" hon, but science.  Try it some time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does anyone know the procedure for reporting sexual abuse by a moderator?  This 'contributor' is a moderator and as such I am unable to ignore them, so when a Moderator is found to be abusive, what is the procedure for reporting them?
> 
> If no one knows... I'll happily open a thread.  But I'd appreciate the info if someone has it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coyote is good people even though we don't agree on this issue...not a troll.  Since it's against the rules to discuss moderators let's not proceed any further down this path.  Just PM her about any issue you have and you'll find she's very reasonable to talk to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll have no more communication with a sexual predator.  I will report her to the ownership of this board.  And if such continues, I'll report such to the authorities.
> 
> I'm a 54 year old man... and if she will so blatantly abuse me sexually, one can only imagine what she would do to a child who may happen in here.
Click to expand...


No one is sexually abusing you drama queen.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Antares said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> OH!  You 'feel' your little query wasn't answered... LOL!  Now isn't that _PRECIOUS?_
> 
> Here's a clue scamp... "Why" one engages in sex, has no bearing on "_WHAT NATURE DESIGNED SEX FOR"_.
> 
> But it_ DOES,_ however, demonstrate the efficacy of nature's design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pubes, hon....nature is remarkably creative.  Sex may have at one time been designed soley for procreation way back when we were primative amphibious slimewads - but it is not just procreative anymore.  Ever read about Bonobos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. The sex drive is deeply ingrained in us, even today. It is so powerful that we do it a lot. The way nature intended to propagate the species. You have fun doing it because nature requires you to do it.
> 
> Why do you think young girls get knocked up by young boys? Because the "fun" of having sex does what it was intended to do.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"You have fun doing it because nature requires you to do it."
> *
> Requires?
> 
> Horse hockey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nature doesn't?  As a man, I can tell you that the longer I go without sex, the greater the urge is to have sex. That is nature telling me it is time to try to reproduce, because nature doesn't give a fuck whether I enjoy it or not.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing "requires" man to have sex.
> 
> How much do you usually spend to have sex?
Click to expand...


Semantics IS fun... isn't it?

"Requires" is precisely what nature does for the species, OKA: _Mankind... .
_
The design of the species requires that the body/brain being respond as designed.   Each is provided with the means to reason, with some being superior to others and others inferior to some within the scope of their respective intellectual means.  

You're use of the word "Requires' implies 'force', which nature doesn't do... requires, in the sense of 'promote the likelihood of as a means to propagate the species'... is what nature does.


----------



## 80zephyr

Antares said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> What facts did he deny? Like me, he acknowledges "natural" law, but also stated that because of the humans ability to reason, things change.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He denies that humans might reason that gay sexual relations are natural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Licking your own ass is natural as well. It does not mean it should be acceptable.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now you're throwing all that's natural under the bus as irrelevant?
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not any more than you are. Pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia are also natural. Are you for allowing these activities as well?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are these things you practice?
Click to expand...


Either you want to debate logically...or not.

Your choice.

Mark


----------



## Antares

80zephyr said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pubes, hon....nature is remarkably creative.  Sex may have at one time been designed soley for procreation way back when we were primative amphibious slimewads - but it is not just procreative anymore.  Ever read about Bonobos?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. The sex drive is deeply ingrained in us, even today. It is so powerful that we do it a lot. The way nature intended to propagate the species. You have fun doing it because nature requires you to do it.
> 
> Why do you think young girls get knocked up by young boys? Because the "fun" of having sex does what it was intended to do.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"You have fun doing it because nature requires you to do it."
> *
> Requires?
> 
> Horse hockey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nature doesn't?  As a man, I can tell you that the longer I go without sex, the greater the urge is to have sex. That is nature telling me it is time to try to reproduce, because nature doesn't give a fuck whether I enjoy it or not.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing "requires" man to have sex.
> 
> How much do you usually spend to have sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean by "sex"?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

What is the definition of "is"?

(smile)


----------



## Antares

80zephyr said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> He denies that humans might reason that gay sexual relations are natural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Licking your own ass is natural as well. It does not mean it should be acceptable.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now you're throwing all that's natural under the bus as irrelevant?
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not any more than you are. Pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia are also natural. Are you for allowing these activities as well?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are these things you practice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either you want to debate logically...or not.
> 
> Your choice.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


You brought those things up son........


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

80zephyr said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> This one.  It's human history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proof? Are you really claiming that the shunning of children before marriage had nothing to do with those children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It had to do with fucking, which people, wrongly, believed was a sin outside of marriage, usually.  It's interesting to note that the lower classes of Victorian times, and many people of other times, were fine with fucking after you were engaged.  Testing the waters so to speak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And why did they condemn sex before marriage? Could it be that they wanted a stable couple to raise that child?
> 
> These old beliefs are easy to understand when taken in the context of the times they were in. They simply understood that a family was needed to bring up a child.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Remember...  in Victorian times women were owned by their fathers until sold in to the bondage of holy matrimony.
> 
> Perspective counts.
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Antares said:


> I could never be a Catholic...too much work and guilt.



Yes, but Holy Mass is over in an hour and then it's back home to watch football.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Antares said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Licking your own ass is natural as well. It does not mean it should be acceptable.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now you're throwing all that's natural under the bus as irrelevant?
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not any more than you are. Pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia are also natural. Are you for allowing these activities as well?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are these things you practice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either you want to debate logically...or not.
> 
> Your choice.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You brought those things up son........
Click to expand...


Yes... he brought them up, because they represent deviant behavior... which is harmful to the individual who suffers the respective disorder and those around them.

He further asked if you intend to support the normalization of THOSE DEVIANCIES?

If so, why?

If not, how do you intend to argue that they should NOT be normalized, despite your advocacy to normalize the homosexual deviancy?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

NYcarbineer said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, I didn't say that...
> 
> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_
> 
> LOL!  No WAIT!
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.
> 
> A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.
> 
> Now... having been educated on the issue.
> 
> Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is _for... . _
> 
> Don't be shy now... go ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the natural age for females to begin to have intercourse is when they've become sexually mature?  Capable of reproducing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a "natural" world, absolutely. Why do you think they were designed that way?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the idiot who's trying to song and dance the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What facts did he deny? Like me, he acknowledges "natural" law, but also stated that because of the humans ability to reason, things change.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He denies that humans might reason that gay sexual relations are natural.
Click to expand...


What's natural about shoving a cock up an asshole?  Natural is the rectum being exit-only.  And before you ask, no I don't and never have had anal sex with a woman.  Even that is unnatural and wrong...not to mention forbidden by the Catholic Church.


----------



## 80zephyr

Antares said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Licking your own ass is natural as well. It does not mean it should be acceptable.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now you're throwing all that's natural under the bus as irrelevant?
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not any more than you are. Pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia are also natural. Are you for allowing these activities as well?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are these things you practice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either you want to debate logically...or not.
> 
> Your choice.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You brought those things up son........
Click to expand...


And? You accused me of throwing "nature" under a bus. I asked you if you are OK with the sexual deviancies I listed. If you are not, you are also throwing nature under the bus.

Mark


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

NYcarbineer said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, I didn't say that...
> 
> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_
> 
> LOL!  No WAIT!
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.
> 
> A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.
> 
> Now... having been educated on the issue.
> 
> Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is _for... . _
> 
> Don't be shy now... go ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> State for the record and swear on the lives of your loved ones that you have never engaged in sexual intercourse for any other reason than reproduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  And we have ANOTHER of the _"Sex is Pleasurable... therefore Sex was designed to give pleasure"_ idiots.
> 
> Folks, you cannot make this crap UP!
> 
> And that is how we can "KNOW" that the would-be 'People', are truly, what in greater nature is that which is known as: FOOD!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The repeated question that you refuse to answer is,
> 
> do you only engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!  You 'feel' your little query wasn't answered... LOL!  Now isn't that _PRECIOUS?_
> 
> Here's a clue scamp... "Why" one engages in sex, has no bearing on "_WHAT NATURE DESIGNED SEX FOR"_.
> 
> But it_ DOES,_ however, demonstrate the efficacy of nature's design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nature made human females receptive to sex at any time, in stark contrast to almost every other species.
> 
> Why was that?
Click to expand...


You're not married, are you?  Many women shut down the sex right after the first child. The men get frustrated with their needs being unmet and masturbate to porn or have an affair....and yet somehow they're the asshole when they get caught.  And A LOT of women do this, neglect their husbands then get mad when he has an affair.


----------



## Carib Gyal

Antares said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not any more than you are. Pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia are also natural. Are you for allowing these activities as well?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are these things you practice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either you want to debate logically...or not.
> 
> Your choice.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You brought those things up son........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes... he brought them up, because they represent deviant behavior... which is harmful to the individual who suffers the respective disorder and those around them.
> 
> He further asked if you intend to support the normalization of THOSE DEVIANCIES?
> 
> If so, why?
> 
> If not, how do you intend to argue that they should NOT be normalized, despite your advocacy to normalize the homosexual deviancy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Son if you feel the need to stick your dick in a dog go ahead....
Click to expand...

There are people who advocate marriage between humans and the lesser animals. I knew it.


----------



## Antares

Carib Gyal said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are these things you practice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either you want to debate logically...or not.
> 
> Your choice.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You brought those things up son........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes... he brought them up, because they represent deviant behavior... which is harmful to the individual who suffers the respective disorder and those around them.
> 
> He further asked if you intend to support the normalization of THOSE DEVIANCIES?
> 
> If so, why?
> 
> If not, how do you intend to argue that they should NOT be normalized, despite your advocacy to normalize the homosexual deviancy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Son if you feel the need to stick your dick in a dog go ahead....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are people who advocate marriage between humans and the lesser animals. I knew it.
Click to expand...



Astonishing isn't it?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

mdk said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll thank you to cease these sexual references.  They're not welcome.
> 
> Now with regard to your 'feeings' of the uses of sex... none of that has any relevance to he PURPOSE of such.
> 
> One could use their forehead to drive nails... that in no way would mean that such was designed or even appropriate for such, despite your 'feeling' otherwise.
> 
> Again... you couldn't had no way to know that, because this is a discussion best suited for _grown ups._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said pubes (not a sexual reference) - check out the bonobos.  Nature is nothing if not a recycler and a multi-tasker.  Sex may have started out for procreation but evolved in some species to be more than that.  Humans are the best example.  Bonobos another easy example.  Now, I don't base that on "feelings" hon, but science.  Try it some time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does anyone know the procedure for reporting sexual abuse by a moderator?  This 'contributor' is a moderator and as such I am unable to ignore them, so when a Moderator is found to be abusive, what is the procedure for reporting them?
> 
> If no one knows... I'll happily open a thread.  But I'd appreciate the info if someone has it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coyote is good people even though we don't agree on this issue...not a troll.  Since it's against the rules to discuss moderators let's not proceed any further down this path.  Just PM her about any issue you have and you'll find she's very reasonable to talk to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll have no more communication with a sexual predator.  I will report her to the ownership of this board.  And if such continues, I'll report such to the authorities.
> 
> I'm a 54 year old man... and if she will so blatantly abuse me sexually, one can only imagine what she would do to a child who may happen in here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is sexually abusing you drama queen.
Click to expand...


Well, in fairness... you're an advocate that sexual abnormality is normal.   

So as cute is it is for you to offer an opinion, your opinions are unworthy for consideration by reasonable people.

Now, perhaps you can use this as a 'educational' opportunity and recognize the downside to standing upon foolish public advocacies.

I hope it works out for ya.


----------



## 80zephyr

Antares said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not any more than you are. Pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia are also natural. Are you for allowing these activities as well?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are these things you practice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either you want to debate logically...or not.
> 
> Your choice.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You brought those things up son........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? You accused me of throwing "nature" under a bus. I asked you if you are OK with the sexual deviancies I listed. If you are not, you are also throwing nature under the bus.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *". Pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia are also natural"
> *
> Natural for who?
> 
> You?
> 
> Stay away from other people's kids pop, for now what you do with your own kids, dogs and dead gramma is your business.
Click to expand...


If they happen in nature, they are by definition "natural".

Now, if you want to debate that point, have at it. I don't have the time or the want for your other crap.

Mark


----------



## Carib Gyal

Antares said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either you want to debate logically...or not.
> 
> Your choice.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You brought those things up son........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes... he brought them up, because they represent deviant behavior... which is harmful to the individual who suffers the respective disorder and those around them.
> 
> He further asked if you intend to support the normalization of THOSE DEVIANCIES?
> 
> If so, why?
> 
> If not, how do you intend to argue that they should NOT be normalized, despite your advocacy to normalize the homosexual deviancy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Son if you feel the need to stick your dick in a dog go ahead....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are people who advocate marriage between humans and the lesser animals. I knew it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Astonishing isn't it?
Click to expand...

Not even surprising. If they can advocate gays marrying, bestiality is a no-brainer.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Antares said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not any more than you are. Pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia are also natural. Are you for allowing these activities as well?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are these things you practice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either you want to debate logically...or not.
> 
> Your choice.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You brought those things up son........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? You accused me of throwing "nature" under a bus. I asked you if you are OK with the sexual deviancies I listed. If you are not, you are also throwing nature under the bus.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *". Pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia are also natural"
> *
> Natural for who?
> 
> You?
> 
> Stay away from other people's kids pop, for now what you do with your own kids, dogs and dead gramma is your business.
Click to expand...


Natural for those who utilize a perverse manifestation of reason.

The largest KNOWN segment of the population common to such as Ideological Leftists, in the US, while certainly not exclusive to such, these sub-standard human beings are found in the Membership of the Democrat Party.


----------



## Antares

80zephyr said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are these things you practice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either you want to debate logically...or not.
> 
> Your choice.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You brought those things up son........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? You accused me of throwing "nature" under a bus. I asked you if you are OK with the sexual deviancies I listed. If you are not, you are also throwing nature under the bus.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *". Pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia are also natural"
> *
> Natural for who?
> 
> You?
> 
> Stay away from other people's kids pop, for now what you do with your own kids, dogs and dead gramma is your business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they happen in nature, they are by definition "natural".
> 
> Now, if you want to debate that point, have at it. I don't have the time or the want for your other crap.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


To whom are pedophilia and bestiality "natural"?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".
> 
> I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.
> 
> Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I didn't say that...
> 
> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_
> 
> LOL!  No WAIT!
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.
> 
> A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.
> 
> Now... having been educated on the issue.
> 
> Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is _for... . _
> 
> Don't be shy now... go ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the natural age for females to begin to have intercourse is when they've become sexually mature?  Capable of reproducing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it?
> 
> Based upon what?  The natural age for reproduction is the age wherein the female is sufficiently emotionally mature to nurture and raise her child; which would, of course, reqire that she be sufficiently mature to have secured a husband, to sustain her through gestation and the years where caring for her child requires nearly constant attention.
> 
> This is all FUNDAMENTAL STUFF... yet it appears that you're absolutely ignorant of ALL OF IT!
> 
> How old are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lord do you need some tutoring here.  Sweetcheeks - reproduction is strictly biology.  As soon as a female reaches puberty (in humans)...estrus in other species - she is ready and able to be impregnated.  Emotional maturity has zip to do with it.  All that is the overlay of culture.
> 
> That is FUNDAMENTAL STUFF dude
Click to expand...


Then you're saying there's no reason to have an age of consent?


----------



## 80zephyr

Antares said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either you want to debate logically...or not.
> 
> Your choice.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You brought those things up son........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? You accused me of throwing "nature" under a bus. I asked you if you are OK with the sexual deviancies I listed. If you are not, you are also throwing nature under the bus.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *". Pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia are also natural"
> *
> Natural for who?
> 
> You?
> 
> Stay away from other people's kids pop, for now what you do with your own kids, dogs and dead gramma is your business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they happen in nature, they are by definition "natural".
> 
> Now, if you want to debate that point, have at it. I don't have the time or the want for your other crap.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To whom are pedophilia and bestiality "natural"?
Click to expand...


To whom is homosexuality "natural"?

Mark


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Antares said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either you want to debate logically...or not.
> 
> Your choice.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You brought those things up son........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? You accused me of throwing "nature" under a bus. I asked you if you are OK with the sexual deviancies I listed. If you are not, you are also throwing nature under the bus.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *". Pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia are also natural"
> *
> Natural for who?
> 
> You?
> 
> Stay away from other people's kids pop, for now what you do with your own kids, dogs and dead gramma is your business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they happen in nature, they are by definition "natural".
> 
> Now, if you want to debate that point, have at it. I don't have the time or the want for your other crap.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To whom are pedophilia and bestiality "natural"?
Click to expand...


Those who are demonstrated to reason through a perverse understanding of human reasoning...  such presents with the tendency to crave sexual gratification from those of their own gender, or any other sexual craving which deviates from the sexual normality established by human physiology.


----------



## beagle9

Coyote said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, I didn't say that...
> 
> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_
> 
> LOL!  No WAIT!
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.
> 
> A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.
> 
> Now... having been educated on the issue.
> 
> Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is _for... . _
> 
> Don't be shy now... go ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> State for the record and swear on the lives of your loved ones that you have never engaged in sexual intercourse for any other reason than reproduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  And we have ANOTHER of the _"Sex is Pleasurable... therefore Sex was designed to give pleasure"_ idiots.
> 
> Folks, you cannot make this crap UP!
> 
> And that is how we can "KNOW" that the would-be 'People', are truly, what in greater nature is that which is known as: FOOD!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The repeated question that you refuse to answer is,
> 
> do you only engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!  You 'feel' your little query wasn't answered... LOL!  Now isn't that _PRECIOUS?_
> 
> Here's a clue scamp... "Why" one engages in sex, has no bearing on "_WHAT NATURE DESIGNED SEX FOR"_.
> 
> But it_ DOES,_ however, demonstrate the efficacy of nature's design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pubes, hon....nature is remarkably creative.  Sex may have at one time been designed soley for procreation way back when we were primative amphibious slimewads - but it is not just procreative anymore.  Ever read about Bonobos?
Click to expand...

See that's just it, you undoubtedly believe everything that you read...LOL

Ever read the Bible, undoubtedly not or you would refer that book to us also, but you wouldn't believe that one so you wouldn't refer that one to us now would you ? I'll be your professor for a day, and I'll refer the Bible to you...Now Happy Reading!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

80zephyr said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> You brought those things up son........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? You accused me of throwing "nature" under a bus. I asked you if you are OK with the sexual deviancies I listed. If you are not, you are also throwing nature under the bus.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *". Pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia are also natural"
> *
> Natural for who?
> 
> You?
> 
> Stay away from other people's kids pop, for now what you do with your own kids, dogs and dead gramma is your business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they happen in nature, they are by definition "natural".
> 
> Now, if you want to debate that point, have at it. I don't have the time or the want for your other crap.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To whom are pedophilia and bestiality "natural"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To whom is homosexuality "natural"?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Those who are demonstrated to reason through a perverse understanding of human reasoning... such presents with the tendency to crave sexual gratification through sexual behavior with children or any other sexual craving which deviates from the sexual normality established by human physiology.


----------



## mdk

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said pubes (not a sexual reference) - check out the bonobos.  Nature is nothing if not a recycler and a multi-tasker.  Sex may have started out for procreation but evolved in some species to be more than that.  Humans are the best example.  Bonobos another easy example.  Now, I don't base that on "feelings" hon, but science.  Try it some time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone know the procedure for reporting sexual abuse by a moderator?  This 'contributor' is a moderator and as such I am unable to ignore them, so when a Moderator is found to be abusive, what is the procedure for reporting them?
> 
> If no one knows... I'll happily open a thread.  But I'd appreciate the info if someone has it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coyote is good people even though we don't agree on this issue...not a troll.  Since it's against the rules to discuss moderators let's not proceed any further down this path.  Just PM her about any issue you have and you'll find she's very reasonable to talk to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll have no more communication with a sexual predator.  I will report her to the ownership of this board.  And if such continues, I'll report such to the authorities.
> 
> I'm a 54 year old man... and if she will so blatantly abuse me sexually, one can only imagine what she would do to a child who may happen in here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is sexually abusing you drama queen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, in fairness... you're an advocate that sexual abnormality is normal.
> 
> So as cute is it is for you to offer an opinion, your opinions are unworthy for consideration by reasonable people.
> 
> Now, perhaps you can use this as a 'educational' opportunity and recognize the downside to standing upon foolish public advocacies.
> 
> I hope it works out for ya.
Click to expand...


You think it is reasonable to claim you are being sexually abused in this thread? Whatever you say drama queen.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

mdk said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone know the procedure for reporting sexual abuse by a moderator?  This 'contributor' is a moderator and as such I am unable to ignore them, so when a Moderator is found to be abusive, what is the procedure for reporting them?
> 
> If no one knows... I'll happily open a thread.  But I'd appreciate the info if someone has it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote is good people even though we don't agree on this issue...not a troll.  Since it's against the rules to discuss moderators let's not proceed any further down this path.  Just PM her about any issue you have and you'll find she's very reasonable to talk to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll have no more communication with a sexual predator.  I will report her to the ownership of this board.  And if such continues, I'll report such to the authorities.
> 
> I'm a 54 year old man... and if she will so blatantly abuse me sexually, one can only imagine what she would do to a child who may happen in here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is sexually abusing you drama queen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, in fairness... you're an advocate that sexual abnormality is normal.
> 
> So as cute is it is for you to offer an opinion, your opinions are unworthy for consideration by reasonable people.
> 
> Now, perhaps you can use this as a 'educational' opportunity and recognize the downside to standing upon foolish public advocacies.
> 
> I hope it works out for ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think it is reasonable to claim you are being sexually abused in this thread. Whatever you say drama queen.
Click to expand...


So... you couldn't find the courage to learn?  

Whatta shame.  

Oh well... it's not like it's unexpected.  I guess I just allowed myself to hope... despite the chances of it being so slim.


----------



## Coyote

80zephyr said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The repeated question that you refuse to answer is,
> 
> do you only engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OH!  You 'feel' your little query wasn't answered... LOL!  Now isn't that _PRECIOUS?_
> 
> Here's a clue scamp... "Why" one engages in sex, has no bearing on "_WHAT NATURE DESIGNED SEX FOR"_.
> 
> But it_ DOES,_ however, demonstrate the efficacy of nature's design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pubes, hon....nature is remarkably creative.  Sex may have at one time been designed soley for procreation way back when we were primative amphibious slimewads - but it is not just procreative anymore.  Ever read about Bonobos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. The sex drive is deeply ingrained in us, even today. It is so powerful that we do it a lot. The way nature intended to propagate the species. You have fun doing it because nature requires you to do it.
> 
> Why do you think young girls get knocked up by young boys? Because the "fun" of having sex does what it was intended to do.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not wrong.
> 
> Procreation may be the main component of the drive but that does not mean it is SOLEY procreative anymore.  Look at the Bonobos.  There is a social construct to sexual behavior that goes beyondmere procreation which does not have to be and isn't in many species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let me ask you, without the "urge" would you want to have sex for fun?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


I have no urge.  Haven't for years.  So yes.


----------



## beagle9

Coyote said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> OH!  You 'feel' your little query wasn't answered... LOL!  Now isn't that _PRECIOUS?_
> 
> Here's a clue scamp... "Why" one engages in sex, has no bearing on "_WHAT NATURE DESIGNED SEX FOR"_.
> 
> But it_ DOES,_ however, demonstrate the efficacy of nature's design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pubes, hon....nature is remarkably creative.  Sex may have at one time been designed soley for procreation way back when we were primative amphibious slimewads - but it is not just procreative anymore.  Ever read about Bonobos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. The sex drive is deeply ingrained in us, even today. It is so powerful that we do it a lot. The way nature intended to propagate the species. You have fun doing it because nature requires you to do it.
> 
> Why do you think young girls get knocked up by young boys? Because the "fun" of having sex does what it was intended to do.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not wrong.
> 
> Procreation may be the main component of the drive but that does not mean it is SOLEY procreative anymore.  Look at the Bonobos.  There is a social construct to sexual behavior that goes beyondmere procreation which does not have to be and isn't in many species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let me ask you, without the "urge" would you want to have sex for fun?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no urge.  Haven't for years.  So yes.
Click to expand...

TMI TMI


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".
> 
> I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.
> 
> Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, I didn't say that...
> 
> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_
> 
> LOL!  No WAIT!
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.
> 
> A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.
> 
> Now... having been educated on the issue.
> 
> Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is _for... . _
> 
> Don't be shy now... go ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the natural age for females to begin to have intercourse is when they've become sexually mature?  Capable of reproducing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it?
> 
> Based upon what?  The natural age for reproduction is the age wherein the female is sufficiently emotionally mature to nurture and raise her child; which would, of course, reqire that she be sufficiently mature to have secured a husband, to sustain her through gestation and the years where caring for her child requires nearly constant attention.
> 
> This is all FUNDAMENTAL STUFF... yet it appears that you're absolutely ignorant of ALL OF IT!
> 
> How old are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lord do you need some tutoring here.  Sweetcheeks - reproduction is strictly biology.  As soon as a female reaches puberty (in humans)...estrus in other species - she is ready and able to be impregnated.  Emotional maturity has zip to do with it.  All that is the overlay of culture.
> 
> That is FUNDAMENTAL STUFF dude
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you're saying there's no reason to have an age of consent?
Click to expand...

There most certainly should be....18 years...which is a lot higher than many red states in the bible belt advocate.


----------



## Coyote

80zephyr said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The homos are damn sure demanding the rest of us not just acknowledge their choice but that we agree with it and don't say anything other than you agree with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really now?  No one is saying you have to agree with it or even acknowledge it.  Hyperbole much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  You have to watch every word in order that those freaks don't get their panties in a wad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  You can say what you want.  However there is such a thing as manners.  You may lack them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  It would be for the freak of nature that thought HE was a girl and approached my daughter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously dude - if a transgender person felt he was a female he's hardly likely to approach your daughter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  Teebowing happens when someone actually accomplishes something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  You think being a freak is normal.  When daily new stories put those abnormal freaks on the screen, you don't have to look.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care about what's normal or abnormal - a lot of that is cultural.  Inside it are real people with feelings.  And they aren't hurting you any.  So if you can't stomach it - change the channel.  I get nauseous at the overflow of hate from fundamentalists.  So I change the channel.  UInless you're a quadroplegic..I suggest you do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't care about normal or abnormal? Then, you are OK with pedophilia?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as they don't act on it, I could care less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then, you do care.
> 
> So noted.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


True.  I care when abnormal damages others.


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> OH!  You 'feel' your little query wasn't answered... LOL!  Now isn't that _PRECIOUS?_
> 
> Here's a clue scamp... "Why" one engages in sex, has no bearing on "_WHAT NATURE DESIGNED SEX FOR"_.
> 
> But it_ DOES,_ however, demonstrate the efficacy of nature's design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pubes, hon....nature is remarkably creative.  Sex may have at one time been designed soley for procreation way back when we were primative amphibious slimewads - but it is not just procreative anymore.  Ever read about Bonobos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. The sex drive is deeply ingrained in us, even today. It is so powerful that we do it a lot. The way nature intended to propagate the species. You have fun doing it because nature requires you to do it.
> 
> Why do you think young girls get knocked up by young boys? Because the "fun" of having sex does what it was intended to do.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not wrong.
> 
> Procreation may be the main component of the drive but that does not mean it is SOLEY procreative anymore.  Look at the Bonobos.  There is a social construct to sexual behavior that goes beyondmere procreation which does not have to be and isn't in many species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let me ask you, without the "urge" would you want to have sex for fun?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no urge.  Haven't for years.  So yes.
Click to expand...


Then you are truly special. And abnormal.

Mark


----------



## bodecea

beagle9 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> State for the record and swear on the lives of your loved ones that you have never engaged in sexual intercourse for any other reason than reproduction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  And we have ANOTHER of the _"Sex is Pleasurable... therefore Sex was designed to give pleasure"_ idiots.
> 
> Folks, you cannot make this crap UP!
> 
> And that is how we can "KNOW" that the would-be 'People', are truly, what in greater nature is that which is known as: FOOD!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The repeated question that you refuse to answer is,
> 
> do you only engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!  You 'feel' your little query wasn't answered... LOL!  Now isn't that _PRECIOUS?_
> 
> Here's a clue scamp... "Why" one engages in sex, has no bearing on "_WHAT NATURE DESIGNED SEX FOR"_.
> 
> But it_ DOES,_ however, demonstrate the efficacy of nature's design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pubes, hon....nature is remarkably creative.  Sex may have at one time been designed soley for procreation way back when we were primative amphibious slimewads - but it is not just procreative anymore.  Ever read about Bonobos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See that's just it, you undoubtedly believe everything that you read...LOL
> 
> Ever read the Bible, undoubtedly not or you would refer that book to us also, but you wouldn't believe that one so you wouldn't refer that one to us now would you ? I'll be your professor for a day, and I'll refer the Bible to you...Now Happy Reading!
Click to expand...

Which translation/version?


----------



## mdk

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote is good people even though we don't agree on this issue...not a troll.  Since it's against the rules to discuss moderators let's not proceed any further down this path.  Just PM her about any issue you have and you'll find she's very reasonable to talk to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll have no more communication with a sexual predator.  I will report her to the ownership of this board.  And if such continues, I'll report such to the authorities.
> 
> I'm a 54 year old man... and if she will so blatantly abuse me sexually, one can only imagine what she would do to a child who may happen in here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is sexually abusing you drama queen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, in fairness... you're an advocate that sexual abnormality is normal.
> 
> So as cute is it is for you to offer an opinion, your opinions are unworthy for consideration by reasonable people.
> 
> Now, perhaps you can use this as a 'educational' opportunity and recognize the downside to standing upon foolish public advocacies.
> 
> I hope it works out for ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think it is reasonable to claim you are being sexually abused in this thread. Whatever you say drama queen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... you couldn't find the courage to learn?
> 
> Whatta shame.
> 
> Oh well... it's not like it's unexpected.  I guess I just allowed myself to hope... despite the chances of it being so slim.
Click to expand...


Have you filed a police report yet over the sexual abuse you've suffered in this thread? lol.


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".
> 
> I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.
> 
> Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?
> 
> 
> Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, I didn't say that...
> 
> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_
> 
> LOL!  No WAIT!
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.
> 
> A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.
> 
> Now... having been educated on the issue.
> 
> Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is _for... . _
> 
> Don't be shy now... go ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the natural age for females to begin to have intercourse is when they've become sexually mature?  Capable of reproducing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it?
> 
> Based upon what?  The natural age for reproduction is the age wherein the female is sufficiently emotionally mature to nurture and raise her child; which would, of course, reqire that she be sufficiently mature to have secured a husband, to sustain her through gestation and the years where caring for her child requires nearly constant attention.
> 
> This is all FUNDAMENTAL STUFF... yet it appears that you're absolutely ignorant of ALL OF IT!
> 
> How old are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lord do you need some tutoring here.  Sweetcheeks - reproduction is strictly biology.  As soon as a female reaches puberty (in humans)...estrus in other species - she is ready and able to be impregnated.  Emotional maturity has zip to do with it.  All that is the overlay of culture.
> 
> That is FUNDAMENTAL STUFF dude
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you're saying there's no reason to have an age of consent?
Click to expand...


No.  Where on earth did you get that idea?  Biology is one thing.  Our ability to control it in beneficial ways is another.  Fact: the natural urge to reproduce has zip to do with emotional maturity.  True brain maturity - that includes the regions of the brain responsible for understanding of consequences and impulse control - doesn't really occur until 25.  Sexual maturity can occur as young as....?12?.


----------



## beagle9

bodecea said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  And we have ANOTHER of the _"Sex is Pleasurable... therefore Sex was designed to give pleasure"_ idiots.
> 
> Folks, you cannot make this crap UP!
> 
> And that is how we can "KNOW" that the would-be 'People', are truly, what in greater nature is that which is known as: FOOD!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The repeated question that you refuse to answer is,
> 
> do you only engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!  You 'feel' your little query wasn't answered... LOL!  Now isn't that _PRECIOUS?_
> 
> Here's a clue scamp... "Why" one engages in sex, has no bearing on "_WHAT NATURE DESIGNED SEX FOR"_.
> 
> But it_ DOES,_ however, demonstrate the efficacy of nature's design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pubes, hon....nature is remarkably creative.  Sex may have at one time been designed soley for procreation way back when we were primative amphibious slimewads - but it is not just procreative anymore.  Ever read about Bonobos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See that's just it, you undoubtedly believe everything that you read...LOL
> 
> Ever read the Bible, undoubtedly not or you would refer that book to us also, but you wouldn't believe that one so you wouldn't refer that one to us now would you ? I'll be your professor for a day, and I'll refer the Bible to you...Now Happy Reading!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which translation/version?
Click to expand...

That will be the King James version of course, but you can pick anyone that you like, just as long as it doesn't deviate to far from the basic truths that are found within the one that we all relate to most.


----------



## Coyote

beagle9 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> State for the record and swear on the lives of your loved ones that you have never engaged in sexual intercourse for any other reason than reproduction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  And we have ANOTHER of the _"Sex is Pleasurable... therefore Sex was designed to give pleasure"_ idiots.
> 
> Folks, you cannot make this crap UP!
> 
> And that is how we can "KNOW" that the would-be 'People', are truly, what in greater nature is that which is known as: FOOD!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The repeated question that you refuse to answer is,
> 
> do you only engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!  You 'feel' your little query wasn't answered... LOL!  Now isn't that _PRECIOUS?_
> 
> Here's a clue scamp... "Why" one engages in sex, has no bearing on "_WHAT NATURE DESIGNED SEX FOR"_.
> 
> But it_ DOES,_ however, demonstrate the efficacy of nature's design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pubes, hon....nature is remarkably creative.  Sex may have at one time been designed soley for procreation way back when we were primative amphibious slimewads - but it is not just procreative anymore.  Ever read about Bonobos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See that's just it, you undoubtedly believe everything that you read...LOL
> 
> Ever read the Bible, undoubtedly not or you would refer that book to us also, but you wouldn't believe that one so you wouldn't refer that one to us now would you ? I'll be your professor for a day, and I'll refer the Bible to you...Now Happy Reading!
Click to expand...


That Bible is obsessed with begatting.  Let's leave that aside for now.

Sex is not just about begatting anymore and unbegattable seniors are getting married everyday.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

mdk said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll have no more communication with a sexual predator.  I will report her to the ownership of this board.  And if such continues, I'll report such to the authorities.
> 
> I'm a 54 year old man... and if she will so blatantly abuse me sexually, one can only imagine what she would do to a child who may happen in here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is sexually abusing you drama queen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, in fairness... you're an advocate that sexual abnormality is normal.
> 
> So as cute is it is for you to offer an opinion, your opinions are unworthy for consideration by reasonable people.
> 
> Now, perhaps you can use this as a 'educational' opportunity and recognize the downside to standing upon foolish public advocacies.
> 
> I hope it works out for ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think it is reasonable to claim you are being sexually abused in this thread. Whatever you say drama queen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... you couldn't find the courage to learn?
> 
> Whatta shame.
> 
> Oh well... it's not like it's unexpected.  I guess I just allowed myself to hope... despite the chances of it being so slim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you filed a police report yet over the sexual abuse you've suffered in this thread? lol.
Click to expand...


One more post on this unwelcomed subject and you'll be ignored.

Please understand it doesn't matter to me... you rarely add anything to a discussion, beyond the usual ego stroke that comes with being palpably superior to another person, but that is the natural result of a discussion with any Leftist... so that means that such is second only to typing, on any political message board.  

SOooo... do ya see where we stand, here?


----------



## Carib Gyal

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, I didn't say that...
> 
> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_
> 
> LOL!  No WAIT!
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.
> 
> A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.
> 
> Now... having been educated on the issue.
> 
> Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is _for... . _
> 
> Don't be shy now... go ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the natural age for females to begin to have intercourse is when they've become sexually mature?  Capable of reproducing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it?
> 
> Based upon what?  The natural age for reproduction is the age wherein the female is sufficiently emotionally mature to nurture and raise her child; which would, of course, reqire that she be sufficiently mature to have secured a husband, to sustain her through gestation and the years where caring for her child requires nearly constant attention.
> 
> This is all FUNDAMENTAL STUFF... yet it appears that you're absolutely ignorant of ALL OF IT!
> 
> How old are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lord do you need some tutoring here.  Sweetcheeks - reproduction is strictly biology.  As soon as a female reaches puberty (in humans)...estrus in other species - she is ready and able to be impregnated.  Emotional maturity has zip to do with it.  All that is the overlay of culture.
> 
> That is FUNDAMENTAL STUFF dude
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you're saying there's no reason to have an age of consent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Where on earth did you get that idea?  Biology is one thing.  Our ability to control it in beneficial ways is another.  Fact: the natural urge to reproduce has zip to do with emotional maturity.  True brain maturity - that includes the regions of the brain responsible for understanding of consequences and impulse control - doesn't really occur until 25.  Sexual maturity can occur as young as....?12?.
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with having sex, or even wanting to?


----------



## bodecea

mdk said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll have no more communication with a sexual predator.  I will report her to the ownership of this board.  And if such continues, I'll report such to the authorities.
> 
> I'm a 54 year old man... and if she will so blatantly abuse me sexually, one can only imagine what she would do to a child who may happen in here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is sexually abusing you drama queen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, in fairness... you're an advocate that sexual abnormality is normal.
> 
> So as cute is it is for you to offer an opinion, your opinions are unworthy for consideration by reasonable people.
> 
> Now, perhaps you can use this as a 'educational' opportunity and recognize the downside to standing upon foolish public advocacies.
> 
> I hope it works out for ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think it is reasonable to claim you are being sexually abused in this thread. Whatever you say drama queen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... you couldn't find the courage to learn?
> 
> Whatta shame.
> 
> Oh well... it's not like it's unexpected.  I guess I just allowed myself to hope... despite the chances of it being so slim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you filed a police report yet over the sexual abuse you've suffered in this thread? lol.
Click to expand...

The poor boy.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

> Sex is not just about begatting anymore and unbegattable seniors are getting married everyday.



Sex is about nothing else, but begatting.  

The principles of nature never change...  cultures simply devolve, due to the nature of evil, it induces deviancy.  

Nothing complex about any of this stuff.


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is sexually abusing you drama queen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in fairness... you're an advocate that sexual abnormality is normal.
> 
> So as cute is it is for you to offer an opinion, your opinions are unworthy for consideration by reasonable people.
> 
> Now, perhaps you can use this as a 'educational' opportunity and recognize the downside to standing upon foolish public advocacies.
> 
> I hope it works out for ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think it is reasonable to claim you are being sexually abused in this thread. Whatever you say drama queen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... you couldn't find the courage to learn?
> 
> Whatta shame.
> 
> Oh well... it's not like it's unexpected.  I guess I just allowed myself to hope... despite the chances of it being so slim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you filed a police report yet over the sexual abuse you've suffered in this thread? lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One more post on this unwelcomed subject and you'll be ignored.
> 
> Please understand it doesn't matter to me... you rarely add anything to a discussion, beyond the usual ego stroke that comes with being palpably superior to another person, but that is the natural result of a discussion with any Leftist... so that means that such is second only to typing, on any political message board.
> 
> SOooo... do ya see where we stand, here?
Click to expand...

Yes.  mdk 1, Where_r_my_keys 0.


----------



## Coyote

Carib Gyal said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the natural age for females to begin to have intercourse is when they've become sexually mature?  Capable of reproducing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it?
> 
> Based upon what?  The natural age for reproduction is the age wherein the female is sufficiently emotionally mature to nurture and raise her child; which would, of course, reqire that she be sufficiently mature to have secured a husband, to sustain her through gestation and the years where caring for her child requires nearly constant attention.
> 
> This is all FUNDAMENTAL STUFF... yet it appears that you're absolutely ignorant of ALL OF IT!
> 
> How old are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lord do you need some tutoring here.  Sweetcheeks - reproduction is strictly biology.  As soon as a female reaches puberty (in humans)...estrus in other species - she is ready and able to be impregnated.  Emotional maturity has zip to do with it.  All that is the overlay of culture.
> 
> That is FUNDAMENTAL STUFF dude
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you're saying there's no reason to have an age of consent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Where on earth did you get that idea?  Biology is one thing.  Our ability to control it in beneficial ways is another.  Fact: the natural urge to reproduce has zip to do with emotional maturity.  True brain maturity - that includes the regions of the brain responsible for understanding of consequences and impulse control - doesn't really occur until 25.  Sexual maturity can occur as young as....?12?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does this have to do with having sex, or even wanting to?
Click to expand...


Damned if I know.  Ask Keys, he brought it up


----------



## Coyote

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Sex is not just about begatting anymore and unbegattable seniors are getting married everyday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is about nothing else, but begatting.
> 
> The principles of nature never change...  cultures simply devolve, due to the nature of evil, it induces deviancy.
> 
> Nothing complex about any of this stuff.
Click to expand...



Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it?
> 
> Based upon what?  The natural age for reproduction is the age wherein the female is sufficiently emotionally mature to nurture and raise her child; which would, of course, reqire that she be sufficiently mature to have secured a husband, to sustain her through gestation and the years where caring for her child requires nearly constant attention.
> 
> This is all FUNDAMENTAL STUFF... yet it appears that you're absolutely ignorant of ALL OF IT!
> 
> How old are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lord do you need some tutoring here.  Sweetcheeks - reproduction is strictly biology.  As soon as a female reaches puberty (in humans)...estrus in other species - she is ready and able to be impregnated.  Emotional maturity has zip to do with it.  All that is the overlay of culture.
> 
> That is FUNDAMENTAL STUFF dude
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you're saying there's no reason to have an age of consent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Where on earth did you get that idea?  Biology is one thing.  Our ability to control it in beneficial ways is another.  Fact: the natural urge to reproduce has zip to do with emotional maturity.  True brain maturity - that includes the regions of the brain responsible for understanding of consequences and impulse control - doesn't really occur until 25.  Sexual maturity can occur as young as....?12?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does this have to do with having sex, or even wanting to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damned if I know.  Ask Keys, he brought it up
Click to expand...


Dogs eating their puppies is natural as well, you are not suggesting...

Mark


----------



## bodecea

beagle9 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The repeated question that you refuse to answer is,
> 
> do you only engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OH!  You 'feel' your little query wasn't answered... LOL!  Now isn't that _PRECIOUS?_
> 
> Here's a clue scamp... "Why" one engages in sex, has no bearing on "_WHAT NATURE DESIGNED SEX FOR"_.
> 
> But it_ DOES,_ however, demonstrate the efficacy of nature's design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pubes, hon....nature is remarkably creative.  Sex may have at one time been designed soley for procreation way back when we were primative amphibious slimewads - but it is not just procreative anymore.  Ever read about Bonobos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See that's just it, you undoubtedly believe everything that you read...LOL
> 
> Ever read the Bible, undoubtedly not or you would refer that book to us also, but you wouldn't believe that one so you wouldn't refer that one to us now would you ? I'll be your professor for a day, and I'll refer the Bible to you...Now Happy Reading!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which translation/version?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That will be the King James version of course, but you can pick anyone that you like, just as long as it doesn't deviate to far from the basic truths that are found within the one that we all relate to most.
Click to expand...

Why just the King James version?  Wouldn't it be better to go right to the source and read the source documents in their original languages.?  You know how inaccurate translations can be, let alone what translations of translations of translations can be like.


----------



## Carib Gyal

Coyote said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it?
> 
> Based upon what?  The natural age for reproduction is the age wherein the female is sufficiently emotionally mature to nurture and raise her child; which would, of course, reqire that she be sufficiently mature to have secured a husband, to sustain her through gestation and the years where caring for her child requires nearly constant attention.
> 
> This is all FUNDAMENTAL STUFF... yet it appears that you're absolutely ignorant of ALL OF IT!
> 
> How old are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lord do you need some tutoring here.  Sweetcheeks - reproduction is strictly biology.  As soon as a female reaches puberty (in humans)...estrus in other species - she is ready and able to be impregnated.  Emotional maturity has zip to do with it.  All that is the overlay of culture.
> 
> That is FUNDAMENTAL STUFF dude
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you're saying there's no reason to have an age of consent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Where on earth did you get that idea?  Biology is one thing.  Our ability to control it in beneficial ways is another.  Fact: the natural urge to reproduce has zip to do with emotional maturity.  True brain maturity - that includes the regions of the brain responsible for understanding of consequences and impulse control - doesn't really occur until 25.  Sexual maturity can occur as young as....?12?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does this have to do with having sex, or even wanting to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damned if I know.  Ask Keys, he brought it up
Click to expand...

You think he's saying people have no urge to have sex?


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lord do you need some tutoring here.  Sweetcheeks - reproduction is strictly biology.  As soon as a female reaches puberty (in humans)...estrus in other species - she is ready and able to be impregnated.  Emotional maturity has zip to do with it.  All that is the overlay of culture.
> 
> That is FUNDAMENTAL STUFF dude
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you're saying there's no reason to have an age of consent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Where on earth did you get that idea?  Biology is one thing.  Our ability to control it in beneficial ways is another.  Fact: the natural urge to reproduce has zip to do with emotional maturity.  True brain maturity - that includes the regions of the brain responsible for understanding of consequences and impulse control - doesn't really occur until 25.  Sexual maturity can occur as young as....?12?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does this have to do with having sex, or even wanting to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damned if I know.  Ask Keys, he brought it up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Dogs eating their puppies is natural as well*, you are not suggesting...
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Oh dear....another poster who cannot tell the difference between that which does not harm others......and that which does.   It concerns me how many like you can't see the plain difference.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, I didn't say that...
> 
> But since ya brought it up:
> 
> Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> _Did you want to contest *that*?_
> 
> LOL!  No WAIT!
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.
> 
> A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.
> 
> Now... having been educated on the issue.
> 
> Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is _for... . _
> 
> Don't be shy now... go ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the natural age for females to begin to have intercourse is when they've become sexually mature?  Capable of reproducing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it?
> 
> Based upon what?  The natural age for reproduction is the age wherein the female is sufficiently emotionally mature to nurture and raise her child; which would, of course, reqire that she be sufficiently mature to have secured a husband, to sustain her through gestation and the years where caring for her child requires nearly constant attention.
> 
> This is all FUNDAMENTAL STUFF... yet it appears that you're absolutely ignorant of ALL OF IT!
> 
> How old are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lord do you need some tutoring here.  Sweetcheeks - reproduction is strictly biology.  As soon as a female reaches puberty (in humans)...estrus in other species - she is ready and able to be impregnated.  Emotional maturity has zip to do with it.  All that is the overlay of culture.
> 
> That is FUNDAMENTAL STUFF dude
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you're saying there's no reason to have an age of consent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Where on earth did you get that idea?  Biology is one thing.  Our ability to control it in beneficial ways is another.  Fact: the natural urge to reproduce has zip to do with emotional maturity.  True brain maturity - that includes the regions of the brain responsible for understanding of consequences and impulse control - doesn't really occur until 25.  Sexual maturity can occur as young as....?12?.
Click to expand...


You must be defining sexual maturity different than I am because 12 is too young to consent to sex....and that is the LEGAL definition of sexual maturity.  In fact, a child's lack of experience, inability to process what's happening to them in an adult manner, and to anticipate the full consequences of what they're doing is precisely why, according to law, they cannot consent to sex.  And this isn't just an "overlay of the culture" it's a fact.  Children must be protected from adult sexual predators who look at them as soft, easy targets because of their impressionability, their trust, and their inability to see through their bullshit like adults can.


----------



## Coyote

Carib Gyal said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lord do you need some tutoring here.  Sweetcheeks - reproduction is strictly biology.  As soon as a female reaches puberty (in humans)...estrus in other species - she is ready and able to be impregnated.  Emotional maturity has zip to do with it.  All that is the overlay of culture.
> 
> That is FUNDAMENTAL STUFF dude
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you're saying there's no reason to have an age of consent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Where on earth did you get that idea?  Biology is one thing.  Our ability to control it in beneficial ways is another.  Fact: the natural urge to reproduce has zip to do with emotional maturity.  True brain maturity - that includes the regions of the brain responsible for understanding of consequences and impulse control - doesn't really occur until 25.  Sexual maturity can occur as young as....?12?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does this have to do with having sex, or even wanting to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damned if I know.  Ask Keys, he brought it up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think he's saying people have no urge to have sex?
Click to expand...




This was what I was responding to:  



> The natural age for reproduction is the age wherein the female is sufficiently emotionally mature to nurture and raise her child


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is not just about begatting anymore and unbegattable seniors are getting married everyday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is about nothing else, but begatting.
> 
> The principles of nature never change...  cultures simply devolve, due to the nature of evil, it induces deviancy.
> 
> Nothing complex about any of this stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?
Click to expand...




bodecea said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you're saying there's no reason to have an age of consent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Where on earth did you get that idea?  Biology is one thing.  Our ability to control it in beneficial ways is another.  Fact: the natural urge to reproduce has zip to do with emotional maturity.  True brain maturity - that includes the regions of the brain responsible for understanding of consequences and impulse control - doesn't really occur until 25.  Sexual maturity can occur as young as....?12?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does this have to do with having sex, or even wanting to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damned if I know.  Ask Keys, he brought it up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Dogs eating their puppies is natural as well*, you are not suggesting...
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh dear....another poster who cannot tell the difference between that which does not harm others......and that which does.   It concerns me how many like you can't see the plain difference.
Click to expand...



Since that was not the question, you have given the wrong answer.

Mark


----------



## bodecea

Coyote said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is not just about begatting anymore and unbegattable seniors are getting married everyday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is about nothing else, but begatting.
> 
> The principles of nature never change...  cultures simply devolve, due to the nature of evil, it induces deviancy.
> 
> Nothing complex about any of this stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?
Click to expand...

How sad it is for him, that sex is ONLY about procreation.


----------



## Coyote

80zephyr said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lord do you need some tutoring here.  Sweetcheeks - reproduction is strictly biology.  As soon as a female reaches puberty (in humans)...estrus in other species - she is ready and able to be impregnated.  Emotional maturity has zip to do with it.  All that is the overlay of culture.
> 
> That is FUNDAMENTAL STUFF dude
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you're saying there's no reason to have an age of consent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Where on earth did you get that idea?  Biology is one thing.  Our ability to control it in beneficial ways is another.  Fact: the natural urge to reproduce has zip to do with emotional maturity.  True brain maturity - that includes the regions of the brain responsible for understanding of consequences and impulse control - doesn't really occur until 25.  Sexual maturity can occur as young as....?12?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does this have to do with having sex, or even wanting to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damned if I know.  Ask Keys, he brought it up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dogs eating their puppies is natural as well, you are not suggesting...
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...



You don't seem to understand the difference between what is natural and what we, as humans with free will, choose to culturally accept.

Nature has no mushy emotional feelings.  What is is.  And it's natural.  Like it or not.

It's us as humans that bring in right or wrong, morality.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it?
> 
> Based upon what?  The natural age for reproduction is the age wherein the female is sufficiently emotionally mature to nurture and raise her child; which would, of course, reqire that she be sufficiently mature to have secured a husband, to sustain her through gestation and the years where caring for her child requires nearly constant attention.
> 
> This is all FUNDAMENTAL STUFF... yet it appears that you're absolutely ignorant of ALL OF IT!
> 
> How old are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lord do you need some tutoring here.  Sweetcheeks - reproduction is strictly biology.  As soon as a female reaches puberty (in humans)...estrus in other species - she is ready and able to be impregnated.  Emotional maturity has zip to do with it.  All that is the overlay of culture.
> 
> That is FUNDAMENTAL STUFF dude
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you're saying there's no reason to have an age of consent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Where on earth did you get that idea?  Biology is one thing.  Our ability to control it in beneficial ways is another.  Fact: the natural urge to reproduce has zip to do with emotional maturity.  True brain maturity - that includes the regions of the brain responsible for understanding of consequences and impulse control - doesn't really occur until 25.  Sexual maturity can occur as young as....?12?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does this have to do with having sex, or even wanting to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damned if I know.  Ask Keys, he brought it up
Click to expand...

Birth defects happen throughout the animal kingdom, and the species survives not because of it, but in spite of it.  And as I said earlier, WE ARE NOT ANIMALS to be taking our cues from animal behavior.  Part of your problem is you don't realize you've been created in the image of God and made a little lower than the angels, that you are the crown of creation and not just another animal.  That's the reason we have moral standards that animals don't have, that we adopt children that animals would leave out in the cold, that we protect the weak that animals would allow to die off, and that we conduct ourselves according to a higher plane of being than animals.


----------



## Coyote

bodecea said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is not just about begatting anymore and unbegattable seniors are getting married everyday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is about nothing else, but begatting.
> 
> The principles of nature never change...  cultures simply devolve, due to the nature of evil, it induces deviancy.
> 
> Nothing complex about any of this stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How sad it is for him, that sex is ONLY about procreation.
Click to expand...


It's an understandable confusion when your life is ruled by a book that emphasizes begatting.


----------



## Carib Gyal

Coyote said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you're saying there's no reason to have an age of consent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Where on earth did you get that idea?  Biology is one thing.  Our ability to control it in beneficial ways is another.  Fact: the natural urge to reproduce has zip to do with emotional maturity.  True brain maturity - that includes the regions of the brain responsible for understanding of consequences and impulse control - doesn't really occur until 25.  Sexual maturity can occur as young as....?12?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does this have to do with having sex, or even wanting to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damned if I know.  Ask Keys, he brought it up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think he's saying people have no urge to have sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was what I was responding to:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The natural age for reproduction is the age wherein the female is sufficiently emotionally mature to nurture and raise her child
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Yeah, the natural age. A grown woman may never be sufficiently emotionally mature enough to raise a child. Not that I see that being reason to kill it.


----------



## mdk

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is sexually abusing you drama queen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in fairness... you're an advocate that sexual abnormality is normal.
> 
> So as cute is it is for you to offer an opinion, your opinions are unworthy for consideration by reasonable people.
> 
> Now, perhaps you can use this as a 'educational' opportunity and recognize the downside to standing upon foolish public advocacies.
> 
> I hope it works out for ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think it is reasonable to claim you are being sexually abused in this thread. Whatever you say drama queen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... you couldn't find the courage to learn?
> 
> Whatta shame.
> 
> Oh well... it's not like it's unexpected.  I guess I just allowed myself to hope... despite the chances of it being so slim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you filed a police report yet over the sexual abuse you've suffered in this thread? lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One more post on this unwelcomed subject and you'll be ignored.
> 
> Please understand it doesn't matter to me... you rarely add anything to a discussion, beyond the usual ego stroke that comes with being palpably superior to another person, but that is the natural result of a discussion with any Leftist... so that means that such is second only to typing, on any political message board.
> 
> SOooo... do ya see where we stand, here?
Click to expand...


I can see why you would want us to forget your absurd allegations of being sexually abused in this thread. You're overly dramatic and insufferably arrogant. I can assure you I won't lose any sleep if you put me on ignore. Bye Felicia!


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is not just about begatting anymore and unbegattable seniors are getting married everyday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is about nothing else, but begatting.
> 
> The principles of nature never change...  cultures simply devolve, due to the nature of evil, it induces deviancy.
> 
> Nothing complex about any of this stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How sad it is for him, that sex is ONLY about procreation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an understandable confusion when your life is ruled by a book that emphasizes begatting.
Click to expand...


Didn't make it past the first half of Genesis, huh?  Short attention span, a symptom of Leftist dumbing down and lowering of standards

I read the Bible from cover to cover before I was 10 just to show it can be done even by a child.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

> Fact: the natural urge to reproduce has zip to do with emotional maturity.



True.  Emotional maturity comes only through the means to reason soundly.  

Therein rests the necessity for religion, which relates responsibility to children, in terms which they can understand; encouraging them to abstain from sex until they're married... thus until they're minds are more capable of the means to reason objectively.

Religion therefore provides the objectivity essential to a viable human existence... and it is objectivity which separates humanity from the sub-species.

Thus demonstrating that Ideological Leftists can never be sufficient to be allowed to engage in sexual behavior.  As they lack the means to reason soundly.

And it is no more complex than that.


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you're saying there's no reason to have an age of consent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Where on earth did you get that idea?  Biology is one thing.  Our ability to control it in beneficial ways is another.  Fact: the natural urge to reproduce has zip to do with emotional maturity.  True brain maturity - that includes the regions of the brain responsible for understanding of consequences and impulse control - doesn't really occur until 25.  Sexual maturity can occur as young as....?12?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does this have to do with having sex, or even wanting to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damned if I know.  Ask Keys, he brought it up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dogs eating their puppies is natural as well, you are not suggesting...
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem to understand the difference between what is natural and what we, as humans with free will, choose to culturally accept.
> 
> Nature has no mushy emotional feelings.  What is is.  And it's natural.  Like it or not.
> 
> It's us as humans that bring in right or wrong, morality.
Click to expand...


I don't understand? It wasn't me using animal actions to justify human actions. I was the one refuting it.

Mark


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

mdk said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in fairness... you're an advocate that sexual abnormality is normal.
> 
> So as cute is it is for you to offer an opinion, your opinions are unworthy for consideration by reasonable people.
> 
> Now, perhaps you can use this as a 'educational' opportunity and recognize the downside to standing upon foolish public advocacies.
> 
> I hope it works out for ya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think it is reasonable to claim you are being sexually abused in this thread. Whatever you say drama queen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... you couldn't find the courage to learn?
> 
> Whatta shame.
> 
> Oh well... it's not like it's unexpected.  I guess I just allowed myself to hope... despite the chances of it being so slim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you filed a police report yet over the sexual abuse you've suffered in this thread? lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One more post on this unwelcomed subject and you'll be ignored.
> 
> Please understand it doesn't matter to me... you rarely add anything to a discussion, beyond the usual ego stroke that comes with being palpably superior to another person, but that is the natural result of a discussion with any Leftist... so that means that such is second only to typing, on any political message board.
> 
> SOooo... do ya see where we stand, here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see why you would want us to forget your absurd allegations of being sexually abused in this thread. You're overly dramatic and insufferably arrogant. I can assure you I won't lose any sleep if you put me on ignore. Bye Felicia!
Click to expand...


Buh Bye!


----------



## AVG-JOE

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Tell that to all the atheists who think gay marriage is a bad idea, including Charles Darwin...well he's dead, but you get my point.  There's very practical reasons for promoting the values of marriage and family that don't necessarily involve religion.



Screw religion - I seek policy that considers *reality.*


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lord do you need some tutoring here.  Sweetcheeks - reproduction is strictly biology.  As soon as a female reaches puberty (in humans)...estrus in other species - she is ready and able to be impregnated.  Emotional maturity has zip to do with it.  All that is the overlay of culture.
> 
> That is FUNDAMENTAL STUFF dude
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you're saying there's no reason to have an age of consent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Where on earth did you get that idea?  Biology is one thing.  Our ability to control it in beneficial ways is another.  Fact: the natural urge to reproduce has zip to do with emotional maturity.  True brain maturity - that includes the regions of the brain responsible for understanding of consequences and impulse control - doesn't really occur until 25.  Sexual maturity can occur as young as....?12?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does this have to do with having sex, or even wanting to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damned if I know.  Ask Keys, he brought it up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Birth defects happen throughout the animal kingdom, and the species survives not because of it, but in spite of it.  And as I said earlier, WE ARE NOT ANIMALS to be taking our cues from animal behavior.  Part of your problem is you don't realize you've been created in the image of God and made a little lower than the angels, that you are the crown of creation and not just another animal.  That's the reason we have moral standards that animals don't have, that we adopt children that animals would leave out in the cold, that we protect the weak that animals would allow to die off, and that we conduct ourselves according to a higher plane of being than animals.
Click to expand...


And that is the reason why, when we see injustice done, rights being denied to people for no other reason then that who they are "offends" us  - we act to for equality not discrimmination.


----------



## mdk

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think it is reasonable to claim you are being sexually abused in this thread. Whatever you say drama queen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... you couldn't find the courage to learn?
> 
> Whatta shame.
> 
> Oh well... it's not like it's unexpected.  I guess I just allowed myself to hope... despite the chances of it being so slim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you filed a police report yet over the sexual abuse you've suffered in this thread? lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One more post on this unwelcomed subject and you'll be ignored.
> 
> Please understand it doesn't matter to me... you rarely add anything to a discussion, beyond the usual ego stroke that comes with being palpably superior to another person, but that is the natural result of a discussion with any Leftist... so that means that such is second only to typing, on any political message board.
> 
> SOooo... do ya see where we stand, here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see why you would want us to forget your absurd allegations of being sexually abused in this thread. You're overly dramatic and insufferably arrogant. I can assure you I won't lose any sleep if you put me on ignore. Bye Felicia!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Buh Bye!
Click to expand...


Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted. lol


----------



## Coyote

80zephyr said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Where on earth did you get that idea?  Biology is one thing.  Our ability to control it in beneficial ways is another.  Fact: the natural urge to reproduce has zip to do with emotional maturity.  True brain maturity - that includes the regions of the brain responsible for understanding of consequences and impulse control - doesn't really occur until 25.  Sexual maturity can occur as young as....?12?.
> 
> 
> 
> What does this have to do with having sex, or even wanting to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damned if I know.  Ask Keys, he brought it up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dogs eating their puppies is natural as well, you are not suggesting...
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem to understand the difference between what is natural and what we, as humans with free will, choose to culturally accept.
> 
> Nature has no mushy emotional feelings.  What is is.  And it's natural.  Like it or not.
> 
> It's us as humans that bring in right or wrong, morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't understand? It wasn't me using animal actions to justify human actions. I was the one refuting it.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


I'm kind of confused too 

I wasn't using animal actions to justify anything.


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does this have to do with having sex, or even wanting to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damned if I know.  Ask Keys, he brought it up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dogs eating their puppies is natural as well, you are not suggesting...
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem to understand the difference between what is natural and what we, as humans with free will, choose to culturally accept.
> 
> Nature has no mushy emotional feelings.  What is is.  And it's natural.  Like it or not.
> 
> It's us as humans that bring in right or wrong, morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't understand? It wasn't me using animal actions to justify human actions. I was the one refuting it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm kind of confused too
> 
> I wasn't using animal actions to justify anything.
Click to expand...

Well, somebody was.

Lol.


Mark


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is not just about begatting anymore and unbegattable seniors are getting married everyday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is about nothing else, but begatting.
> 
> The principles of nature never change...  cultures simply devolve, due to the nature of evil, it induces deviancy.
> 
> Nothing complex about any of this stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How sad it is for him, that sex is ONLY about procreation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an understandable confusion when your life is ruled by a book that emphasizes begatting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't make it past the first half of Genesis, huh?  Short attention span, a symptom of Leftist dumbing down and lowering of standards
> 
> I read the Bible from cover to cover before I was 10 just to show it can be done even by a child.
Click to expand...


My Bible reading was done in childhood.  Lots of begatting.  Lots of smiting.  Lots of irrational anger and killing of non believers....of course that was mostly the OT with a pissy diety.  I always had a thumbs up for Jesus though: love your neighbor as you would yourself and love God with all your heart.


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is not just about begatting anymore and unbegattable seniors are getting married everyday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is about nothing else, but begatting.
> 
> The principles of nature never change...  cultures simply devolve, due to the nature of evil, it induces deviancy.
> 
> Nothing complex about any of this stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Where on earth did you get that idea?  Biology is one thing.  Our ability to control it in beneficial ways is another.  Fact: the natural urge to reproduce has zip to do with emotional maturity.  True brain maturity - that includes the regions of the brain responsible for understanding of consequences and impulse control - doesn't really occur until 25.  Sexual maturity can occur as young as....?12?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does this have to do with having sex, or even wanting to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damned if I know.  Ask Keys, he brought it up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Dogs eating their puppies is natural as well*, you are not suggesting...
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh dear....another poster who cannot tell the difference between that which does not harm others......and that which does.   It concerns me how many like you can't see the plain difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since that was not the question, you have given the wrong answer.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

You use an example of something found in nature that harms others as if it makes sense as a comparison.  That shows a fundamental lack, on your part, of discerning that which does no harm and that which does harm others.  That is disturbing....even a little sociopathic.


----------



## Coyote

80zephyr said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damned if I know.  Ask Keys, he brought it up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogs eating their puppies is natural as well, you are not suggesting...
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem to understand the difference between what is natural and what we, as humans with free will, choose to culturally accept.
> 
> Nature has no mushy emotional feelings.  What is is.  And it's natural.  Like it or not.
> 
> It's us as humans that bring in right or wrong, morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't understand? It wasn't me using animal actions to justify human actions. I was the one refuting it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm kind of confused too
> 
> I wasn't using animal actions to justify anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, somebody was.
> 
> Lol.
> 
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


To justify something?  No.  Only to correct a misconception that the urge to procreate or sexual maturity has any relationship with emotional maturity.  If it did, we wouldn't be seeing pregnant 12 year olds.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

AVG-JOE said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to all the atheists who think gay marriage is a bad idea, including Charles Darwin...well he's dead, but you get my point.  There's very practical reasons for promoting the values of marriage and family that don't necessarily involve religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Screw religion - I seek policy that considers *reality.*
Click to expand...


Screw the objective laws of nature?

ROFLMNAO!  

Well... I can certainly understand the sentiment, as I too was a child once.  But sadly, for you the purveyors of such foolishness.  THAT is a river that only flows in one direction and here's the REALLY BAD NEWS... you're not the river... you're the one that is UP 'it' and yes... _you have no paddles._


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lord do you need some tutoring here.  Sweetcheeks - reproduction is strictly biology.  As soon as a female reaches puberty (in humans)...estrus in other species - she is ready and able to be impregnated.  Emotional maturity has zip to do with it.  All that is the overlay of culture.
> 
> That is FUNDAMENTAL STUFF dude
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you're saying there's no reason to have an age of consent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Where on earth did you get that idea?  Biology is one thing.  Our ability to control it in beneficial ways is another.  Fact: the natural urge to reproduce has zip to do with emotional maturity.  True brain maturity - that includes the regions of the brain responsible for understanding of consequences and impulse control - doesn't really occur until 25.  Sexual maturity can occur as young as....?12?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does this have to do with having sex, or even wanting to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damned if I know.  Ask Keys, he brought it up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Birth defects happen throughout the animal kingdom, and the species survives not because of it, but in spite of it.  And as I said earlier, WE ARE NOT ANIMALS to be taking our cues from animal behavior.  Part of your problem is you don't realize you've been *created in the image of God* and made a little lower than the angels, that you are the crown of creation and not just another animal.  That's the reason we have moral standards that animals don't have, that we adopt children that animals would leave out in the cold, that we protect the weak that animals would allow to die off, and that we conduct ourselves according to a higher plane of being than animals.
Click to expand...

God looks like me?  Or maybe more like Charlize Theron?  That would be hot.


----------



## Coyote

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to all the atheists who think gay marriage is a bad idea, including Charles Darwin...well he's dead, but you get my point.  There's very practical reasons for promoting the values of marriage and family that don't necessarily involve religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Screw religion - I seek policy that considers *reality.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Screw the objective laws of nature?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Well... I can certainly understand the sentiment, as I too was a child once.  But sadly, for you the purveyors of such foolishness.  THAT is a river that only flows in one direction and here's the REALLY BAD NEWS... you're not the river... you're the one that is UP 'it' and yes... _you have no paddles._
Click to expand...


Good thing Joe's the one standing on the bridge over that river watching all you bungee jumpers then


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Sex is not just about begatting anymore and unbegattable seniors are getting married everyday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is about nothing else, but begatting.
> 
> The principles of nature never change...  cultures simply devolve, due to the nature of evil, it induces deviancy.
> 
> Nothing complex about any of this stuff.
Click to expand...

Nothing relevant about any of this stuff.

Same-sex couples marrying is neither 'evil' nor 'deviancy.'


----------



## Carib Gyal

bodecea said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is not just about begatting anymore and unbegattable seniors are getting married everyday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is about nothing else, but begatting.
> 
> The principles of nature never change...  cultures simply devolve, due to the nature of evil, it induces deviancy.
> 
> Nothing complex about any of this stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does this have to do with having sex, or even wanting to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damned if I know.  Ask Keys, he brought it up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Dogs eating their puppies is natural as well*, you are not suggesting...
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh dear....another poster who cannot tell the difference between that which does not harm others......and that which does.   It concerns me how many like you can't see the plain difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since that was not the question, you have given the wrong answer.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You use an example of something found in nature that harms others as if it makes sense as a comparison.  That shows a fundamental lack, on your part, of discerning that which does no harm and that which does harm others.  That is disturbing....even a little sociopathic.
Click to expand...

When people talk about redefining marriage, that's exactly what they mean. They want to define it as something other than what it was. So you can define marriage as between gays, or multiple partners, or any other things you like. It has been redefined to mean something else.


----------



## bodecea

Carib Gyal said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Where on earth did you get that idea?  Biology is one thing.  Our ability to control it in beneficial ways is another.  Fact: the natural urge to reproduce has zip to do with emotional maturity.  True brain maturity - that includes the regions of the brain responsible for understanding of consequences and impulse control - doesn't really occur until 25.  Sexual maturity can occur as young as....?12?.
> 
> 
> 
> What does this have to do with having sex, or even wanting to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damned if I know.  Ask Keys, he brought it up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think he's saying people have no urge to have sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was what I was responding to:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The natural age for reproduction is the age wherein the female is sufficiently emotionally mature to nurture and raise her child
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, the natural age. A grown woman may never be sufficiently emotionally mature enough to raise a child. Not that I see that being reason to kill it.
Click to expand...


Then that is certainly her choice not to do so.  Not yours tho.


----------



## 80zephyr

bodecea said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is not just about begatting anymore and unbegattable seniors are getting married everyday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is about nothing else, but begatting.
> 
> The principles of nature never change...  cultures simply devolve, due to the nature of evil, it induces deviancy.
> 
> Nothing complex about any of this stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does this have to do with having sex, or even wanting to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damned if I know.  Ask Keys, he brought it up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Dogs eating their puppies is natural as well*, you are not suggesting...
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh dear....another poster who cannot tell the difference between that which does not harm others......and that which does.   It concerns me how many like you can't see the plain difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since that was not the question, you have given the wrong answer.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You use an example of something found in nature that harms others as if it makes sense as a comparison.  That shows a fundamental lack, on your part, of discerning that which does no harm and that which does harm others.  That is disturbing....even a little sociopathic.
Click to expand...


When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.

Mark


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is not just about begatting anymore and unbegattable seniors are getting married everyday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is about nothing else, but begatting.
> 
> The principles of nature never change...  cultures simply devolve, due to the nature of evil, it induces deviancy.
> 
> Nothing complex about any of this stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How sad it is for him, that sex is ONLY about procreation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an understandable confusion when your life is ruled by a book that emphasizes begatting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't make it past the first half of Genesis, huh?  Short attention span, a symptom of Leftist dumbing down and lowering of standards
> 
> I read the Bible from cover to cover before I was 10 just to show it can be done even by a child.
Click to expand...

Did you get a medal?


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think it is reasonable to claim you are being sexually abused in this thread. Whatever you say drama queen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... you couldn't find the courage to learn?
> 
> Whatta shame.
> 
> Oh well... it's not like it's unexpected.  I guess I just allowed myself to hope... despite the chances of it being so slim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you filed a police report yet over the sexual abuse you've suffered in this thread? lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One more post on this unwelcomed subject and you'll be ignored.
> 
> Please understand it doesn't matter to me... you rarely add anything to a discussion, beyond the usual ego stroke that comes with being palpably superior to another person, but that is the natural result of a discussion with any Leftist... so that means that such is second only to typing, on any political message board.
> 
> SOooo... do ya see where we stand, here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see why you would want us to forget your absurd allegations of being sexually abused in this thread. You're overly dramatic and insufferably arrogant. I can assure you I won't lose any sleep if you put me on ignore. Bye Felicia!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Buh Bye!
Click to expand...

Those who cannot deal with ideas adverse to their own show cowardice by running away with their ears plugged and eyes covered.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is not just about begatting anymore and unbegattable seniors are getting married everyday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is about nothing else, but begatting.
> 
> The principles of nature never change...  cultures simply devolve, due to the nature of evil, it induces deviancy.
> 
> Nothing complex about any of this stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing relevant about any of this stuff.
> 
> Same-sex couples marrying is neither 'evil' nor 'deviancy.'
Click to expand...



Oh... that is SO CUTE!

Look how it WANTS to reason... despite such being so pitifully out of reach.

But!  It's is the responsibility of those of us who are human, to help the sub-standard variations.

Scamp, the issue here is the sexual deviancy of homosexuality and the perversion of human reasoning which justifies that abnormality...  Science has demonstrated that the sexual standard is established by the physiological human design, wherein two complimenting genders are designed to join together... which is analogically followed by marriage.

The 'joining' part of all of that stuff... is what is called 'sex'... which nature designed as a means to propagate the species; meaning that THAT is how mommies and Daddie show their love for one another and when they love each other enough, YOU were conceived in Mommy's tummy, where you lived for 9 months, until you grew big enough to survive, er uh... to live outside of mommy's tummy.

And then you were born and Mommy and Daddy did there best to love you, despite that you chronically disappointed them. 

And there's more bad news... ya know how they always told you that you were _special?  _It didn't mean what ya 'felt' it did.  But they're your 'rents... and nature requires that they love you, _anyway._


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is not just about begatting anymore and unbegattable seniors are getting married everyday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is about nothing else, but begatting.
> 
> The principles of nature never change...  cultures simply devolve, due to the nature of evil, it induces deviancy.
> 
> Nothing complex about any of this stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing relevant about any of this stuff.
> 
> Same-sex couples marrying is neither 'evil' nor 'deviancy.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh... that is SO CUTE!
> 
> Look how* it *WANTS to reason... despite such being so pitifully out of reach.
Click to expand...

Interesting schtick you've got...dehumanizing and running away.


----------



## Carib Gyal

bodecea said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does this have to do with having sex, or even wanting to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damned if I know.  Ask Keys, he brought it up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think he's saying people have no urge to have sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was what I was responding to:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The natural age for reproduction is the age wherein the female is sufficiently emotionally mature to nurture and raise her child
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, the natural age. A grown woman may never be sufficiently emotionally mature enough to raise a child. Not that I see that being reason to kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then that is certainly her choice not to do so.  Not yours tho.
Click to expand...

Nor the father's, nor the baby's. Not exactly treating people with the equality we advocate, is it.


----------



## Coyote

80zephyr said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is not just about begatting anymore and unbegattable seniors are getting married everyday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is about nothing else, but begatting.
> 
> The principles of nature never change...  cultures simply devolve, due to the nature of evil, it induces deviancy.
> 
> Nothing complex about any of this stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damned if I know.  Ask Keys, he brought it up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Dogs eating their puppies is natural as well*, you are not suggesting...
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh dear....another poster who cannot tell the difference between that which does not harm others......and that which does.   It concerns me how many like you can't see the plain difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since that was not the question, you have given the wrong answer.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You use an example of something found in nature that harms others as if it makes sense as a comparison.  That shows a fundamental lack, on your part, of discerning that which does no harm and that which does harm others.  That is disturbing....even a little sociopathic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is about nothing else, but begatting.
> 
> The principles of nature never change...  cultures simply devolve, due to the nature of evil, it induces deviancy.
> 
> Nothing complex about any of this stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Dogs eating their puppies is natural as well*, you are not suggesting...
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh dear....another poster who cannot tell the difference between that which does not harm others......and that which does.   It concerns me how many like you can't see the plain difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since that was not the question, you have given the wrong answer.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You use an example of something found in nature that harms others as if it makes sense as a comparison.  That shows a fundamental lack, on your part, of discerning that which does no harm and that which does harm others.  That is disturbing....even a little sociopathic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.
Click to expand...


Not exactly. The New Testament makes the Old Testament obsolete.

Mark


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

80zephyr said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear....another poster who cannot tell the difference between that which does not harm others......and that which does.   It concerns me how many like you can't see the plain difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since that was not the question, you have given the wrong answer.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You use an example of something found in nature that harms others as if it makes sense as a comparison.  That shows a fundamental lack, on your part, of discerning that which does no harm and that which does harm others.  That is disturbing....even a little sociopathic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not exactly. The New Testament makes the Old Testament obsolete.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


There's no reason to not use the entire bible, there's nothing in there which is not perfectly acceptable.

Slavery happens when God wants it to happen.

The Ideological Left is about to have itself enslaved.  In the post apocalypse, the few Leftist who survive will be enslaved... which is fitting considering their reasoning having resulted in the enslavement of tens of millions of people.

Stoning happens when God wants it to... 

Killing of entire nations is perfectly acceptable where such is in defense of God's principles.  The United States took part in precisely that, just 70 years ago.

The Left tries to push us away from the scriptures, by suggesting that much of what 'God Did" is not acceptable...   they're idiots and as is so often the case, they're simply stripping the story from its context.

Do that to just about anything and it loses its meaning and is easily twisted by deceit.


----------



## Coyote

80zephyr said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear....another poster who cannot tell the difference between that which does not harm others......and that which does.   It concerns me how many like you can't see the plain difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since that was not the question, you have given the wrong answer.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You use an example of something found in nature that harms others as if it makes sense as a comparison.  That shows a fundamental lack, on your part, of discerning that which does no harm and that which does harm others.  That is disturbing....even a little sociopathic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not exactly. The New Testament makes the Old Testament obsolete.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Tell that to the Dominionists and those who insist we live by the Ten Commandments.  The OT is not obsolete, the NT just gives them permission to cherry pick their abominations.


----------



## Carib Gyal

Coyote said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since that was not the question, you have given the wrong answer.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> You use an example of something found in nature that harms others as if it makes sense as a comparison.  That shows a fundamental lack, on your part, of discerning that which does no harm and that which does harm others.  That is disturbing....even a little sociopathic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not exactly. The New Testament makes the Old Testament obsolete.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the Dominionists and those who insist we live by the Ten Commandments.  The OT is not obsolete, the NT just gives them permission to cherry pick their abominations.
Click to expand...

The Old Testament is certainly NOT obsolete. The Jews believe in it exclusively.


----------



## Howey

Conservative65 said:


> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only combat veterans kill themselves more often than gay men. And gay men kill themselves 5 times as often as the general populous. Somebody isn't happy, wouldn't you say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd kill myself if I chose to be gay.
Click to expand...

Please.

Do.


----------



## Skylar

Coyote said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since that was not the question, you have given the wrong answer.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> You use an example of something found in nature that harms others as if it makes sense as a comparison.  That shows a fundamental lack, on your part, of discerning that which does no harm and that which does harm others.  That is disturbing....even a little sociopathic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not exactly. The New Testament makes the Old Testament obsolete.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the Dominionists and those who insist we live by the Ten Commandments.  The OT is not obsolete, the NT just gives them permission to cherry pick their abominations.
Click to expand...


It is fascinating, isn't it? Adultery and sodomy have the exact same penalty in the OT. But you don't often hear for the execution of cheating husbands.

Why? Because it would directly effect too many of those condemning the gays.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

mdk said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in fairness... you're an advocate that sexual abnormality is normal.
> 
> So as cute is it is for you to offer an opinion, your opinions are unworthy for consideration by reasonable people.
> 
> Now, perhaps you can use this as a 'educational' opportunity and recognize the downside to standing upon foolish public advocacies.
> 
> I hope it works out for ya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think it is reasonable to claim you are being sexually abused in this thread. Whatever you say drama queen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... you couldn't find the courage to learn?
> 
> Whatta shame.
> 
> Oh well... it's not like it's unexpected.  I guess I just allowed myself to hope... despite the chances of it being so slim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you filed a police report yet over the sexual abuse you've suffered in this thread? lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One more post on this unwelcomed subject and you'll be ignored.
> 
> Please understand it doesn't matter to me... you rarely add anything to a discussion, beyond the usual ego stroke that comes with being palpably superior to another person, but that is the natural result of a discussion with any Leftist... so that means that such is second only to typing, on any political message board.
> 
> SOooo... do ya see where we stand, here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see why you would want us to forget your absurd allegations of being sexually abused in this thread. You're overly dramatic and insufferably arrogant. I can assure you I won't lose any sleep if you put me on ignore. Bye Felicia!
Click to expand...


Permanent ignore.


----------



## Coyote

Skylar said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> You use an example of something found in nature that harms others as if it makes sense as a comparison.  That shows a fundamental lack, on your part, of discerning that which does no harm and that which does harm others.  That is disturbing....even a little sociopathic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not exactly. The New Testament makes the Old Testament obsolete.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the Dominionists and those who insist we live by the Ten Commandments.  The OT is not obsolete, the NT just gives them permission to cherry pick their abominations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is fascinating, isn't it? Adultery and sodomy have the exact same penalty in the OT. But you don't often hear for the execution of cheating husbands.
> 
> Why? Because it would directly effect too many of those condemning the gays.
Click to expand...


Isn't that the truth. 

And what about the abomination of eating shellfish?  Talk about picking and choosing...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

80zephyr said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear....another poster who cannot tell the difference between that which does not harm others......and that which does.   It concerns me how many like you can't see the plain difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since that was not the question, you have given the wrong answer.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You use an example of something found in nature that harms others as if it makes sense as a comparison.  That shows a fundamental lack, on your part, of discerning that which does no harm and that which does harm others.  That is disturbing....even a little sociopathic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not exactly. The New Testament makes the Old Testament obsolete.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Not true... Christ said he did not come to change the law.  He came to spare us from the law, to help us to recognize that the law is objective perfection that we can never meet.  And to tell us of God's grace, that through him, we can be spared from the law... by admitting that we are flawed, unworthy and asking to be forgiven, accepting Christ as the light and the way, as a lord and he that has come to save us, from our own evil nature.


----------



## Howey

NYcarbineer said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Children as the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.
> 
> 
> 
> That is incorrect.  Sex is for pleasure, and bonding, and reproduction hitches a ride now and then.  It's why you can jerk off, and why nearly all sex that is had wasn't meant to produce children.  My favorite sex could never produce a child but the wife does usually brush her teeth afterwards while I pour her a drink as a reward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the sex drive in humans is there to "have fun", and not for procreation?
> 
> Again. Wow.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why would the two be mutually exclusive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like "keys" stated, pleasure was built into sex to "force" humans to engage in it for procreation. In evolutionary terms, there is no other reason.
> 
> Whether you can have sex for fun is not he question. The question was whether fun was the driver. Fun is not the driver. Procreation is the driver. Fun is the impetus.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know that.  Sex is clearly a act for humans that is both for reproduction and for pleasure without reproduction.
Click to expand...


True. Too many people confuse having sex with procreation. The two are mutually exclusive.


----------



## beagle9

bodecea said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> OH!  You 'feel' your little query wasn't answered... LOL!  Now isn't that _PRECIOUS?_
> 
> Here's a clue scamp... "Why" one engages in sex, has no bearing on "_WHAT NATURE DESIGNED SEX FOR"_.
> 
> But it_ DOES,_ however, demonstrate the efficacy of nature's design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pubes, hon....nature is remarkably creative.  Sex may have at one time been designed soley for procreation way back when we were primative amphibious slimewads - but it is not just procreative anymore.  Ever read about Bonobos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See that's just it, you undoubtedly believe everything that you read...LOL
> 
> Ever read the Bible, undoubtedly not or you would refer that book to us also, but you wouldn't believe that one so you wouldn't refer that one to us now would you ? I'll be your professor for a day, and I'll refer the Bible to you...Now Happy Reading!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which translation/version?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That will be the King James version of course, but you can pick anyone that you like, just as long as it doesn't deviate to far from the basic truths that are found within the one that we all relate to most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why just the King James version?  Wouldn't it be better to go right to the source and read the source documents in their original languages.?  You know how inaccurate translations can be, let alone what translations of translations of translations can be like.
Click to expand...

I thought I was the professor for a day, but now you've taken over the class ? It appears that this is the same results in America right now, where as some radical groups also want to take over the class, but they need an idiotic government to do so, and it seems that they have finally gotten themselves one..LOL


----------



## mdk

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think it is reasonable to claim you are being sexually abused in this thread. Whatever you say drama queen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... you couldn't find the courage to learn?
> 
> Whatta shame.
> 
> Oh well... it's not like it's unexpected.  I guess I just allowed myself to hope... despite the chances of it being so slim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you filed a police report yet over the sexual abuse you've suffered in this thread? lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One more post on this unwelcomed subject and you'll be ignored.
> 
> Please understand it doesn't matter to me... you rarely add anything to a discussion, beyond the usual ego stroke that comes with being palpably superior to another person, but that is the natural result of a discussion with any Leftist... so that means that such is second only to typing, on any political message board.
> 
> SOooo... do ya see where we stand, here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see why you would want us to forget your absurd allegations of being sexually abused in this thread. You're overly dramatic and insufferably arrogant. I can assure you I won't lose any sleep if you put me on ignore. Bye Felicia!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Permanent ignore.
Click to expand...


I am all broken up inside. You are a silly bigot so it is no great loss. I do love that you feel the need to tell me I am going on ignore as if I give a shit. Hint: I don't. Girl bye!


----------



## beagle9

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since that was not the question, you have given the wrong answer.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> You use an example of something found in nature that harms others as if it makes sense as a comparison.  That shows a fundamental lack, on your part, of discerning that which does no harm and that which does harm others.  That is disturbing....even a little sociopathic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not exactly. The New Testament makes the Old Testament obsolete.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true... Christ said he did not come to change the law.  He came to spare us from the law, to help us to recognize that the law is objective perfection that we can never meet.  And to tell us of God's grace, that through him, we can be spared from the law... by admitting that we are flawed, unworthy and asking to be forgiven, accepting Christ as the light and the way, as a lord and he that has come to save us, from our own evil nature.
Click to expand...

Amen and well said....


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is about nothing else, but begatting.
> 
> The principles of nature never change...  cultures simply devolve, due to the nature of evil, it induces deviancy.
> 
> Nothing complex about any of this stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How sad it is for him, that sex is ONLY about procreation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an understandable confusion when your life is ruled by a book that emphasizes begatting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't make it past the first half of Genesis, huh?  Short attention span, a symptom of Leftist dumbing down and lowering of standards
> 
> I read the Bible from cover to cover before I was 10 just to show it can be done even by a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My Bible reading was done in childhood.  Lots of begatting.  Lots of smiting.  Lots of irrational anger and killing of non believers....of course that was mostly the OT with a pissy diety.  I always had a thumbs up for Jesus though: love your neighbor as you would yourself and love God with all your heart.
Click to expand...


Do you realize that Jesus is in fact the God of the Old Testament?

There's a lot of love in the Old Testament when you know that God is love.  The occupation of Canaan, for example, was for the cessation of evil, and evil system that killed children sacrificing them to various gods.  There were plenty of acts of mercy, such as when Israel was attacked and God struck the enemy with blindness. The Israelites led them into their city and when their sight was restored and they feared they would die, they were fed and sent home instead.  Your problem is you didn't read past halfway through Genesis, and you read with judgment, not trust.  

You should try praying and reading the Bible with new eyes, understanding that God loves mankind and has from the beginning sought the very best for people.


----------



## Carib Gyal

Coyote said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not exactly. The New Testament makes the Old Testament obsolete.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the Dominionists and those who insist we live by the Ten Commandments.  The OT is not obsolete, the NT just gives them permission to cherry pick their abominations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is fascinating, isn't it? Adultery and sodomy have the exact same penalty in the OT. But you don't often hear for the execution of cheating husbands.
> 
> Why? Because it would directly effect too many of those condemning the gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't that the truth.
> 
> And what about the abomination of eating shellfish?  Talk about picking and choosing...
Click to expand...

HAHA Jews! Can't eat shrimp! Can't eat lobsters, can't eat conks! Can't eat pork chops, can't eat bacon!


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is about nothing else, but begatting.
> 
> The principles of nature never change...  cultures simply devolve, due to the nature of evil, it induces deviancy.
> 
> Nothing complex about any of this stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How sad it is for him, that sex is ONLY about procreation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an understandable confusion when your life is ruled by a book that emphasizes begatting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't make it past the first half of Genesis, huh?  Short attention span, a symptom of Leftist dumbing down and lowering of standards
> 
> I read the Bible from cover to cover before I was 10 just to show it can be done even by a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you get a medal?
Click to expand...


A certificate.  The real rewards cannot be seen with human eyes though.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Scamp, the issue here is the sexual deviancy of homosexuality and the perversion of human reasoning which justifies that abnormality...  Science has demonstrated that the sexual standard is established by the physiological human design, wherein two complimenting genders are designed to join together... which is analogically followed by marriage.



Again, there's _fucking_ in nature. There's no marriage. We invented marriage as a social construct. So means whatever we want it to. We can apply our capacity for reasoning and adapt our own social institutions to the circumstances and ideals that we hold now. Some cultures define it as one man and one woman. Others, one man and several women. We define it as two adults. 



> The 'joining' part of all of that stuff... is what is called 'sex'... which nature designed as a means to propagate the species; meaning that THAT is how mommies and Daddie show their love for one another and when they love each other enough, YOU were conceived in Mommy's tummy, where you lived for 9 months, until you grew big enough to survive, er uh... to live outside of mommy's tummy.



Yet as you've said before, marriage isn't about procreation. Rendering all your babble about 'mommies and daddies' irrelevant. Millions of infertile couples marry or are allowed to remain marry. The childless enjoy the same benefits from marriage as those with children. And no state requires anyone who gets married to have children or be able to have children.

Demonstrating elegantly that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. 

How then do you account for the standard you insist we use to exclude gays from marriage neither existing nor applying to anyone? You can't. Ending your entire argument.


----------



## beagle9

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is not just about begatting anymore and unbegattable seniors are getting married everyday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is about nothing else, but begatting.
> 
> The principles of nature never change...  cultures simply devolve, due to the nature of evil, it induces deviancy.
> 
> Nothing complex about any of this stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How sad it is for him, that sex is ONLY about procreation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an understandable confusion when your life is ruled by a book that emphasizes begatting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't make it past the first half of Genesis, huh?  Short attention span, a symptom of Leftist dumbing down and lowering of standards
> 
> I read the Bible from cover to cover before I was 10 just to show it can be done even by a child.
Click to expand...

Probably a comprehension problem, because certain things won't be revealed unless the reader has an open mind when reading it, and if the mind is closed due to the heart not being where it should be, then the book will become boring very quickly to that person.


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?
> 
> 
> 
> How sad it is for him, that sex is ONLY about procreation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an understandable confusion when your life is ruled by a book that emphasizes begatting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't make it past the first half of Genesis, huh?  Short attention span, a symptom of Leftist dumbing down and lowering of standards
> 
> I read the Bible from cover to cover before I was 10 just to show it can be done even by a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you get a medal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A certificate.  The real rewards cannot be seen with human eyes though.
Click to expand...


There are kids that memorize the Koran by that age. As a theist, you're clearly lagging behind.


----------



## bodecea

Coyote said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is about nothing else, but begatting.
> 
> The principles of nature never change...  cultures simply devolve, due to the nature of evil, it induces deviancy.
> 
> Nothing complex about any of this stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Dogs eating their puppies is natural as well*, you are not suggesting...
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh dear....another poster who cannot tell the difference between that which does not harm others......and that which does.   It concerns me how many like you can't see the plain difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since that was not the question, you have given the wrong answer.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You use an example of something found in nature that harms others as if it makes sense as a comparison.  That shows a fundamental lack, on your part, of discerning that which does no harm and that which does harm others.  That is disturbing....even a little sociopathic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.
Click to expand...

Cafeteria Christianity....pick and choose what they want to push and what to ignore.


----------



## Coyote

beagle9 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is about nothing else, but begatting.
> 
> The principles of nature never change...  cultures simply devolve, due to the nature of evil, it induces deviancy.
> 
> Nothing complex about any of this stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How sad it is for him, that sex is ONLY about procreation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an understandable confusion when your life is ruled by a book that emphasizes begatting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't make it past the first half of Genesis, huh?  Short attention span, a symptom of Leftist dumbing down and lowering of standards
> 
> I read the Bible from cover to cover before I was 10 just to show it can be done even by a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Probably a comprehension problem, because certain things won't be revealed unless the reader has an open mind when reading it, and if the mind is closed due to the heart not being where it should be, then the book will become boring very quickly to that person.
Click to expand...


Books like the Bible, or the Koran have to be read in context and with an understanding of the times it was written and the fact that there are layers of meaning beyond just the words.  I do understand that.  And part's of them are sheer poetry.

But I am an irreverant creature and always will be and if people use the Bible ,or the Koran, to bring about injustice then I think it's our duty to speak up.


----------



## Carib Gyal

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scamp, the issue here is the sexual deviancy of homosexuality and the perversion of human reasoning which justifies that abnormality...  Science has demonstrated that the sexual standard is established by the physiological human design, wherein two complimenting genders are designed to join together... which is analogically followed by marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, there's _fucking_ in nature. There's no marriage. We invented marriage as a social construct. So means whatever we want it to. We can apply our capacity for reasoning and adapt our own social institutions to the circumstances and ideals that we hold now. Some cultures define it as one man and one woman. Others, one man and several women. We define it as two adults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 'joining' part of all of that stuff... is what is called 'sex'... which nature designed as a means to propagate the species; meaning that THAT is how mommies and Daddie show their love for one another and when they love each other enough, YOU were conceived in Mommy's tummy, where you lived for 9 months, until you grew big enough to survive, er uh... to live outside of mommy's tummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet as you've said before, marriage isn't about procreation. Rendering all your babble about 'mommies and daddies' irrelevant. Millions of infertile couples marry or are allowed to remain marry. The childless enjoy the same benefits from marriage as those with children. And no state requires anyone who gets married to have children or be able to have children.
> 
> Demonstrating elegantly that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.
> 
> How then do you account for the standard you insist we use to exclude gays from marriage neither existing nor applying to anyone? You can't. Ending your entire argument.
Click to expand...

Yes, and it's being given a new definition. It's being redefined.

100 years ago, if I told you, "That shirt is SO GAY!" It would have meant it was so happy.

35 years ago, if I told you, "That shirt is SO GAY!" It would have referred to the pink shirt you wore to the homosexual bar.

Today, if I told you, "That shirt is SO GAY!" It would mean that shirt is stupid, lame, ugly.

Different definitions.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is about nothing else, but begatting.
> 
> The principles of nature never change...  cultures simply devolve, due to the nature of evil, it induces deviancy.
> 
> Nothing complex about any of this stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How sad it is for him, that sex is ONLY about procreation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an understandable confusion when your life is ruled by a book that emphasizes begatting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't make it past the first half of Genesis, huh?  Short attention span, a symptom of Leftist dumbing down and lowering of standards
> 
> I read the Bible from cover to cover before I was 10 just to show it can be done even by a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Probably a comprehension problem, because certain things won't be revealed unless the reader has an open mind when reading it, and if the mind is closed due to the heart not being where it should be, then the book will become boring very quickly to that person.
Click to expand...


Here's the problem Beagle......mother teresa and grand inquisitor Torquemada both thought they were right too. When you get into subjective interpretations of religion, its like burger king. You can have it your way. And there's no way for anyone else to 'know' who is right, or if any of you are right.

And that's just in the same religion, using the same book, and the same general religious traditions. Go between religions, across greater spans of time, or between language families, and things get even more wildly disparate. Which each of the faithful certain that their interpretation of their sect of their book of their passage of their religion is the only correct one in all the world.

And obviously, you can't all be right. Nor is there anything that mandates any of you are. Which is why religion as a basis of morality or law is so demonstrably subjective. A fact the theists can't really dispute. So they ignore.

But there's no reason that those who don't follow your beliefs ever would.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since that was not the question, you have given the wrong answer.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> You use an example of something found in nature that harms others as if it makes sense as a comparison.  That shows a fundamental lack, on your part, of discerning that which does no harm and that which does harm others.  That is disturbing....even a little sociopathic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not exactly. The New Testament makes the Old Testament obsolete.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the Dominionists and those who insist we live by the Ten Commandments.  The OT is not obsolete, the NT just gives them permission to cherry pick their abominations.
Click to expand...


The Old Testament gives no standing orders except for the 10 commandments.  Standing orders are those with permanent effect, that is, that all generations are to adhere to them.  God gave specific commandments to a specific people at a specific time for a specific reason.  Those Christians who attempt to adhere to the whole law today are called "legalists" because they reject the gospel of grace and attempt to return to the outmoded Old Covenant.  Really, the only ones saying that antiquated Biblical commandments are valid today are you Leftists, who are hostile to God and see through a shroud of adumbrated darkness, and unregenerated minds.  What little you know of the Scriptures, and you know VERY little, you use against the message of the Bible and the message of the cross, confounding the people of God through your twisted regurgitation of what you don't understand.


----------



## Skylar

Carib Gyal said:


> Yes, and it's being given a new definition. It's being redefined.



Its being expanded. As the previous application still applies. It just doesn't exclusively apply.


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> You use an example of something found in nature that harms others as if it makes sense as a comparison.  That shows a fundamental lack, on your part, of discerning that which does no harm and that which does harm others.  That is disturbing....even a little sociopathic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not exactly. The New Testament makes the Old Testament obsolete.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the Dominionists and those who insist we live by the Ten Commandments.  The OT is not obsolete, the NT just gives them permission to cherry pick their abominations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Old Testament gives no standing orders except for the 10 commandments.  Standing orders are those with permanent effect, that is, that all generations are to adhere to them.  God gave specific commandments to a specific people at a specific time for a specific reason.  Those Christians who attempt to adhere to the whole law today are called "legalists" because they reject the gospel of grace and attempt to return to the outmoded Old Covenant. * Really, the only ones saying that antiquated Biblical commandments are valid today are you Leftists*, who are hostile to God and see through a shroud of adumbrated darkness, and unregenerated minds.  What little you know of the Scriptures, and you know VERY little, you use against the message of the Bible and the message of the cross, confounding the people of God through your twisted regurgitation of what you don't understand.
Click to expand...


Sorry dude, but it's not us Leftists who are insisting that the American Law should be based on the Ten Commandments.


----------



## Carib Gyal

Skylar said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and it's being given a new definition. It's being redefined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its being expanded. As the previous application still applies. It just doesn't exclusively apply.
Click to expand...

Tell it to the people who say it's being redefined. It will mean something different than it always has.


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> You use an example of something found in nature that harms others as if it makes sense as a comparison.  That shows a fundamental lack, on your part, of discerning that which does no harm and that which does harm others.  That is disturbing....even a little sociopathic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not exactly. The New Testament makes the Old Testament obsolete.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the Dominionists and those who insist we live by the Ten Commandments.  The OT is not obsolete, the NT just gives them permission to cherry pick their abominations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Old Testament gives no standing orders except for the 10 commandments.
Click to expand...


Says you, citing your personal interpretations. Others interpret it differently. And the differences are as subjective as one's favorite color. 

The Puritans killed adulterers and sodomites. The founders killed only sodomites. Modern American Christians kill neither. Religion means whatever you want it to mean as you can ignore anything you don't like through interpretation. Wanna eat a cheese burger? Interpret around dietary restrictions. Wanna kill gays? Interpret that that passage of the OT that commands the execution of gays is still in force.

You can imagine special 'categories' for the word of God that let you ignore whatever you wish. Such as 'standing orders' and 'specific orders'. Despite the fact that no such distinction actually exists in the text. That's the beauty of religion: its straight up silly putty, meaning whatever you want it to.

And why your religious interpretations have no more relevance to someone who doesn't already agree with you than your interpretation of favorite foods, colors, or sports teams.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?
> 
> 
> 
> How sad it is for him, that sex is ONLY about procreation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an understandable confusion when your life is ruled by a book that emphasizes begatting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't make it past the first half of Genesis, huh?  Short attention span, a symptom of Leftist dumbing down and lowering of standards
> 
> I read the Bible from cover to cover before I was 10 just to show it can be done even by a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Probably a comprehension problem, because certain things won't be revealed unless the reader has an open mind when reading it, and if the mind is closed due to the heart not being where it should be, then the book will become boring very quickly to that person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Books like the Bible, or the Koran have to be read in context and with an understanding of the times it was written and the fact that there are layers of meaning beyond just the words.  I do understand that.  And part's of them are sheer poetry.
> 
> But I am an irreverant creature and always will be and if people use the Bible ,or the Koran, to bring about injustice then I think it's our duty to speak up.
Click to expand...


Yet somehow in your twisted Leftist brain, American conservatives who are extremely tolerant of homosexuality but just don't agree with it are more of a danger than Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt where homosexuals are hung in the streets. In fact, perversely the same Left that celebrates "gay rights" will also throw their support behind Islam and Muslims, reminding everyone ad nauseum that not all Muslims are terrorists every time a terrorist act occurs with the blessing of the Muslim community.  All these "peaceful Muslims" think homosexuality is so wicked and socially harmful that they should be executed.  Former Iranian president Ahmadinejad spoke to American college students and seeing their metrosexual qualities volunteered, "There are no homosexuals in Iran" to the oblivious idiots so proud to have such a progressive man speak to them.   Your knee jerk affinity to Islam virtually ignores that they actually kill homosexuals every day while at the same time seeing mortal danger in Christians who remind you that God considers homosexuality to be a sinful lifestyle. 

How you maintain such duality only betrays how utterly deceived you people are.


----------



## Skylar

Carib Gyal said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and it's being given a new definition. It's being redefined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its being expanded. As the previous application still applies. It just doesn't exclusively apply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell it to the people who say it's being redefined. It will mean something different than it always has.
Click to expand...


It means something more than it has before. But the Bible clearly describes polygamy. And many religions still practice it. They certainly considreed that marriage. And then times changes.

There's no 'intrinsic' definition of marriage. There's whatever we agree marriage is, based on whatever system of rules that we choose to use. And our laws use a system of rights that are protected against violation by the state.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not exactly. The New Testament makes the Old Testament obsolete.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the Dominionists and those who insist we live by the Ten Commandments.  The OT is not obsolete, the NT just gives them permission to cherry pick their abominations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Old Testament gives no standing orders except for the 10 commandments.  Standing orders are those with permanent effect, that is, that all generations are to adhere to them.  God gave specific commandments to a specific people at a specific time for a specific reason.  Those Christians who attempt to adhere to the whole law today are called "legalists" because they reject the gospel of grace and attempt to return to the outmoded Old Covenant. * Really, the only ones saying that antiquated Biblical commandments are valid today are you Leftists*, who are hostile to God and see through a shroud of adumbrated darkness, and unregenerated minds.  What little you know of the Scriptures, and you know VERY little, you use against the message of the Bible and the message of the cross, confounding the people of God through your twisted regurgitation of what you don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry dude, but it's not us Leftists who are insisting that the American Law should be based on the Ten Commandments.
Click to expand...



Um...nobody is.  This is the problem, you're making up lie after lie about Christians, the same ones you Leftists tell yourselves in your sick little circle jerks, and then passing them on as truth when in fact they're complete bullshit.  Because you lack any moral foundation whatsoever, this kind of slander doesn't sear your conscience in the slightest; much to your opprobrium.


----------



## Carib Gyal

Skylar said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not exactly. The New Testament makes the Old Testament obsolete.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the Dominionists and those who insist we live by the Ten Commandments.  The OT is not obsolete, the NT just gives them permission to cherry pick their abominations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Old Testament gives no standing orders except for the 10 commandments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you, citing your personal interpretations. Others interpret it differently. And the differences are as subjective as one's favorite color.
> 
> The Puritans killed adulterers and sodomites. The founders killed only sodomites. Modern American Christians kill neither. Religion means whatever you want it to mean as you can ignore anything you don't like through interpretation. Wanna eat a cheese burger? Interpret around dietary restrictions. Wanna kill gays? Interpret that that passage of the OT that commands the execution of gays is still in force.
> 
> You can imagine special 'categories' for the word of God that let you ignore whatever you wish. Such as 'standing orders' and 'specific orders'. Despite the fact that no such distinction actually exists in the text. That's the beauty of religion: its straight up silly putty, meaning whatever you want it to.
> 
> And why your religious interpretations have no more relevance to someone who doesn't already agree with you than your interpretation of favorite foods, colors, or sports teams.
Click to expand...

Except you base your opinions on other books you may have read, other opinions you may have heard, other criterion that you believe. Intellectually, neither is more valid than the other. He is as free to dismiss your opinion as you are to dismiss his. And yet you insist he be forced to accept your views.


----------



## Carib Gyal

Skylar said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and it's being given a new definition. It's being redefined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its being expanded. As the previous application still applies. It just doesn't exclusively apply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell it to the people who say it's being redefined. It will mean something different than it always has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means something more than it has before. But the Bible clearly describes polygamy. And many religions still practice it. They certainly considreed that marriage. And then times changes.
> 
> There's no 'intrinsic' definition of marriage. There's whatever we agree marriage is, based on whatever system of rules that we choose to use. And our laws use a system of rights that are protected against violation by the state.
Click to expand...

It means what society wants it to mean. The definition of it changes. It is now being redefined to include homosexuals.

btw, polygamy is not endorsed in the Bible.


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Yet somehow in your twisted Leftist brain, American conservatives who are extremely tolerant of homosexuality but just don't agree with it are more of a danger than Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt where homosexuals are hung in the streets.



Laughing.....sure, Mr. 'Even Jesus went on a rampage'. Your ilk are threatening gays regularly, insisting that if they don't 'sit down and shut the fuck up' that there will be a war that 'will make hate crimes look like sunday brunch'. You can try to convince yourself that that's 'tolerance'. But very few people are buying your bullshit.

And even conservatives are coming around on gay marriage, with support for its recognition at an all time high among them. There's simply no rational nor logical reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry. And only so long many conservatives can try to defend an irrational position before they just stop trying to polish a turd.

Sorry, Mikey....but your personal religious beliefs aren't enough. You'll need a valid state interest and a very rational reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry. And you don't have either. 

Which is why  your ilk have lost this debate. And why the weight of both legal and popular support falls so heavily in favor of gay marriage: it makes sense.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> And what about the abomination of eating shellfish?  Talk about picking and choosing...



Well, I was in Hyannis not too terribly long ago.  

I am sitting within 30' of the Lobster boats, 

Sat down for a monster cold water lobster, which had been harvested from the deep that very morning.  

Under that DELICIOUS shell fish sat a plate full fo steaming hot clams.

Now... I know about the admonition regarding shell fish, but I love me some sea bugs... so I set aside my scientific understanding that shell fish are organisms that clean the bottom of the sea, existing on the waste output of just about everything that lives.

And as I said, they were absolutely delicious.  

Of course, ad God new when he laid down the law... the bacteria common to crustaceans, is HELL on the human body.  And about 5 hours after I ate those bugs... my body began the arduous task of purging itself of those deadly bacteria.

MY LORD I WAS SICK... I spent the next 8 hours caught between throwing up my guts and excreting a steady stream of projectile diarrhea.

Now THAT is 5000 years after the law was set down... 130 years after human scientific knowledge came to ANY fundamental understanding of bacteria and its deleterious affect on the human biological system.

And STILL, I paid the PREDICTABLE CONSEQUENCE of eating food that lives ON SHIT!  

Now of course 5000 years ago... there were no 'waste treatment' systems and most of humanity lived within 5 miles of water... where they pee'd and crapped in the water. 

SOooo... eating shellfish back in THOSE DAYS and for what amounts to the ENTIRETY of human history, was the fast track to lethal doses of dysentery... therefore it was at WORST, a good idea to _*NEVER* eat shellfish._


----------



## beagle9

Carib Gyal said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly. The New Testament makes the Old Testament obsolete.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the Dominionists and those who insist we live by the Ten Commandments.  The OT is not obsolete, the NT just gives them permission to cherry pick their abominations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is fascinating, isn't it? Adultery and sodomy have the exact same penalty in the OT. But you don't often hear for the execution of cheating husbands.
> 
> Why? Because it would directly effect too many of those condemning the gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't that the truth.
> 
> And what about the abomination of eating shellfish?  Talk about picking and choosing...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HAHA Jews! Can't eat shrimp! Can't eat lobsters, can't eat conks! Can't eat pork chops, can't eat bacon!
Click to expand...

All that changed when Jesus came with the new message of mercy and grace to be placed within the laws or along side of them (pray over your food before you eat it), but it's still wise that we would look at the effects of that stuff upon our bodies (i.e. I ain't a gonna eat no horse or anything that doesn't split at the hoof where as the hoof is cloven instead), because God knows best about these things he had written unto the children of Israel to follow, and these were warnings unto us all for our own good and longevity in life. 

To much pork and what happens or to much of anything and what happens ? The law is there to help us, and because we are sinners, Jesus came to give us mercy and wisdom to do right by these things as best we can in life, and to not gluten ourselves with foods that can harm us or even poison us and our bodies over time.


----------



## Carib Gyal

beagle9 said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly. The New Testament makes the Old Testament obsolete.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the Dominionists and those who insist we live by the Ten Commandments.  The OT is not obsolete, the NT just gives them permission to cherry pick their abominations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is fascinating, isn't it? Adultery and sodomy have the exact same penalty in the OT. But you don't often hear for the execution of cheating husbands.
> 
> Why? Because it would directly effect too many of those condemning the gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't that the truth.
> 
> And what about the abomination of eating shellfish?  Talk about picking and choosing...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HAHA Jews! Can't eat shrimp! Can't eat lobsters, can't eat conks! Can't eat pork chops, can't eat bacon!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All that changed when Jesus came with the new message of mercy and grace to be placed within the laws or along side of them (pray over your food before you eat it), but it's still wise that we would look at the effects of that stuff upon our bodies (i.e. I ain't a gonna eat no horse or anything that doesn't split at the hoof where as the hoof is cloven instead), because God knows best about these things he had written unto the children of Israel to follow, and these were warnings unto us all for our own good and longevity in life.
> 
> To much pork and what happens or to much of anything and what happens ? The law is there to help us, and because we are sinners, Jesus came to give us mercy and wisdom to do right by these things as best we can in life, and to not gluten ourselves with foods that can harm us or even poison us and our bodies over time.
Click to expand...

Agree, but Christians are not forbidden to eat them.


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Yet somehow in your twisted Leftist brain, American conservatives who are extremely tolerant of homosexuality but just don't agree with it are more of a danger than Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt where homosexuals are hung in the streets.



Oh really?  


This is where I feel duty bound to say - speak for yourself.  Do  not attempt to speak for me.



> In fact, perversely the same Left that celebrates "gay rights" will also throw their support behind Islam and Muslims, reminding everyone ad nauseum that not all Muslims are terrorists every time a terrorist act occurs with the blessing of the Muslim community.  All these "peaceful Muslims" think homosexuality is so wicked and socially harmful that they should be executed.  Former Iranian president Ahmadinejad spoke to American college students and seeing their metrosexual qualities volunteered, "There are no homosexuals in Iran" to the oblivious idiots so proud to have such a progressive man speak to them.   Your knee jerk affinity to Islam virtually ignores that they actually kill homosexuals every day while at the same time seeing mortal danger in Christians who remind you that God considers homosexuality to be a sinful lifestyle.




Not all Muslims are terrorists.  Does that bother you?  They are as varied and different as you Christians.
Muslims, Christians, anyone can hate homosexuality.  People are free to think what they wish.  It's when they act on it that there is a problem.
Not sure why you are even bringing Islam into this but let's straighten out a few things.  The Abrahamic Faiths don't like homosexuals.  At this point in time - Muslims are worse in that regard.  But don't pretend that everythings fine and dandy with the Christian faith when we have American mega churches down in Africa trying to criminalize homosexuality and bring about the death penalty.
What's funny is - when it comes to homosexuality, you have a far closer affinity to the Muslims you purport to hate then you will ever admit to.


----------



## Skylar

Carib Gyal said:


> Except you base your opinions on other books you may have read, other opinions you may have heard, other criterion that you believe. Intellectually, neither is more valid than the other. He is as free to dismiss your opinion as you are to dismiss his. And yet you insist he be forced to accept your views.



I've never argued that my reasoning isn't subjective. Only that religion is as well. The difference between me and most of the devout is I can tell you why I believe what I do, rationally and logically. Where they simply repeat what they've been told to think. 

In a more rational age, the reasoned argument is more persuasive than the supernatural one. Which is why the animus against gays is so rapidly melting away. The Phelps'esque 'God Hates Fags!' just has no rational or logical basis. And is increasingly unpersuasive when people apply thought and reason to the topic.


----------



## Skylar

Carib Gyal said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and it's being given a new definition. It's being redefined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its being expanded. As the previous application still applies. It just doesn't exclusively apply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell it to the people who say it's being redefined. It will mean something different than it always has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means something more than it has before. But the Bible clearly describes polygamy. And many religions still practice it. They certainly considreed that marriage. And then times changes.
> 
> There's no 'intrinsic' definition of marriage. There's whatever we agree marriage is, based on whatever system of rules that we choose to use. And our laws use a system of rights that are protected against violation by the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means what society wants it to mean. The definition of it changes. It is now being redefined to include homosexuals.
> 
> btw, polygamy is not endorsed in the Bible.
Click to expand...


If the Bible were the only religious book, that might be relevant. But there are thousands of them. With each of their devout as sure that theirs is the only true book. Most religion is mutually exclusive. It can't be both Jesus AND a Greek Pantheon of Gods. Which means that applying the reasoning of faith, and almost all religions, almost all of the devout....are wrong and deluded.

*With the elephant in the livingroom being that there's nothing that mandates that any of them got it right.* Given that even by the logic of religion, almost all religoin is blithering nonsense, why would I accept the subjective religious beliefs of anyone without a solid basis of reason, evidence and logic to back it up? Especially on something as profound as 'moral truth'?

I can't think of a single reason.

Which is why opposition to gays because some book says so is so utterly meaningless to me. And as the strong surge of support for same sex marriage suggests, doesn't amount to much for tends of millions of other Americans either.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet somehow in your twisted Leftist brain, American conservatives who are extremely tolerant of homosexuality but just don't agree with it are more of a danger than Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt where homosexuals are hung in the streets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laughing.....sure, Mr. 'Even Jesus went on a rampage'. Your ilk are threatening gays regularly, insisting that if they don't 'sit down and shut the fuck up' that there will be a war...
Click to expand...


LOL!  That is just an axiomatic certainty.  Believe it... don't believe it... such is just the nature of the war.  One group pushes upon another group, things which that group is not going to accept.

That is how every war that has ever come to pass.... came to pass.

You feel that 'it can't happen here'.  And maybe you're right.  Of course, if you're not right, you're totally screwed.

At the moment you're the aggressor, you get to decide how ugly things get.  If you start a war... you lose that option. 

So, reason suggest that in light of the certainty that you've the most to lose, in that ya have no chance of prevailing... that ya find a means to sit down and shut the fuck up.  And that where ya can't do so, that very action demonstrates that you're not reasonable.

And where the aggressor party is not reasonable... and the defending party is well principled, war is INEVITABLE!

AND... where war is inevitable and you've no means to prevail... yet you persist in igniting a war you ave no means to win... you're suicidal.  

Now, here's the cool part, if you're keeping score.  We, the Americans, have no means to compromise with those willing to die for a lost cause, but we have more than the means to get them there.

See how easy this is?

I SO wish you possessed the means to understand.  It would make for a fine discussion.

So instead, we'll quarrel until your every point is refuted and your argument thoroughly discredited.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> I've never argued that my reasoning isn't subjective. Only that religion is as well.



And you've failed to sustain that argument at every point of contest.

You claim that religion is subjective, then to prove it you point to human beings acting subjectively.  

Try to let that sink in before ya run to lose again.


----------



## Skylar

beagle9 said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly. The New Testament makes the Old Testament obsolete.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the Dominionists and those who insist we live by the Ten Commandments.  The OT is not obsolete, the NT just gives them permission to cherry pick their abominations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is fascinating, isn't it? Adultery and sodomy have the exact same penalty in the OT. But you don't often hear for the execution of cheating husbands.
> 
> Why? Because it would directly effect too many of those condemning the gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't that the truth.
> 
> And what about the abomination of eating shellfish?  Talk about picking and choosing...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HAHA Jews! Can't eat shrimp! Can't eat lobsters, can't eat conks! Can't eat pork chops, can't eat bacon!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All that changed when Jesus came with the new message of mercy and grace to be placed within the laws or along side of them (pray over your food before you eat it), but it's still wise that we would look at the effects of that stuff upon our bodies (i.e. I ain't a gonna eat no horse or anything that doesn't split at the hoof where as the hoof is cloven instead), because God knows best about these things he had written unto the children of Israel to follow, and these were warnings unto us all for our own good and longevity in life.
Click to expand...


So you believe. And yet for the majority of the history of your faith and for at least a dozen centuries after your 'new message', Christians still followed the OT when they wanted to. The puritians killed adulterers and gays. The foudners just gays. Modern American Christians, neither. 

Did God's word change in the last 500  years? Or was that just the subjective interpretation of Christians?

Yeah, don't think to hard about that. Most theists don't.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> If the Bible were the only religious book, that might be relevant. But there are thousands of them.



The Bible is the divinely inspired word of God.  There is one... with a few dozen iterations interpreting such.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> So you believe. And yet for the majority of the history of your faith *{The Reader should remember here, that the Faith is Objective}* and for at least a dozen centuries after your 'new message', Christians* {The Reader should now note that the contributor has now shifted the appeal from the objectivity of the Faith, to the subjectivity intrinsic to the human being}* still followed the OT when they wanted to.



ROFLMNAO!  Classic!  

It the intellectual equivalent of _beatin' homos in the park._


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never argued that my reasoning isn't subjective. Only that religion is as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you've failed to sustain that argument at every point of contest.
> 
> You claim that religion is subjective, then to prove it you point to human beings acting subjectively.
> 
> Try to let that sink in before ya run to lose again.
Click to expand...


Oh, of course I have. So completely in fact that you've abandoned the entire argument save to occasionally whimper 'uh-uh' before tucking your tail between tender cheeks and fleeing again. Wait, I'll demonstrate yet again.

If religion is objective, how then do you account for the wild differences in practice even among the same religion, using the same holy book, using the same language....seperated by time? Puritans killed adulterers and gays. The Founders only gays. Modern Christians neither. *Did your 'objective religion' change over the last 500 years? Or was it always just subjectively interpretative?*

*Its clearly the latter.* You yourself demonstrated it for us when you gave us YOUR rationale for ignoring the passages of the OT you don't like. The Founders didn't accept this rationale. Nor did the Puritans before them. And any theist can do exactly as you did, straight up ignore any passage, commandment or word of God they don't like.....through the wondrous magic of interpretation.

Where 'must be put to death' is morphed into 'you don't actually have to do anything' based on.....well, whatever you'd like to believe. You can use *any* rationale you like. Mikey offered us his 'standing commandment' and 'specific commandment' dichotomy. Where he just made up arbitrary classifications based on whatever he wanted to believe....that conveniently granted him permission to ignore any passage of any part of the Bible. Simply by labeling it a 'specific commandment'.

And this you call 'objective"? Laughing...I don't think objective means what you think it means. *Religion is inescapably, inevitably and gloriously subjective. *And it means whatever you want to believe it does. Which is exactly my point.

(pssst...that's your cue to give us another excuse why you're going to abandon your claims and run)


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe. And yet for the majority of the history of your faith *{The Reader should remember here, that the Faith is Objective}* and for at least a dozen centuries after your 'new message', Christians* {The Reader should now note that the contributor has now shifted the appeal from the objectivity of the Faith, to the subjectivity intrinsic to the human being}* still followed the OT when they wanted to.
Click to expand...


The reader should remember that faith is utterly subjective, existing in the hearts of the believer. With no external method of verification, authentication, or measurement save whatever the believer *tells* you it is.

And this you call 'objective'? You simply don't know what the word means.

And note you don't actually address the truck sized holes in your imaginary 'objective' religion: the wild changes in doctrine over time. Same book, same language, same culture, different times. And you get spectacularly different interpretations. Puritians: death to adulterers and gays. The Founders, death to gays. Modern Christians, death to neither.

As the *meaning* of religion is subjective. And means whatever the reader believes it means as they look through the lens of their history, their culture, their society, and their personal context.

You can't deal with the fact. So you ignore it. But why would any rational reader?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never argued that my reasoning isn't subjective. Only that religion is as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you've failed to sustain that argument at every point of contest.
> 
> You claim that religion is subjective, then to prove it you point to human beings acting subjectively.
> 
> Try to let that sink in before ya run to lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, of course I have. So completely in fact that you've abandoned the entire argument...
Click to expand...


Winning the argument is not abandoning the argument.  I '_abandoned the argument_' like Grant _abandoned_ Appomattox.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet somehow in your twisted Leftist brain, American conservatives who are extremely tolerant of homosexuality but just don't agree with it are more of a danger than Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt where homosexuals are hung in the streets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> 
> This is where I feel duty bound to say - speak for yourself.  Do  not attempt to speak for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, perversely the same Left that celebrates "gay rights" will also throw their support behind Islam and Muslims, reminding everyone ad nauseum that not all Muslims are terrorists every time a terrorist act occurs with the blessing of the Muslim community.  All these "peaceful Muslims" think homosexuality is so wicked and socially harmful that they should be executed.  Former Iranian president Ahmadinejad spoke to American college students and seeing their metrosexual qualities volunteered, "There are no homosexuals in Iran" to the oblivious idiots so proud to have such a progressive man speak to them.   Your knee jerk affinity to Islam virtually ignores that they actually kill homosexuals every day while at the same time seeing mortal danger in Christians who remind you that God considers homosexuality to be a sinful lifestyle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not all Muslims are terrorists.  Does that bother you?  They are as varied and different as you Christians.
> Muslims, Christians, anyone can hate homosexuality.  People are free to think what they wish.  It's when they act on it that there is a problem.
> Not sure why you are even bringing Islam into this but let's straighten out a few things.  The Abrahamic Faiths don't like homosexuals.  At this point in time - Muslims are worse in that regard.  But don't pretend that everythings fine and dandy with the Christian faith when we have American mega churches down in Africa trying to criminalize homosexuality and bring about the death penalty.
> What's funny is - when it comes to homosexuality, you have a far closer affinity to the Muslims you purport to hate then you will ever admit to.
Click to expand...


I don't hate Muslims and I don't hate homosexuals. I do hate sin and as the Bible says, "Hate what is evil, cling to what is good" (Romans 12:9)

And as far as the one example you cite of homosexuals being subject to the death penalty in Uganda, you should first of all know that they dropped the death penalty provision in 2013 in favor of life in prison, something lost on the Ferguson facts-don't-matter Left as they insanely cite this error over and over.  But even imprisonment, especially life imprisonment, is wrong headed.  Since Uganda is 1/6th Muslim, it's difficult to pin this just on Christians.

And as a Catholic, I oppose the death penalty anyway.

My point, which you fail to refute, is that you on the Left have this hypocrisy of extolling Islam as a great faith while at the same time ignoring how they crush women's rights and kill homosexuals.  Somehow Christians thinking that men should be the head of the household are a bigger threat to you that Muslims who circumcise their women, give them no right to drive, vote, own land, or work a job without their husband's permission....and are subject to honor killings, being buried alive, stoned, and beheaded for all crimes real or imagined.  This is how twisted you people are.  Christians have proven themselves to be one of the most tolerant world religions, but you'll never give us credit for that because of your hatred for God and the people of God.

And that is the product of an unregenerated heart.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Bible were the only religious book, that might be relevant. But there are thousands of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is the divinely inspired word of God.  There is one... with a few dozen iterations interpreting such.
Click to expand...


Says you. Muslims think the Koran is the authoritative tome. The Buddhists don't give a shit for either. The Zoroastrians care even less. 

*You believe you're right. They believe they're right. And your positions are mutually exclusive.* Its not Jesus AND Buddha. Which means that if you're right, hundreds of millions of Buddhists are deluded and wrong. And if they're right, hundreds of millions of Christians are equally deluded and wrong.

*And of course, there's nothing that mandates that *either* of you got it right. *And that's just on the tomes themselves.

When we get into_ interpreting the meaning _of the accompanying holy books, things get even more muddied, uselessly subjective and hopelessly contradictory.

And this you call 'objective'? Again, you simply don't know what the word means.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never argued that my reasoning isn't subjective. Only that religion is as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you've failed to sustain that argument at every point of contest.
> 
> You claim that religion is subjective, then to prove it you point to human beings acting subjectively.
> 
> Try to let that sink in before ya run to lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, of course I have. So completely in fact that you've abandoned the entire argument...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Winning the argument is not abandoning the argument.  I '_abandoned the argument_' like Grant _abandoned_ Appomattox.
Click to expand...


Laughing...which is why you're still running, still unable to defend your shattered claims, still unable to explain the wildly differences in interpretation between different eras based on the same religion, the same books, the same language, the same general culture. Watch, I'll make you do it again:

_If religion is objective, how then do you account for the wild differences in practice even among the same religion, using the same holy book, using the same language....seperated by time? Puritans killed adulterers and gays. The Founders only gays. Modern Christians neither. *Did your 'objective religion' change over the last 500 years? Or was it always just subjectively interpretative?*

*Its clearly the latter.* You yourself demonstrated it for us when you gave us YOUR rationale for ignoring the passages of the OT you don't like. The Founders didn't accept this rationale. Nor did the Puritans before them. And any theist can do exactly as you did, straight up ignore any passage, commandment or word of God they don't like.....through the wondrous magic of interpretation.

Where 'must be put to death' is morphed into 'you don't actually have to do anything' based on.....well, whatever you'd like to believe. You can use *any* rationale you like. Mikey offered us his 'standing commandment' and 'specific commandment' dichotomy. Where he just made up arbitrary classifications based on whatever he wanted to believe....that conveniently granted him permission to ignore any passage of any part of the Bible. Simply by labeling it a 'specific commandment'.

And this you call 'objective"? Laughing...I don't think objective means what you think it means. *Religion is inescapably, inevitably and gloriously subjective. *And it means whatever you want to believe it does. Which is exactly my point._

Laughing.....keep running, Keyes. Your every excuse only proves my point for me.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe. And yet for the majority of the history of your faith *{The Reader should remember here, that the Faith is Objective}* and for at least a dozen centuries after your 'new message', Christians* {The Reader should now note that the contributor has now shifted the appeal from the objectivity of the Faith, to the subjectivity intrinsic to the human being}* still followed the OT when they wanted to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reader should remember that faith is utterly subjective, existing in the hearts of the believer.
Click to expand...


Hey great... an emphatic assertion.

Now "Faith" is subjective.  

As a Christian, I recognize that where I willfully engage in sexual intercourse, that I am responsible for the life conceived as a result of my actions.  That God grants endows us with life and that I have the SAME RIGHTS as the life I conceived through my willful behavior.

As a result I CHOOSE to bear my responsibility to raise that child... deciding to NOT murder that human life because such is a MONUMENTAL INCONVENIENCE TO ME!

Now...  let's define the terms:

*Objective:* _not_ influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

*Subjective: *based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Now... my Christian FAITH tells me that MY NEEDS ARE IRRELEVANT... that God endowed the child I conceived through my willful actions.  My decision to NOT MURDER that child, which is perfectly LEGAL... is an action taken DESPITE SUCH BEING A MASSIVE INCONVENIENCE TO ME: PERSONALLY.

So, we find that when the terms are defined, where the actions common to faith are defined and compared to the defined terms that IN TRUTH, thus in REALITY: Faith rests in the tenets of ONE's RELIGION... The OBJECTIVE WILL OF GOD!  

Where the individual acts in response to the OBJECTIVE TENETS OF HIS FAITH... he acts OBJECTIVELY... and where the individual acts in response to their own NEEDS; they act SUBJECTIVELY.

Left-think rejects objectivity... thus is it subjective.  

Do you SEE how easy this stuff is folks?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Says you. Muslims think...



Yet, there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of that whatsoever.

Muslims DO however practice serial incest... which has gone on for no well over 700 years.  As a result Muslims have largely rinsed from their culture, the necessity of genetic diversity...  resulting in major cognitive limitations.

Sadly, the rest of the Ideological Left does not have this excuse... .


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe. And yet for the majority of the history of your faith *{The Reader should remember here, that the Faith is Objective}* and for at least a dozen centuries after your 'new message', Christians* {The Reader should now note that the contributor has now shifted the appeal from the objectivity of the Faith, to the subjectivity intrinsic to the human being}* still followed the OT when they wanted to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reader should remember that faith is utterly subjective, existing in the hearts of the believer.
Click to expand...


Hey great... an emphatic assertion.

Now "Faith" is subjective.

As a Christian, I recognize that where I willfully engage in sexual intercourse, that I am responsible for the life conceived as a result of my actions.  That God grants endows us with life and that I have the SAME RIGHTS as the life I conceived through my willful behavior.

As a result I CHOOSE to bear my responsibility to raise that child... deciding to NOT murder that human life because such is a MONUMENTAL INCONVENIENCE TO ME!

Now...  let's define the terms:

*Objective:* _>NOT< _influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

*Subjective: *based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Now... my Christian FAITH tells me that MY NEEDS ARE IRRELEVANT... that God endowed the child I conceived through my willful actions.  My decision to NOT MURDER that child, which is perfectly LEGAL... is an action taken DESPITE SUCH BEING A MASSIVE INCONVENIENCE TO ME: PERSONALLY.

So, we find that when the terms are defined, where the actions common to faith are defined and compared to the defined terms that IN TRUTH, thus in REALITY: Faith rests in the tenets of ONE's RELIGION... The OBJECTIVE WILL OF GOD!

Where the individual acts in response to the OBJECTIVE TENETS OF HIS FAITH... he acts OBJECTIVELY... and where the individual acts in response to their own NEEDS; they act SUBJECTIVELY.

Left-think rejects objectivity... thus is it subjective.

Do you SEE how easy this stuff is folks?


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Now "Faith" is subjective.



Not just 'now'. Always. Its always been subjective. Your faith is defined by you, expressed by you, quantified by you, measured by you, verified by you, authenticated by you.

*And no one else.* There's nothing for us to see, taste, hear, quantify, measure, verify or authenticate. You might as well be telling us your favorite color for as much objective value as your faith has. No matter how you spin it, that's the epitome of subjectivity

Worse there are other people who have 'faith' as deeply as you do. *And they explicitly contradict you.* Who then is right? How would anyone know, as there's nothing to measure. You believe you are. They believe they are. But there's nothing objective to break the tie. *Nor anything objective that mandates that either one of you are right.*



> As a Christian, I recognize that where I willfully engage in sexual intercourse, that I am responsible for the life conceived as a result of my actions.  That God grants endows us with life and that I have the SAME RIGHTS as the life I conceived through my willful behavior.



And that's your belief. I may agree with you. I may disagree with you. It doesn't change the fact that your perspective is subjective, that your belief system is subjective, that your religion is utterly an infinitely malleable. You can take the same text and get wildly different meanings....*because the meaning of your religion is whatever you want to be.* A fact you can't account for your in your 'intrinsic' claims.

So you omit any mention of it from any reply and refuse to address the topic. But its not like your willful ignorance renders the flaw in your reasoning invisible to anyone else.

Keep running.


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet somehow in your twisted Leftist brain, American conservatives who are extremely tolerant of homosexuality but just don't agree with it are more of a danger than Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt where homosexuals are hung in the streets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> 
> This is where I feel duty bound to say - speak for yourself.  Do  not attempt to speak for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, perversely the same Left that celebrates "gay rights" will also throw their support behind Islam and Muslims, reminding everyone ad nauseum that not all Muslims are terrorists every time a terrorist act occurs with the blessing of the Muslim community.  All these "peaceful Muslims" think homosexuality is so wicked and socially harmful that they should be executed.  Former Iranian president Ahmadinejad spoke to American college students and seeing their metrosexual qualities volunteered, "There are no homosexuals in Iran" to the oblivious idiots so proud to have such a progressive man speak to them.   Your knee jerk affinity to Islam virtually ignores that they actually kill homosexuals every day while at the same time seeing mortal danger in Christians who remind you that God considers homosexuality to be a sinful lifestyle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not all Muslims are terrorists.  Does that bother you?  They are as varied and different as you Christians.
> Muslims, Christians, anyone can hate homosexuality.  People are free to think what they wish.  It's when they act on it that there is a problem.
> Not sure why you are even bringing Islam into this but let's straighten out a few things.  The Abrahamic Faiths don't like homosexuals.  At this point in time - Muslims are worse in that regard.  But don't pretend that everythings fine and dandy with the Christian faith when we have American mega churches down in Africa trying to criminalize homosexuality and bring about the death penalty.
> What's funny is - when it comes to homosexuality, you have a far closer affinity to the Muslims you purport to hate then you will ever admit to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't hate Muslims and I don't hate homosexuals. I do hate sin and as the Bible says, "Hate what is evil, cling to what is good" (Romans 12:9)
> 
> And as far as the one example you cite of homosexuals being subject to the death penalty in Uganda, you should first of all know that they dropped the death penalty provision in 2013 in favor of life in prison, something lost on the Ferguson facts-don't-matter Left as they insanely cite this error over and over.  But even imprisonment, especially life imprisonment, is wrong headed.  Since Uganda is 1/6th Muslim, it's difficult to pin this just on Christians.
Click to expand...


Uganda is only 12% Muslim hardly one sixth.  They backed down - reluctantly - from the death penalty only because* of intense international pressure* (something lost on the facts-don't-matter right)  As far as "pinning it on Christians" it was American churches' involvement that created the legislation and fanned anti-homosexual feeling in Uganda and other parts of Africa.  The point is - when it comes to religion, they don't like homosexuals and it doesn't take much for someone to grab up a Bible and start hammering away.  It's getting more civilized but it's still there beneath the surface.  Now I'll grant you Christians are far better than Muslims at this point when it comes to tolerance and treatment of homosexuals - but it still not anything to be proud of.



> And as a Catholic, I oppose the death penalty anyway.
> 
> My point, which you fail to refute, is that you on the Left have this hypocrisy of extolling Islam as a great faith while at the same time ignoring how they crush women's rights and kill homosexuals.



I'm kind of thinking you, on the Right, have this habit of sweeping generalizations that seem to come out of nowhere.

No one is "extolling Islam as a great faith".  It's like any other faith - it's got it's good and it's bad.  You can support the good and condemn the bad.  Malala, the Pakistani girl that was shot by the Taliban religious extremists for her efforts in promoting education for girls is still a Muslim.  She hasn't renounced her faith.   She fights for change and improvement for girls and for her faith.



> Somehow Christians thinking that men should be the head of the household are a bigger threat to you that Muslims who circumcise their women, give them no right to drive, vote, own land, or work a job without their husband's permission....and are subject to honor killings, being buried alive, stoned, and beheaded for all crimes real or imagined.  This is how twisted you people are.  Christians have proven themselves to be one of the most tolerant world religions, but you'll never give us credit for that because of your hatred for God and the people of God.



Here you are again with this ridiculous sweeping generalization and mixing apples and oranges.

No one thinks that.  That's how twisted *you* are.

Christians are the most tolerant?  Really?  Some are.  Some aren't.  Some really aren't.

And no.  I don't hate Christians either.



> And that is the product of an unregenerated heart.



Speak for yourself.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says you. Muslims think...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of that whatsoever.
Click to expand...


Laughing......so all the hundreds of millions of Muslims, who believe in their book as you believe in yours, who believe in their prophet as you do your messiah, who have faith, who are devout theists...

.*......are all delusionally wrong? *

Laughing! You can't have it both ways. Every attempt to prove the exclusive truth of your beliefs using religious logic only disproves the validity of theism in general. As by your own reasoning, folks using the *exact* same processes of 'faith' that you are are self deluded. 

But keep chopping away at theism. You only prove my point for me.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now "Faith" is subjective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not just 'now'. Always. Its always been subjective. Your faith is defined by you, expressed by you, quantified by you, measured by you, verified by you, authenticated by you.
Click to expand...


Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.



The Reader should recognize that your Faith is defined by GOD; defined by the reason as established by the laws God created which govern validity and soundness of your reasoning,  You express such OBJECTIVELY when you take action which adheres to those OBJECTIVE laws, without regard to how such may or may NOT benefit YOU.

The opposition is a Relativist... subject to a disordered mind, which AXIOMATICALLY rejects objectivity.

You see folks, evil exists SOLELY IN THE SUBJECTIVE and it cannot exist where people reason objectively.

And that is truly all there is to this.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says you. Muslims think...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of that whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing......so all the hundreds of millions of Muslims...
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO!  

Islam is a lie from soup to Mohammad.  It exists through murder, mayhem, coercion and deceit.  Absent those traits, Islam disappears with Mohammad's death.  Absent a reign of incessant terror, Islam dies... Absent the absurdity of its appeal to earthly piety, only to strive for immortal sin... wherein one can upon passing to be with the holy father, to live in eternity with 70 women whose chastity was so critical them on earth that they lived without sexual desire... in order to allow a dead muslim molest them eternally... .

Now that defies what?  

It defies REASON... it fails logical validity, it is absent of a soundly reasoned construct.  Therefore, it is deceitful..., thus it serves to cloak the truth in darkness, which is what we as well reasoned people, recognize as: _Evil._


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now "Faith" is subjective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not just 'now'. Always. Its always been subjective. Your faith is defined by you, expressed by you, quantified by you, measured by you, verified by you, authenticated by you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
Click to expand...


And now your tell. Whenever your arguments collapse, your logic fails and your assumptions are demonstrated to meaningless claptrap......you summarily and bizarrely declare victory. Its your white flag. We've done this dance before, Keyes. This is always where your argument breaks. And you know it. 

*You have no choice but to run.* Because without my acceptance of your subjective faith as objective truth, you've got nothing. You have no rational basis for your beliefs, you have no logical reason to say, condemn gays as immoral. Even your claims of the objectivity of religion fall to dust, as you can't possibly support them.

And this is why your argument is so fragile and so pathetically unpersuasive. *As the basis of your reasoning desperately requires that we already agree with you.* If we don't, you've got nothing. No rational basis. No useful reasoning. No logic. No objective evidence. Just your belief....backed by your belief.  Watch, I'll show you:



> The Reader should recognize that your Faith is defined by GOD; defined by the reason as established by the laws God created which govern validity and soundness of your reasoning,  You express such OBJECTIVELY when you take action which adheres to those OBJECTIVE laws, without regard to how such may or may NOT benefit YOU.



That's a testimonial. Not evidence. Not a logical or rational basis of argument. But instead just another recitation of the same beliefs you can't factually back, you can't rationally support, riddled with holes of logic that you can't possibly shore up. *If your 'faith' is defined by 'god', then why do other people of faith disagree with you and explicitly contradict you? *Did God change his mind and just not tell you? 

You can't possibly explain save to insist that _all other people of faith _are wrong. And only you're right. Which is ridiculously unlikely. As there's nothing that mandates that any of you got it right. Nor can you explain the wild differences in interpretation between say, the Puritans, the Founders and Modern Christians....without falling back on subjective interpretation. 

Did God change in 500 years? Or did the subjective interpretation of the meaning of the Bible change with history, culture, society, personal context and simple time? Its clearly the latter. You know it and I know it. But your argument breaks on this simple fact. So you ignore the glorious subjectivity of religion and pretend it doesn't exist.

*You fail because you can't make anyone else ignore it.*


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now "Faith" is subjective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not just 'now'. Always. Its always been subjective. Your faith is defined by you, expressed by you, quantified by you, measured by you, verified by you, authenticated by you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now your tell....
Click to expand...


And your 2nd concession to the same standing points is duly recognized and summarily accepted.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says you. Muslims think...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of that whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing......so all the hundreds of millions of Muslims...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Islam is a lie from soup to Mohammad.  It exists through murder, mayhem, coercion and deceit.
Click to expand...


So they're all deluded and incorrect?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

I'll put it in picture form so even Leftists can understand it:

Leftists think this:






Is a bigger threat than this:






And this:





And THAT makes them world class jackasses.

Get it now, Coyote?


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now "Faith" is subjective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not just 'now'. Always. Its always been subjective. Your faith is defined by you, expressed by you, quantified by you, measured by you, verified by you, authenticated by you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now your tell....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your 2nd concession to the same standing points is duly recognized and summarily accepted.
Click to expand...


Its the same tell as before. Your white flag is your summary declaration of victory. As you clearly can't support your claims with logic and reason. So you abandon your every claim, toss your every argument on the midden heap....and run. Refusing to discuss the topic.

As without my acceptance of your subjective faith as objective truth....what possible basis of argument do you have? Nothing. And this is why your argument is so laughably unpersuasive. As it requires that I already agree with you to exist.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think it is reasonable to claim you are being sexually abused in this thread. Whatever you say drama queen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... you couldn't find the courage to learn?
> 
> Whatta shame.
> 
> Oh well... it's not like it's unexpected.  I guess I just allowed myself to hope... despite the chances of it being so slim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you filed a police report yet over the sexual abuse you've suffered in this thread? lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One more post on this unwelcomed subject and you'll be ignored.
> 
> Please understand it doesn't matter to me... you rarely add anything to a discussion, beyond the usual ego stroke that comes with being palpably superior to another person, but that is the natural result of a discussion with any Leftist... so that means that such is second only to typing, on any political message board.
> 
> SOooo... do ya see where we stand, here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see why you would want us to forget your absurd allegations of being sexually abused in this thread. You're overly dramatic and insufferably arrogant. I can assure you I won't lose any sleep if you put me on ignore. Bye Felicia!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Permanent ignore.
Click to expand...

What a blessing for mdk.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> I'll put it in picture form so even Leftists can understand it:
> 
> Leftists think this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is a bigger threat than this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And THAT makes them world class jackasses.
> 
> Get it now, Coyote?


Ah yes...the "thank your lucky stars we don't kill you like the mooslims do so stop your bitching for equal rights" schtick.


----------



## mdk

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> So... you couldn't find the courage to learn?
> 
> Whatta shame.
> 
> Oh well... it's not like it's unexpected.  I guess I just allowed myself to hope... despite the chances of it being so slim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you filed a police report yet over the sexual abuse you've suffered in this thread? lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One more post on this unwelcomed subject and you'll be ignored.
> 
> Please understand it doesn't matter to me... you rarely add anything to a discussion, beyond the usual ego stroke that comes with being palpably superior to another person, but that is the natural result of a discussion with any Leftist... so that means that such is second only to typing, on any political message board.
> 
> SOooo... do ya see where we stand, here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see why you would want us to forget your absurd allegations of being sexually abused in this thread. You're overly dramatic and insufferably arrogant. I can assure you I won't lose any sleep if you put me on ignore. Bye Felicia!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Permanent ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a blessing for mdk.
Click to expand...


I am all torn up inside. It is the reason I am still awake at the Hour of the Wolf and not the Sugar Bowl.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> You use an example of something found in nature that harms others as if it makes sense as a comparison.  That shows a fundamental lack, on your part, of discerning that which does no harm and that which does harm others.  That is disturbing....even a little sociopathic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not exactly. The New Testament makes the Old Testament obsolete.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the Dominionists and those who insist we live by the Ten Commandments.  The OT is not obsolete, the NT just gives them permission to cherry pick their abominations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Old Testament gives no standing orders except for the 10 commandments.  Standing orders are those with permanent effect, that is, that all generations are to adhere to them.  God gave specific commandments to a specific people at a specific time for a specific reason.  Those Christians who attempt to adhere to the whole law today are called "legalists" because they reject the gospel of grace and attempt to return to the outmoded Old Covenant.  Really, the only ones saying that antiquated Biblical commandments are valid today are you Leftists, who are hostile to God and see through a shroud of adumbrated darkness, and unregenerated minds.  What little you know of the Scriptures, and you know VERY little, you use against the message of the Bible and the message of the cross, confounding the people of God through your twisted regurgitation of what you don't understand.
Click to expand...

Which version of the 10 commandments?  The Jewish version?  The Catholic version?  The Protestant version?   They are all different.


----------



## bodecea

Skylar said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the Dominionists and those who insist we live by the Ten Commandments.  The OT is not obsolete, the NT just gives them permission to cherry pick their abominations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is fascinating, isn't it? Adultery and sodomy have the exact same penalty in the OT. But you don't often hear for the execution of cheating husbands.
> 
> Why? Because it would directly effect too many of those condemning the gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't that the truth.
> 
> And what about the abomination of eating shellfish?  Talk about picking and choosing...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HAHA Jews! Can't eat shrimp! Can't eat lobsters, can't eat conks! Can't eat pork chops, can't eat bacon!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All that changed when Jesus came with the new message of mercy and grace to be placed within the laws or along side of them (pray over your food before you eat it), but it's still wise that we would look at the effects of that stuff upon our bodies (i.e. I ain't a gonna eat no horse or anything that doesn't split at the hoof where as the hoof is cloven instead), because God knows best about these things he had written unto the children of Israel to follow, and these were warnings unto us all for our own good and longevity in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe. And yet for the majority of the history of your faith and for at least a dozen centuries after your 'new message', Christians still followed the OT when they wanted to. The puritians killed adulterers and gays. The foudners just gays. Modern American Christians, neither.
> 
> Did God's word change in the last 500  years? Or was that just the subjective interpretation of Christians?
> 
> Yeah, don't think to hard about that. Most theists don't.
Click to expand...

The Puritans forbade Christmas celebrations and killed Quakers too.  What a fun bunch of christians.


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Bible were the only religious book, that might be relevant. But there are thousands of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is the divinely inspired word of God.  There is one... with a few dozen iterations interpreting such.
Click to expand...

Actually there are many different variations...and many gospels and books that were randomly left out or put in at times, usually based on the political intentions of those doing the picking, choosing and translating.


----------



## Skylar

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> So... you couldn't find the courage to learn?
> 
> Whatta shame.
> 
> Oh well... it's not like it's unexpected.  I guess I just allowed myself to hope... despite the chances of it being so slim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you filed a police report yet over the sexual abuse you've suffered in this thread? lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One more post on this unwelcomed subject and you'll be ignored.
> 
> Please understand it doesn't matter to me... you rarely add anything to a discussion, beyond the usual ego stroke that comes with being palpably superior to another person, but that is the natural result of a discussion with any Leftist... so that means that such is second only to typing, on any political message board.
> 
> SOooo... do ya see where we stand, here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see why you would want us to forget your absurd allegations of being sexually abused in this thread. You're overly dramatic and insufferably arrogant. I can assure you I won't lose any sleep if you put me on ignore. Bye Felicia!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Permanent ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a blessing for mdk.
Click to expand...


Willful ignorance is pretty much all they have left. As they clearly can't carry their arguments on the basis of logic, reason, or evidence. 

Its the folly of all religiously based arguments: they desperately require that you already agree with them in order for their argument to even exist.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now "Faith" is subjective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not just 'now'. Always. Its always been subjective. Your faith is defined by you, expressed by you, quantified by you, measured by you, verified by you, authenticated by you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now your tell....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your 2nd concession to the same standing points is duly recognized and summarily accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its the same tell as before. Your white flag is your summary declaration of victory. As you clearly can't support your claims with logic and reason. So you abandon your every claim, toss your every argument on the midden heap....and run. Refusing to discuss the topic.
> 
> As without my acceptance of your subjective faith as objective truth....what possible basis of argument do you have? Nothing. And this is why your argument is so laughably unpersuasive. As it requires that I already agree with you to exist.
Click to expand...


Your 3rd Concession to the same standing point is duly noted and summarily accepted!

(Isn't it cool how strongly they feel that repeating argument which already failed to sustain their 'feelings', will miraculously spare their feelings from their own surrender?  It's like Neville Chamberlain's seed somehow spread through the entire Ideological Left.)


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

bodecea said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Bible were the only religious book, that might be relevant. But there are thousands of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is the divinely inspired word of God.  There is one... with a few dozen iterations interpreting such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually there are many different variations...
Click to expand...


Yeaaaah.... that's why I used the phrase "_a few dozen iterations''_.  That sorta means 'many different variations'.


----------



## bodecea

Skylar said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you filed a police report yet over the sexual abuse you've suffered in this thread? lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One more post on this unwelcomed subject and you'll be ignored.
> 
> Please understand it doesn't matter to me... you rarely add anything to a discussion, beyond the usual ego stroke that comes with being palpably superior to another person, but that is the natural result of a discussion with any Leftist... so that means that such is second only to typing, on any political message board.
> 
> SOooo... do ya see where we stand, here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see why you would want us to forget your absurd allegations of being sexually abused in this thread. You're overly dramatic and insufferably arrogant. I can assure you I won't lose any sleep if you put me on ignore. Bye Felicia!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Permanent ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a blessing for mdk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Willful ignorance is pretty much all they have left. As they clearly can't carry their arguments on the basis of logic, reason, or evidence.
> 
> Its the folly of all religiously based arguments: they desperately require that you already agree with them in order for their argument to even exist.
Click to expand...

It usually breaks down to a few arguments recycled:

1.  Flash pictures of mooslims hanging gays in an attempt to tell us to be thankful they don't kill us like the mooslims do
2.  Go on about how the Bible forbids homosexuality....but in the exact same places it forbids things like shell fish but that's ok.
3.  Talk about how Jesus condemned homosexuality...even tho he said nothing about it.....but he DID condemn divorce but that's ok.
4.  Talk about how homosexuality isn't in nature, but when it is pointed out that it is indeed in nature, go on about how there are other "harmful to other beings" things in nature.
5.  So...you want to marry your dog?
6.  Homosexuality = pedophilia
7.  Marriage is about procreation even tho no marriage laws require proof of procreation.
8.  The majority doesn't want gay marriage, even tho polls for the last few years indicate that the majority supports legal gay marriage.
9.  Gay marriage destroys society.....except in all the places where gay marriage has been around for a decade or more.

and my favorite from a few years back:
10.  Legal gay marriage causes a rise in the number of out of wedlock births.


----------



## Skylar

bodecea said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Bible were the only religious book, that might be relevant. But there are thousands of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is the divinely inspired word of God.  There is one... with a few dozen iterations interpreting such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually there are many different variations...and many gospels and books that were randomly left out or put in at times, usually based on the political intentions of those doing the picking, choosing and translating.
Click to expand...


Hell, I'm more than happy to let them pick the version of their choice. It doesn't change the fact that you get wildly different intepretations based on whatever rationalization you wish to imagine or which passages you prioritize.

The Puritans read essentially the same Bible as the Founders. Yet the Puritans executed adulterers and gays, as they believe the bible commanded them. The Founders read essentially the same bible as Modern Christians. They only executed gays. Modern Christians execute neither.

How do you account for such wildly different outcomes from the same book in the same language in the same cultural tradition separated only by time? *The wonderous magic of subjective interpretation! *Where you can flat out tell God to go fuck himself on any passage you don't like. And the self rationalizations are as diverse as they are elaborate. St. Mikey made up different 'classifications' of commandments; standing and specific. With only the former commandments you have to follow. And who determines which are which?

_He does!_

Who decides what the classifications are and how they effect the meaning of the Bible?

_He does!_

Demonstrating more elegantly than anything I can post how hopelessly subjective religion actually is, even when we're talking about the same religion, text, sect and language. Go between them, to different religions, different sects, different texts, and things get laughably inconsistent. And Theists can't explain any of it save to insist that everyone who disagrees with them is wrong......and only they can possibly be right.

An assumption that is theistic equivalent of an asshole: everyone's got one. As pretty much every theist says the exact same thing.


----------



## bodecea

Skylar said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Bible were the only religious book, that might be relevant. But there are thousands of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is the divinely inspired word of God.  There is one... with a few dozen iterations interpreting such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually there are many different variations...and many gospels and books that were randomly left out or put in at times, usually based on the political intentions of those doing the picking, choosing and translating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hell, I'm more than happy to let them pick the version of their choice. It doesn't change the fact that you get wildly different intepretations based on whatever rationalization you wish to imagine or which passages you prioritize.
> 
> The Puritans read essentially the same Bible as the Founders. Yet the Puritans executed adulterers and gays, as they believe the bible commanded them. The Founders read essentially the same bible as Modern Christians. They only executed gays. Modern Christians execute neither.
> 
> How do you account for such wildly different outcomes from the same book in the same language in the same cultural tradition separated only by time? *The wonderous magic of subjective interpretation! *Where you can flat out tell God to go fuck himself on any passage you don't like. And the self rationalizations are as diverse as they are elaborate. St. Mikey made up different 'classifications' of commandments; standing and specific. With only the former commandments you have to follow. And who determines which are which?
> 
> He does!
> 
> How decides what the classifications are and how they effect the meaning of the Bible?
> 
> He does!
> 
> Demonstrating more elegantly than anything I can post how hopelessly subjective religion actually is, even when we're talking about the same religion, text, sect and language. Go between them, to different religions, different sects, different texts, and things get laughably inconsistent. And Theists can't explain any of it save to insist that everyone who disagrees with them is wrong......and only they can possibly be right.
> 
> An assumption that is theistic equivalent of an asshole: everyone's got one. As pretty much every theist says the exact same thing.
Click to expand...

These are my favorite 10 Commandments:

The Ten Commandments Jewish Virtual Library

#2 pretty much supports polytheism.   "No other gods before me"...in other words, the Jewish god isn't alone, he's just #1.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

bodecea said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is fascinating, isn't it? Adultery and sodomy have the exact same penalty in the OT. But you don't often hear for the execution of cheating husbands.
> 
> Why? Because it would directly effect too many of those condemning the gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that the truth.
> 
> And what about the abomination of eating shellfish?  Talk about picking and choosing...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HAHA Jews! Can't eat shrimp! Can't eat lobsters, can't eat conks! Can't eat pork chops, can't eat bacon!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All that changed when Jesus came with the new message of mercy and grace to be placed within the laws or along side of them (pray over your food before you eat it), but it's still wise that we would look at the effects of that stuff upon our bodies (i.e. I ain't a gonna eat no horse or anything that doesn't split at the hoof where as the hoof is cloven instead), because God knows best about these things he had written unto the children of Israel to follow, and these were warnings unto us all for our own good and longevity in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe. And yet for the majority of the history of your faith and for at least a dozen centuries after your 'new message', Christians still followed the OT when they wanted to. The puritians killed adulterers and gays. The foudners just gays. Modern American Christians, neither.
> 
> Did God's word change in the last 500  years? Or was that just the subjective interpretation of Christians?
> 
> Yeah, don't think to hard about that. Most theists don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Puritans forbade Christmas celebrations and killed Quakers too.  What a fun bunch of christians.
Click to expand...


Yes... Puritans rejected Christ entirely, most were gay deists, those that weren't... Atheists, real catty atheists too!  Spiked heels and leather FOR DAYS!  That's why the wore those baggy britches... to cover all that flare.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not just 'now'. Always. Its always been subjective. Your faith is defined by you, expressed by you, quantified by you, measured by you, verified by you, authenticated by you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now your tell....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your 2nd concession to the same standing points is duly recognized and summarily accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its the same tell as before. Your white flag is your summary declaration of victory. As you clearly can't support your claims with logic and reason. So you abandon your every claim, toss your every argument on the midden heap....and run. Refusing to discuss the topic.
> 
> As without my acceptance of your subjective faith as objective truth....what possible basis of argument do you have? Nothing. And this is why your argument is so laughably unpersuasive. As it requires that I already agree with you to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your 3rd Concession to the same standing point is duly noted and summarily accepted!
> 
> (Isn't it cool how strongly they feel that repeating argument which already failed to sustain their 'feelings', will miraculously spare their feelings from their own surrender?  It's like Neville Chamberlain's seed somehow spread through the entire Ideological Left.)
Click to expand...


Laughing.....isn't it cool how the same simple points shredding your claims will send you running *every single time,* without exception? How your keep abandoning your every claim, and failing utterly to shore up the truck sized holes in your arguments and logic?

*Exactly as you just did. *If you're going to treat your argument like the worthless flotsam it is by completely abandoning it, surely you can understand if we treat it the exact same way.

Again, without my acceptance of your subjective faith as objective truth.....what can you do but _run_?


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Yes... Puritans rejected Christ entirely, most were gay deists, those that weren't... Atheists, real catty atheists too!  Spiked heels and leather FOR DAYS!  That's why the wore those baggy britches... to cover all that flare.


Says who? Who says that Puritans rejected Christ entirely?

There's you citing yourself and.......wait, don't tell me. Your subjective faith?


----------



## AntiParty

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.



Funny thing about the people who oppress a group for generations......They never want to admit they did it.....In the end they act like victims saying, "We don't care, but why are they making such a scene. I mean, bus seats are assigned by skin tone....."

What is funny is that THERE ARE STILL LAWS MADE TO PREVENT GAYS FROM GETTING MARRIED AND YOU POSTED THIS TOO EARLY.....


----------



## Skylar

AntiParty said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing about the people who oppress a group for generations......They never want to admit they did it.....In the end they act like victims saying, "We don't care, but why are they making such a scene. I mean, bus seats are assigned by skin tone....."
Click to expand...


Oh, it gets better. Not only are St. Mikey and his ilk desperate to find a mud puddle of victimhood to wallow in, *but they're insisting that any violence they inflict on gays because gays won't "sit down and shut the fuck up" is the fault of gays.*

After all, Mikey reasoned...."Even Jesus went on a rampage". And you can "only push us so far".

But ask them what has been taken from them, what they've lost.......and they can't cite a single thing. Sigh....bigots. You can't fix stupid.


----------



## AntiParty

Skylar said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing about the people who oppress a group for generations......They never want to admit they did it.....In the end they act like victims saying, "We don't care, but why are they making such a scene. I mean, bus seats are assigned by skin tone....."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, it gets better. Not only are St. Mikey and his ilk desperate to find a mud puddle of victimhood to wallow in, *but they're insisting that any violence they inflict on gays because gays won't "sit down and shut the fuck up" is the fault of gays.*
> 
> After all, Mikey reasoned...."Even Jesus went on a rampage". And you can "only push us so far".
> 
> But ask them what has been taken from them, what they've lost.......and they can't cite a single thing. Sigh....bigots. You can't fix stupid.
Click to expand...


Sounds very Westboro to me..

Some Christians think that since one of the signs of the end of time is "lot's of gays" along with other things.

Some argue that this is a sign that religion isn't working anymore instead of the "end of times".

Today is funny. There are websites for gay Christians that offer a path to Christianity while being gay. If it will be the end of days, it will be because of the judgemental crazy's, not the gays in this particular topic.


----------



## Skylar

AntiParty said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing about the people who oppress a group for generations......They never want to admit they did it.....In the end they act like victims saying, "We don't care, but why are they making such a scene. I mean, bus seats are assigned by skin tone....."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, it gets better. Not only are St. Mikey and his ilk desperate to find a mud puddle of victimhood to wallow in, *but they're insisting that any violence they inflict on gays because gays won't "sit down and shut the fuck up" is the fault of gays.*
> 
> After all, Mikey reasoned...."Even Jesus went on a rampage". And you can "only push us so far".
> 
> But ask them what has been taken from them, what they've lost.......and they can't cite a single thing. Sigh....bigots. You can't fix stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds very Westboro to me..
Click to expand...


Its pretty generic thuggery, using an argument that should come with its own wife beater T-shirt and case of Pabst Blue Ribbon:

"But Becky Mae, you make me beat you senseless because you won't just sit down and shut the fuck up! Stop making me hit you."

The rather loathsome spin to it is using Jesus as your justification for hurting and killing people you don't know, have never met, who have never done you an ounce of harm. It makes me wonder if they have some special bigot bible, with a few notable changes;


_"And Christ said unto them "As I have loved you, love one another. Except them faggots"._


----------



## AntiParty

In short;

*We are all sinners. Pointing the finger at the sinner next to you isn't going to distract God from seeing YOUR sins...*


----------



## AntiParty

Skylar said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing about the people who oppress a group for generations......They never want to admit they did it.....In the end they act like victims saying, "We don't care, but why are they making such a scene. I mean, bus seats are assigned by skin tone....."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, it gets better. Not only are St. Mikey and his ilk desperate to find a mud puddle of victimhood to wallow in, *but they're insisting that any violence they inflict on gays because gays won't "sit down and shut the fuck up" is the fault of gays.*
> 
> After all, Mikey reasoned...."Even Jesus went on a rampage". And you can "only push us so far".
> 
> But ask them what has been taken from them, what they've lost.......and they can't cite a single thing. Sigh....bigots. You can't fix stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds very Westboro to me..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its pretty generic thuggery, using an argument that should come with its own wife beater T-shirt and case of Pabst Blue Ribbon:
> 
> "But Becky Mae, you make me beat you senseless because you won't just sit down and shut the fuck up! Stop making me hit you."
Click to expand...


Well some Christians think that since we are  a nation founded by Christianity we should use law to force Christianity onto others..yet Christianity was never mentioned in The Constitution because Christians came to America to escape oppression of their religion. Watching us make the same mistakes today, 2015 (actually 2019) years later is a joke, when we will learn?


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> .



And of course you are just wrong- like so many other things.

Courts have overturned 'the will of the people' repeatedly- from gun laws(San Francisco voters voted to ban guns- no surprise- the courts said the will of the people was unconstitutional) to marriage(most voters were in favor of bans on mixed race marriage when the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that 'the people' couldn't violate a couples right to get married. 

And no one has gone to war ever over these issues. 

What have homosexuals done?

Homosexuals have used their rights as Americans to go to court to argue that a law was unconstitutional- something that both Conservatives and Liberals embrace when they want to go to court complaining a law is unconstitutional

Why do you oppose homosexuals- or for that matter- anyone- following our Constitution and going to the courts to seek redress?


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> .



What special rights would those be?

There are no special federal  rights protecting homosexuals from being fired just for being homosexual. 

I work in a fairly large company- 10,000 plus employees.  Of the many HR challenges we have, I have never heard this one mentioned. 

Though if you would run into a problem if you thought you had a right to go around calling people 'f*ggots'.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?.



Yeah- I can see how that would make you feel threatened..........

Really- I mean how petty are homophobes anyway?


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?.



Why would anyone think that they are not important?

More importantly- every network is into making money- that is why they exist- and if you see gay characters on TV- it is because the networks believe that they will make more money with gay TV characters on TV. 

Because the younger audience that they are trying to attract are not as bigoted as you are- and they are not offended by seeing gay characters on TV.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it..



Ah what BS revisionist history.

Homophobes like yourself project your anger onto everyone else. 

The reality is that homophobia and general anti-homosexual sentiment is declining.

And that decline is happening in direct proportion and timing to the efforts of the gay population to come out of the closet. 

When people say that they don't want homosexual lifestyles shoved in their face, they mean that they want to go back to the old days when it was cool to bully homosexuals and when it was okay to arrest them for being attracted to the same gender.

When it was okay to call someone a f*ggot. 

Just like when it was okay to call someone a n*gger.

They miss the 'good old days'- of easy hating.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you the same Coyote I've come to know and love?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> umh....maybe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you'll remember I have some close gay friends who I highly respect. You and I discussed them at length on other forums.  It isn't gay people I have a problem with, it's the assholes.
Click to expand...


Yet here you are- in every thread- complaining about all homosexuals.


----------



## Syriusly

Mr. H. said:


> A family-run business went under because they chose not to bake a fucking cake for a gay wedding?
> 
> That's not only the Gay agenda at work, but the twisted brains of the Liberals who will not stand for dissent or disagreement.



That is the law being enforced. 

A state law at that.

Are you now suddenly against a state's right to enact its own laws?


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> I'll put it in picture form so even Leftists can understand it:
> 
> Leftists think this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is a bigger threat than this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And THAT makes them world class jackasses.
> 
> Get it now, Coyote?



Wow Saint- you really are stupider than I thought.

Or maybe just more dishonest than I thought. 

See the thing is- I will not respond in kind- because I don't think that all Christians are assholes like you are.

And I don't think that all Conservatives are lying assholes like you are. 

Its just you. 

A lying asshole who just lives to spread hate.


----------



## Syriusly

Really this thread is pretty much saying this:

"Gays are just too uppity now- why aren't they content to be out in the field's singing those wonderful songs they used to sing"


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> So the sex drive in humans is there to "have fun", and not for procreation?


That is correct.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Syriusly said:


> Really this thread is pretty much saying this:
> 
> "Gays are just too uppity now- why aren't they content to be out in the field's singing those wonderful songs they used to sing"



Stephen Foster meets Stephen Sondheim.   lololol


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> For the record, two gays are not "having sex". Sex is when a penis goes into a vagina. Anything else is not sex.


Millions upon millions of teenage girls will be thrilled to hear this, their parents not so much.

It wasn't sex daddy, I was just blowing him.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to all the atheists who think gay marriage is a bad idea, including Charles Darwin...well he's dead, but you get my point.  There's very practical reasons for promoting the values of marriage and family that don't necessarily involve religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Screw religion - I seek policy that considers *reality.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Screw the objective laws of nature?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Well... I can certainly understand the sentiment, as I too was a child once.  But sadly, for you the purveyors of such foolishness.  THAT is a river that only flows in one direction and here's the REALLY BAD NEWS... you're not the river... you're the one that is UP 'it' and yes... _you have no paddles._
Click to expand...

Laws of nature would be nothing more than your humble opinion.  Why you have such fear of ancient Arab stories is beyond me, but you're entitled to your opinion.

I'll continue to take my chances....


----------



## AVG-JOE

Carib Gyal said:


> When people talk about redefining marriage, that's exactly what they mean. They want to define it as something other than what it was. So you can define marriage as between gays, or multiple partners, or any other things you like. It has been redefined to mean something else.



You can define 'marriage' however you want.  Nobody cares.  

What people care about is treating some people differently in the eyes of the law.  Either remove the economic advantages given to married couples or grant those benefits to ALL married couples.

This is NOT rocket science!


----------



## Conservative65

Howey said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only combat veterans kill themselves more often than gay men. And gay men kill themselves 5 times as often as the general populous. Somebody isn't happy, wouldn't you say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd kill myself if I chose to be gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please.
> 
> Do.
Click to expand...


I chose not to unlike you.


----------



## Conservative65

1751_Texan said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only combat veterans kill themselves more often than gay men. And gay men kill themselves 5 times as often as the general populous. Somebody isn't happy, wouldn't you say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd kill myself if I chose to be gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That statement is idiotic. If you chose to be gay why would you kill yourself???
Click to expand...


You're the idiot if you think gay was the key word.


----------



## Conservative65

Coyote said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The homos are damn sure demanding the rest of us not just acknowledge their choice but that we agree with it and don't say anything other than you agree with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really now?  No one is saying you have to agree with it or even acknowledge it.  Hyperbole much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  You have to watch every word in order that those freaks don't get their panties in a wad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  You can say what you want.  However there is such a thing as manners.  You may lack them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  It would be for the freak of nature that thought HE was a girl and approached my daughter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously dude - if a transgender person felt he was a female he's hardly likely to approach your daughter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  Teebowing happens when someone actually accomplishes something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  You think being a freak is normal.  When daily new stories put those abnormal freaks on the screen, you don't have to look.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care about what's normal or abnormal - a lot of that is cultural.  Inside it are real people with feelings.  And they aren't hurting you any.  So if you can't stomach it - change the channel.  I get nauseous at the overflow of hate from fundamentalists.  So I change the channel.  UInless you're a quadroplegic..I suggest you do the same.
Click to expand...


1. When they use judges to "make" law, they demand it.   

2.  No you can't or one of the confused freaks might get offended.

3.  I meant even SPEAK to her.  

4.  Guess you don't know how the term originated.

5.  There's nothing cultural about being a sexually confused freak of nature.  Sounds as if you may be one of them.


----------



## Mr. H.

Syriusly said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A family-run business went under because they chose not to bake a fucking cake for a gay wedding?
> 
> That's not only the Gay agenda at work, but the twisted brains of the Liberals who will not stand for dissent or disagreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the law being enforced.
> 
> A state law at that.
> 
> Are you now suddenly against a state's right to enact its own laws?
Click to expand...

Sh'up, brotch.


----------



## Seawytch

Conservative65 said:


> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only combat veterans kill themselves more often than gay men. And gay men kill themselves 5 times as often as the general populous. Somebody isn't happy, wouldn't you say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd kill myself if I chose to be gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please.
> 
> Do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I chose not to unlike you.
Click to expand...



So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?


----------



## boilermaker55

No intelligence and no substance  
SO  No response. Typical of someone with your agenda. Yell at the top of your lungs and spew hatred.
Interesting to a degree




Where_r_my_Keys said:


> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes because that is what all of your kind eventually refer too.
> This world is about adversity and diversity and acceptance.
> No one group and govern implicitly. If that happens then it goes against all the laws of real nature.
> Not the selective group you decided to live in.
> It does strike odd that the ones that profess faith the most seem to have the least grasp of what they believe.
> They want it to fit into their microcosm world. It become deplorable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! In that religion. But once again your "kind" step over the boundaries of pushing an agenda onto those that have not allegiance to your faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faith?
> 
> We're talking the physical laws of nature... human physiology.  Inees and outees... Round Pegs designed to go into round wholes which are DESIGNED TO RECEIVE THEM... for biologically essential purposes, critical to the viability of THE SPECIES.
> 
> You need 'faith' to accept THAT WHICH IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY DEBATABLE?
> 
> If that is true... you're truly helpless and nature will most likely cull you from the herd quite soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to bed Karl... you're drunk.
Click to expand...


----------



## boilermaker55

Thank you for coming around to a side of understanding. Yet you always seem to bring things to an extreme. and when arguing a point , that serves no real purpose. Its a ploy by the side that has no substance to its argument. 




Carib Gyal said:


> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes because that is what all of your kind eventually refer too.
> This world is about adversity and diversity and acceptance.
> No one group and govern implicitly. If that happens then it goes against all the laws of real nature.
> Not the selective group you decided to live in.
> It does strike odd that the ones that profess faith the most seem to have the least grasp of what they believe.
> They want it to fit into their microcosm world. It become deplorable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! In that religion. But once again your "kind" step over the boundaries of pushing an agenda onto those that have not allegiance to your faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faith?
> 
> We're talking the physical laws of nature... human physiology.  Inees and outees... Round Pegs designed to go into round wholes which are DESIGNED TO RECEIVE THEM... for biologically essential purposes, critical to the viability of THE SPECIES.
> 
> You need 'faith' to accept THAT WHICH IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY DEBATABLE?
> 
> If that is true... you're truly helpless and nature will most likely cull you from the herd quite soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem with this reasoning is that you do the same yourself. If marriage is to be redefined, why not define it as between 20, 30, 500, or 2,000 people? The purpose of marriage isn't love, or sex, or even being between humans. Why can't a man marry a cow? Marriage will be redefined and mean something completely different than it does now.
Click to expand...


----------



## boilermaker55

And that means? Pro .....Con?




beagle9 said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes because that is what all of your kind eventually refer too.
> This world is about adversity and diversity and acceptance.
> No one group and govern implicitly. If that happens then it goes against all the laws of real nature.
> Not the selective group you decided to live in.
> It does strike odd that the ones that profess faith the most seem to have the least grasp of what they believe.
> They want it to fit into their microcosm world. It become deplorable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! In that religion. But once again your "kind" step over the boundaries of pushing an agenda onto those that have not allegiance to your faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faith?
> 
> We're talking the physical laws of nature... human physiology.  Inees and outees... Round Pegs designed to go into round wholes which are DESIGNED TO RECEIVE THEM... for biologically essential purposes, critical to the viability of THE SPECIES.
> 
> You need 'faith' to accept THAT WHICH IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY DEBATABLE?
> 
> If that is true... you're truly helpless and nature will most likely cull you from the herd quite soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem with this reasoning is that you do the same yourself. If marriage is to be redefined, why not define it as between 20, 30, 500, or 2,000 people? The purpose of marriage isn't love, or sex, or even being between humans. Why can't a man marry a cow? Marriage will be redefined and mean something completely different than it does now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's like anything, where as once the door gets pryed off of the cellar (upsetting the very foundation), and this by these storms that are raging outside it now, then who knows what someone will try next...
Click to expand...


----------



## boilermaker55

Once again with the extremism.





Carib Gyal said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes because that is what all of your kind eventually refer too.
> This world is about adversity and diversity and acceptance.
> No one group and govern implicitly. If that happens then it goes against all the laws of real nature.
> Not the selective group you decided to live in.
> It does strike odd that the ones that profess faith the most seem to have the least grasp of what they believe.
> They want it to fit into their microcosm world. It become deplorable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! In that religion. But once again your "kind" step over the boundaries of pushing an agenda onto those that have not allegiance to your faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faith?
> 
> We're talking the physical laws of nature... human physiology.  Inees and outees... Round Pegs designed to go into round wholes which are DESIGNED TO RECEIVE THEM... for biologically essential purposes, critical to the viability of THE SPECIES.
> 
> You need 'faith' to accept THAT WHICH IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY DEBATABLE?
> 
> If that is true... you're truly helpless and nature will most likely cull you from the herd quite soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem with this reasoning is that you do the same yourself. If marriage is to be redefined, why not define it as between 20, 30, 500, or 2,000 people? The purpose of marriage isn't love, or sex, or even being between humans. Why can't a man marry a cow? Marriage will be redefined and mean something completely different than it does now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can two senior citizens marry?  Why can men or women who cannot reproduce marry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can, but that's not my question. Your position is that marriage can occur regardless of love, or sex, or any other reason. What is the objection to marriage between a mouse and a woman, or 10,000 men and women and birds, or anything else?
Click to expand...


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

No they're not.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

AntiParty said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing about the people who oppress a group for generations......They never want to admit they did it.....In the end they act like victims saying, "We don't care, but why are they making such a scene. I mean, bus seats are assigned by skin tone....."
> 
> What is funny is that THERE ARE STILL LAWS MADE TO PREVENT GAYS FROM GETTING MARRIED AND YOU POSTED THIS TOO EARLY.....
Click to expand...

There are no laws anywhere preventing gays from getting married. Stop lying, Leftists!


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you the same Coyote I've come to know and love?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> umh....maybe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you'll remember I have some close gay friends who I highly respect. You and I discussed them at length on other forums.  It isn't gay people I have a problem with, it's the assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet here you are- in every thread- complaining about all homosexuals.
Click to expand...

Nope. Just the faggots.


----------



## NYcarbineer

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing about the people who oppress a group for generations......They never want to admit they did it.....In the end they act like victims saying, "We don't care, but why are they making such a scene. I mean, bus seats are assigned by skin tone....."
> 
> What is funny is that THERE ARE STILL LAWS MADE TO PREVENT GAYS FROM GETTING MARRIED AND YOU POSTED THIS TOO EARLY.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no laws anywhere preventing gays from getting married. Stop lying, Leftists!
Click to expand...


Nowhere in America will a same sex couple be refused a marriage license?  Are you certain about that?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah what BS revisionist history.
> 
> Homophobes like yourself project your anger onto everyone else.
> 
> The reality is that homophobia and general anti-homosexual sentiment is declining.
> 
> And that decline is happening in direct proportion and timing to the efforts of the gay population to come out of the closet.
> 
> When people say that they don't want homosexual lifestyles shoved in their face, they mean that they want to go back to the old days when it was cool to bully homosexuals and when it was okay to arrest them for being attracted to the same gender.
> 
> When it was okay to call someone a f*ggot.
> 
> Just like when it was okay to call someone a n*gger.
> 
> They miss the 'good old days'- of easy hating.
Click to expand...

Or we could protect homosexuals by law like everyone else and they can keep their shit in the bedroom...like everyone else. There are other choices.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

NYcarbineer said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing about the people who oppress a group for generations......They never want to admit they did it.....In the end they act like victims saying, "We don't care, but why are they making such a scene. I mean, bus seats are assigned by skin tone....."
> 
> What is funny is that THERE ARE STILL LAWS MADE TO PREVENT GAYS FROM GETTING MARRIED AND YOU POSTED THIS TOO EARLY.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no laws anywhere preventing gays from getting married. Stop lying, Leftists!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nowhere in America will a same sex couple be refused a marriage license?  Are you certain about that?
Click to expand...

Read the conversation again and stop changing it. Stop lying, Leftists!


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah- I can see how that would make you feel threatened..........
> 
> Really- I mean how petty are homophobes anyway?
Click to expand...

Don't know. I never met one.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll put it in picture form so even Leftists can understand it:
> 
> Leftists think this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is a bigger threat than this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And THAT makes them world class jackasses.
> 
> Get it now, Coyote?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow Saint- you really are stupider than I thought.
> 
> Or maybe just more dishonest than I thought.
> 
> See the thing is- I will not respond in kind- because I don't think that all Christians are assholes like you are.
> 
> And I don't think that all Conservatives are lying assholes like you are.
> 
> Its just you.
> 
> A lying asshole who just lives to spread hate.
Click to expand...

Yes, the family is just fine. My kids love their gifts, especially from grandparents. How did your fam enjoy the holidays?


----------



## NYcarbineer

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing about the people who oppress a group for generations......They never want to admit they did it.....In the end they act like victims saying, "We don't care, but why are they making such a scene. I mean, bus seats are assigned by skin tone....."
> 
> What is funny is that THERE ARE STILL LAWS MADE TO PREVENT GAYS FROM GETTING MARRIED AND YOU POSTED THIS TOO EARLY.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no laws anywhere preventing gays from getting married. Stop lying, Leftists!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nowhere in America will a same sex couple be refused a marriage license?  Are you certain about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the conversation again and stop changing it. Stop lying, Leftists!
Click to expand...


Are there no states where same sex couples are refused a marriage license?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only combat veterans kill themselves more often than gay men. And gay men kill themselves 5 times as often as the general populous. Somebody isn't happy, wouldn't you say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd kill myself if I chose to be gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please.
> 
> Do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I chose not to unlike you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?
Click to expand...

Why are lesbians so angry all the time? Even gay men try to keep away from you all, finding little in common. Perhaps women are so hormonal and bitchy, you shouldn't put two of them together like that. They need a man to calm them down. Just saying.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says you. Muslims think...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of that whatsoever.
> 
> Muslims DO however practice serial incest... which has gone on for no well over 700 years.  As a result Muslims have largely rinsed from their culture, the necessity of genetic diversity...  resulting in major cognitive limitations.
> 
> Sadly, the rest of the Ideological Left does not have this excuse... .
Click to expand...

Ha ha ha!


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Hey Chief Sellout, you have three boys right?  I'll bet the youngest one is very nice and polite, kind of quiet and thoughtful eh?  He's a faggot...

Men With Older Brothers More Likely To Be Gay Study Expanding To Biological Origin


----------



## 80zephyr

bodecea said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear....another poster who cannot tell the difference between that which does not harm others......and that which does.   It concerns me how many like you can't see the plain difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since that was not the question, you have given the wrong answer.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You use an example of something found in nature that harms others as if it makes sense as a comparison.  That shows a fundamental lack, on your part, of discerning that which does no harm and that which does harm others.  That is disturbing....even a little sociopathic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cafeteria Christianity....pick and choose what they want to push and what to ignore.
Click to expand...


Nope. Jesus said the Old Testament was null and void after his arrival. Its why live animals are not sacrificed anymore at mass, and things like that.

Mark


----------



## Conservative65

Seawytch said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only combat veterans kill themselves more often than gay men. And gay men kill themselves 5 times as often as the general populous. Somebody isn't happy, wouldn't you say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd kill myself if I chose to be gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please.
> 
> Do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I chose not to unlike you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?
Click to expand...

 

I CHOSE to be attracted to women.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since that was not the question, you have given the wrong answer.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> You use an example of something found in nature that harms others as if it makes sense as a comparison.  That shows a fundamental lack, on your part, of discerning that which does no harm and that which does harm others.  That is disturbing....even a little sociopathic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cafeteria Christianity....pick and choose what they want to push and what to ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Jesus said the Old Testament was null and void after his arrival. Its why live animals are not sacrificed anymore at mass, and things like that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, only Jesus didn't say that, and he didn't come to save your gentile ass either..


----------



## Iceweasel

AVG-JOE said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> When people talk about redefining marriage, that's exactly what they mean. They want to define it as something other than what it was. So you can define marriage as between gays, or multiple partners, or any other things you like. It has been redefined to mean something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can define 'marriage' however you want.  Nobody cares.
> 
> What people care about is treating some people differently in the eyes of the law.  Either remove the economic advantages given to married couples or grant those benefits to ALL married couples.
> 
> This is NOT rocket science!
Click to expand...

Apparently it is rocket science. If all men and all women are treated the same, that's called equality. Any eligible man can marry any eligible woman. Changing it to include men with men and women with women is a special consideration and has zip to do with equality. You can't be more equal if it's already equal. 

Gays want to pretend they are a special class of citizens but deny they are after any special consideration.


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet somehow in your twisted Leftist brain, American conservatives who are extremely tolerant of homosexuality but just don't agree with it are more of a danger than Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt where homosexuals are hung in the streets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> 
> This is where I feel duty bound to say - speak for yourself.  Do  not attempt to speak for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, perversely the same Left that celebrates "gay rights" will also throw their support behind Islam and Muslims, reminding everyone ad nauseum that not all Muslims are terrorists every time a terrorist act occurs with the blessing of the Muslim community.  All these "peaceful Muslims" think homosexuality is so wicked and socially harmful that they should be executed.  Former Iranian president Ahmadinejad spoke to American college students and seeing their metrosexual qualities volunteered, "There are no homosexuals in Iran" to the oblivious idiots so proud to have such a progressive man speak to them.   Your knee jerk affinity to Islam virtually ignores that they actually kill homosexuals every day while at the same time seeing mortal danger in Christians who remind you that God considers homosexuality to be a sinful lifestyle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not all Muslims are terrorists.  Does that bother you?  They are as varied and different as you Christians.
> Muslims, Christians, anyone can hate homosexuality.  People are free to think what they wish.  It's when they act on it that there is a problem.
> Not sure why you are even bringing Islam into this but let's straighten out a few things.  The Abrahamic Faiths don't like homosexuals.  At this point in time - Muslims are worse in that regard.  But don't pretend that everythings fine and dandy with the Christian faith when we have American mega churches down in Africa trying to criminalize homosexuality and bring about the death penalty.
> What's funny is - when it comes to homosexuality, you have a far closer affinity to the Muslims you purport to hate then you will ever admit to.
Click to expand...


Close affinity to Muslims? Lol. When we start stoning homosexuals, let me know.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> You use an example of something found in nature that harms others as if it makes sense as a comparison.  That shows a fundamental lack, on your part, of discerning that which does no harm and that which does harm others.  That is disturbing....even a little sociopathic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cafeteria Christianity....pick and choose what they want to push and what to ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Jesus said the Old Testament was null and void after his arrival. Its why live animals are not sacrificed anymore at mass, and things like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, only Jesus didn't say that, and he didn't come to save your gentile ass either..
Click to expand...


Since I am not much of a religious person, I concede that Jesus might not have said that. But, I do know that the church believes it to be so.

Mark


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

boilermaker55 said:


> Why can't a man marry a cow?




Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cafeteria Christianity....pick and choose what they want to push and what to ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Jesus said the Old Testament was null and void after his arrival. Its why live animals are not sacrificed anymore at mass, and things like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, only Jesus didn't say that, and he didn't come to save your gentile ass either..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since I am not much of a religious person, I concede that Jesus might not have said that. But, I do know that the church believes it to be so.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


As a general rule, I do not cite scripture before heathens... but because you're struggling with this issue Mark, I offer you this guidance, despite the presence of the evil that is our opposition:

The Church believes what Jesus said and he said: "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill," (Matt. 5:17).

Throughout his life, Jesus cited The Law in his many discussions.  Through his life and his gift; wherein he sacrificed himself as payment for our sin, Christ fulfilled the law, providing God's grace.

The Law remains in full force and effect.  Christ merely provided the means of humanity to fellowship with the father, by accepting his grace and turning from the perversion of reasoning that is evil, admitting that we served evil through that reasoning, that in serving evil we violated the law.  But with God's grace through Christ, we need only ask Christ for his forgiveness, willfully choose to follow Christ as our lord and our savior from that demonic reasoning, that is evil.

Now through God's gift of sound reasoning, we know that evil reasons through Relativism.  Which is wholly absent of any sense of objectivity.  Axiomatically rejecting the concept of consideration of anything beyond one's own subjective needs.  And that this, 'across the board' subjectivity is the basis of Humanism, which induces _self above all else_.  And through this, one devolves rather quickly into irrepressible sociopathy and, from that can only come chaos, calamity and catastrophe.  The perfect formula for hate, war, death and destruction; OKA: _Eternal Anguish; AKA: Hell._


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cafeteria Christianity....pick and choose what they want to push and what to ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Jesus said the Old Testament was null and void after his arrival. Its why live animals are not sacrificed anymore at mass, and things like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, only Jesus didn't say that, and he didn't come to save your gentile ass either..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since I am not much of a religious person, I concede that Jesus might not have said that. But, I do know that the church believes it to be so.
Click to expand...

No, the church doesn't on the first part.  The OT is alive and well. And it was Paul, who never met Jesus, who let the gentiles in.  Jesus was a Jew who came for the Jews, period.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't a man marry a cow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...

Give it a rest.  You lost faggot-hater, and they won.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

AntiParty said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing about the people who oppress a group for generations......They never want to admit they did it.....In the end they act like victims saying, "We don't care, but why are they making such a scene. I mean, bus seats are assigned by skin tone....."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, it gets better. Not only are St. Mikey and his ilk desperate to find a mud puddle of victimhood to wallow in, *but they're insisting that any violence they inflict on gays because gays won't "sit down and shut the fuck up" is the fault of gays.*
> 
> After all, Mikey reasoned...."Even Jesus went on a rampage". And you can "only push us so far".
> 
> But ask them what has been taken from them, what they've lost.......and they can't cite a single thing. Sigh....bigots. You can't fix stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds very Westboro to me..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its pretty generic thuggery, using an argument that should come with its own wife beater T-shirt and case of Pabst Blue Ribbon:
> 
> "But Becky Mae, you make me beat you senseless because you won't just sit down and shut the fuck up! Stop making me hit you."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well some Christians think that since we are  a nation founded by Christianity we should use law to force Christianity onto others..yet Christianity was never mentioned in The Constitution because Christians came to America to escape oppression of their religion. Watching us make the same mistakes today, 2015 (actually 2019) years later is a joke, when we will learn?
Click to expand...


I wonder... is there a difference between setting objective standards, which defend scientific fact relevant to the viability of the culture itself and pushing the tenets of one's religion onto someone else?

From my perspective, not only is there a difference, but the two are diametrically opposed to one another.

Clearly, Christianity recognizes homosexuality as an abomination.  This on the basis of the Scriptures which inform us that such is God's position on the subject.

But as well reasoned people, we also recognize that in purely scientific terms that the standard of human sexuality is established by the design intrinsic to human physiology.  Thus, sexual behavior which deviates from that standard is inarguably recognized as _*abnormal* sexuality. _

Now in terms of how we treat other people, the human brain is merely a computer that constantly plots solutions, using odds of probability to determine if a given scenario is safe or unsafe.  If the circumstances represents the potential for success or failure, will it produce a result that is beneficial or harmful, will it produce a profit or a loss.

Thus, where that which is normal increases the likelihood of safety, it increases the potential for a beneficial outcome... while _abnormal _decreases safety, promoting the potential for harm... unsafe... loss, death: *BAD!*

Simple calculator, the human brain.  But it works... the environment in which we exist is a fairly simple place, so where's the need for anything else?

Now... LOL!  Can't ya just FEEL the demon getting all tingly as it prepares to pounce, proclaiming itself as a MUCH more sophisticated animal... with a vastly more complex 'mind'... its hands wringing in a blur as it begins to inform us of that the "Rightwing" mind is a basic calculator, while they are a bad ass super computer.

Of course in truth, they have the same mind... it's just that their Operating System tells them that what a sound system recognizes as a threat to potential viability, is instead: "No problem, proceed: Its all good."

But look around the world you live in today...  Their economic policy caused the entire planets financial market to collapse.  They LITERALLY replaced scientifically devised systems, with a perverted variant of "Fairness".  _KILLED IT *DEAD!*_

These are the same people that want us to believe THAT THE SUN IS IRRELEVANT to the earth's climate temperature, and they want FULL CONTROL over the planet to protect us from US... because THEY KNOW how to solve a problem, the complexity of which makes economics look like a peg/hole equation. (Remember...  the peg/hole problem: BURIED 'EM!)

All of that merely points to the fact that the Left's Operating System is invalid... it misinforms them of simple risks, it produces false analysis of basic data...  and if you do not believe that... then explain how it is that they conclude AS A GROUP: That what is INARGUABLY ABNORMAL is perfectly normal.

Now friends... we're down to a simple choice:

Do we allow people who can't reason through even this most FUNDAMENTAL EQUATION to find the otherwise UNAVOIDABLE CORRECT ANSWER... to have a say in the laws that govern us; laws which will produce A SERIOUS THREAT TO OUR SURVIVAL... or not?

And does it matter if they claim that our rejecting them and their 'conclusions' is because we hate them; or because we're religious bigots, because they're different?

I don't see how it does... but some may disagree and I would love to here more about that!


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the sex drive in humans is there to "have fun", and not for procreation?
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct.
Click to expand...


You simply don't have a clue as how evolution works, do you?

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the record, two gays are not "having sex". Sex is when a penis goes into a vagina. Anything else is not sex.
> 
> 
> 
> Millions upon millions of teenage girls will be thrilled to hear this, their parents not so much.
> 
> It wasn't sex daddy, I was just blowing him.
Click to expand...



You can call a blow job sex, it won't make it so.

I suppose you believe that sucking on someones toes is having sex as well..

Mark


----------



## nodoginnafight

Marriage is between ANY two consenting adults.


----------



## 80zephyr

AVG-JOE said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> When people talk about redefining marriage, that's exactly what they mean. They want to define it as something other than what it was. So you can define marriage as between gays, or multiple partners, or any other things you like. It has been redefined to mean something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can define 'marriage' however you want.  Nobody cares.
> 
> What people care about is treating some people differently in the eyes of the law.  Either remove the economic advantages given to married couples or grant those benefits to ALL married couples.
> 
> This is NOT rocket science!
Click to expand...


NO ONE was being treated differently. This "discrimination" was not happening.

Mark


----------



## Iceweasel

nodoginnafight said:


> Marriage is between ANY two consenting adults.


Wow. So a dad can marry his adult son or daughter? Or two brothers. Mother and son. You are out there.


----------



## nodoginnafight

If you deny things to people based on race, religion, national origin, color, sexual preference, it's discrimination. Period.


----------



## 80zephyr

Seawytch said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only combat veterans kill themselves more often than gay men. And gay men kill themselves 5 times as often as the general populous. Somebody isn't happy, wouldn't you say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd kill myself if I chose to be gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please.
> 
> Do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I chose not to unlike you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?
Click to expand...


Why does it matter who you are attracted to? If a man is attracted to a horse, we would think he was "off". Only when a man is attracted to another man do we think its "sensible".

Our bodies were designed by nature to couple with the opposite sex. Anything else is illogical and abnormal.

But, I am quite used to the left telling us that up is down and left is right.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

nodoginnafight said:


> If you deny things to people based on race, religion, national origin, color, sexual preference, it's discrimination. Period.




Who was denied what? The laws were equally applied to every person in the US.

Mark


----------



## Skylar

Iceweasel said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> When people talk about redefining marriage, that's exactly what they mean. They want to define it as something other than what it was. So you can define marriage as between gays, or multiple partners, or any other things you like. It has been redefined to mean something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can define 'marriage' however you want.  Nobody cares.
> 
> What people care about is treating some people differently in the eyes of the law.  Either remove the economic advantages given to married couples or grant those benefits to ALL married couples.
> 
> This is NOT rocket science!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently it is rocket science. If all men and all women are treated the same, that's called equality. Any eligible man can marry any eligible woman. Changing it to include men with men and women with women is a special consideration and has zip to do with equality. You can't be more equal if it's already equal.
Click to expand...


The exact same logic was used when interracial marriage was banned. Blacks and white were both subject to the law, so it was 'equal'. Allowing them to marry each other was a 'special consideration' and had 'zip to do with equality'.

It was a bullshit argument then. And nearly 50 years later, its still a fetid corpse of an argument. As the standard itself is invalid, unjust, and unequal, with the restrictions having nothing to do with the requirements of the union.

Its the same with gay marriage. There's no requirement of marriage that gays and lesbians can't satisfy. There's no state interest in denying gays and lesbians the right to marry. And it has no rational reason. If you're going to deny someone their rights, you need a very good reason.

And opponents of same sex marriage simply don't have it.


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Cafeteria Christianity....pick and choose what they want to push and what to ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Jesus said the Old Testament was null and void after his arrival. Its why live animals are not sacrificed anymore at mass, and things like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, only Jesus didn't say that, and he didn't come to save your gentile ass either..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since I am not much of a religious person, I concede that Jesus might not have said that. But, I do know that the church believes it to be so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the church doesn't on the first part.  The OT is alive and well. And it was Paul, who never met Jesus, who let the gentiles in.  Jesus was a Jew who came for the Jews, period.
Click to expand...


While I am not much on religion, I did spend 7 years in a Catholic school. My memory maybe a bit fuzzy, but I think they disagree with you.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> When people talk about redefining marriage, that's exactly what they mean. They want to define it as something other than what it was. So you can define marriage as between gays, or multiple partners, or any other things you like. It has been redefined to mean something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can define 'marriage' however you want.  Nobody cares.
> 
> What people care about is treating some people differently in the eyes of the law.  Either remove the economic advantages given to married couples or grant those benefits to ALL married couples.
> 
> This is NOT rocket science!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently it is rocket science. If all men and all women are treated the same, that's called equality. Any eligible man can marry any eligible woman. Changing it to include men with men and women with women is a special consideration and has zip to do with equality. You can't be more equal if it's already equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The exact same logic was used when interracial marriage was banned. Blacks and white were both subject to the law, so it was 'equal'. Allowing them to marry each other was a 'special consideration' and had 'zip to do with equality'.
> 
> It was a bullshit argument then. And nearly 50 years later, its still a fetid corpse of an argument. As the standard itself is invalid, unjust, and unequal, with the restrictions having nothing to do with the requirements of the union.
> 
> Its the same with gay marriage. There's no requirement of marriage that gays and lesbians can't satisfy. There's no state interest in denying gays and lesbians the right to marry. And it has no rational reason. If you're going to deny someone their rights, you need a very good reason.
> 
> And opponents of same sex marriage simply don't have it.
Click to expand...


Blacks and whites were not treated equally until any man could marry any woman. Your argument is invalid.

Mark


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the sex drive in humans is there to "have fun", and not for procreation?
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You simply don't have a clue as how evolution works, do you?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Nope... but in fairness to them, such clues rest in reason which sets aside one's subjective need to _slap and tickle. 
_
In our Grandfather's day, these people would be locked up in "Institutions"... which sought to care for them on basic humane levels, but which was designed to prevent them from influencing others.  Ya see, such reasoning is CONTAGIOUS!

It spreads like wild-fire from one idiot to the next.  Which is why people like Marx were able to cripple entire continents with nothing more than a few books.


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only combat veterans kill themselves more often than gay men. And gay men kill themselves 5 times as often as the general populous. Somebody isn't happy, wouldn't you say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd kill myself if I chose to be gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please.
> 
> Do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I chose not to unlike you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it matter who you are attracted to? If a man is attracted to a horse, we would think he was "off". Only when a man is attracted to another man do we think its "sensible".
> 
> Our bodies were designed by nature to couple with the opposite sex. Anything else is illogical and abnormal.
> 
> But, I am quite used to the left telling us that up is down and left is right.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


So masturbation is illogical and abnormal? How about blow jobs? Celibacy?  Are old people fucking equally 'illogical and abnormal'? 

Dude, sex has more than the lone purpose you recognize. Just because sex can produce kids doesn't mean that kids are the only purpose in sex. Anymore than eating to fuel the body is the only purpose of eating.


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> When people talk about redefining marriage, that's exactly what they mean. They want to define it as something other than what it was. So you can define marriage as between gays, or multiple partners, or any other things you like. It has been redefined to mean something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can define 'marriage' however you want.  Nobody cares.
> 
> What people care about is treating some people differently in the eyes of the law.  Either remove the economic advantages given to married couples or grant those benefits to ALL married couples.
> 
> This is NOT rocket science!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently it is rocket science. If all men and all women are treated the same, that's called equality. Any eligible man can marry any eligible woman. Changing it to include men with men and women with women is a special consideration and has zip to do with equality. You can't be more equal if it's already equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The exact same logic was used when interracial marriage was banned. Blacks and white were both subject to the law, so it was 'equal'. Allowing them to marry each other was a 'special consideration' and had 'zip to do with equality'.
> 
> It was a bullshit argument then. And nearly 50 years later, its still a fetid corpse of an argument. As the standard itself is invalid, unjust, and unequal, with the restrictions having nothing to do with the requirements of the union.
> 
> Its the same with gay marriage. There's no requirement of marriage that gays and lesbians can't satisfy. There's no state interest in denying gays and lesbians the right to marry. And it has no rational reason. If you're going to deny someone their rights, you need a very good reason.
> 
> And opponents of same sex marriage simply don't have it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blacks and whites were not treated equally until any man could marry any woman. Your argument I invalid.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


On the contrary, your argument is that of the advocates of interracial marriage bans. Their version of 'equality' was exactly as you describe it: the law applying the same invalid restrictions to everyone. Since blacks and whites were both restricted by these invalid laws, per their advocates they were being treated 'equally'.

*The obvious problem with their reasoning (and yours) is that there needs to be a valid reason for the restriction. *An arbitrary ban only creates unequal protection in the law for those attempting to participate in the union in violation of the invalid restriction. Interracial couples in the case of Richard and Mildred Loving. And same sex couples today.

There's no rational reason for either ban. There's no state interest served by either. There's no logic to it. As there's no actual requirement of the union of marriage that an interracial couple or a gay couple can't meet. 

And if you're going to deny someone rights, you need a very good reason. And a state interest being served. And the advocates of same sex marriage bans have neither.


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd kill myself if I chose to be gay.
> 
> 
> 
> Please.
> 
> Do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I chose not to unlike you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it matter who you are attracted to? If a man is attracted to a horse, we would think he was "off". Only when a man is attracted to another man do we think its "sensible".
> 
> Our bodies were designed by nature to couple with the opposite sex. Anything else is illogical and abnormal.
> 
> But, I am quite used to the left telling us that up is down and left is right.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So masturbation is illogical and abnormal? How about blow jobs? Celibacy?  Are old people fucking equally 'illogical and abnormal'?
> 
> Dude, sex has more than the lone purpose you recognize. Just because sex can produce kids doesn't mean that kids are the only purpose in sex. Anymore than eating to fuel the body is the only purpose of eating.
Click to expand...

Illogical and abnormal are when a person does not follow natures plan. A person who likes blow up dolls is illogical and abnormal.

Is he having fun? Sure. Doesn't make any less illiogical and abnormal.

Mark


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> In our Grandfather's day, these people would be locked up in "Institutions"... which sought to care for them on basic humane levels, but which was designed to prevent them from influencing others.  Ya see, such reasoning is CONTAGIOUS!


And before that, executed. But there's no valid reason for that either. As there's nothing inherently 'immoral' or wrong with homosexuality. And without that fundamental and invalid assumption of 'immorality', stripping gays of their rights makes absolutely no sense.

Which might explain why the courts have sided so overwhelmingly with same sex couples. As have the public.


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> When people talk about redefining marriage, that's exactly what they mean. They want to define it as something other than what it was. So you can define marriage as between gays, or multiple partners, or any other things you like. It has been redefined to mean something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can define 'marriage' however you want.  Nobody cares.
> 
> What people care about is treating some people differently in the eyes of the law.  Either remove the economic advantages given to married couples or grant those benefits to ALL married couples.
> 
> This is NOT rocket science!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently it is rocket science. If all men and all women are treated the same, that's called equality. Any eligible man can marry any eligible woman. Changing it to include men with men and women with women is a special consideration and has zip to do with equality. You can't be more equal if it's already equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The exact same logic was used when interracial marriage was banned. Blacks and white were both subject to the law, so it was 'equal'. Allowing them to marry each other was a 'special consideration' and had 'zip to do with equality'.
> 
> It was a bullshit argument then. And nearly 50 years later, its still a fetid corpse of an argument. As the standard itself is invalid, unjust, and unequal, with the restrictions having nothing to do with the requirements of the union.
> 
> Its the same with gay marriage. There's no requirement of marriage that gays and lesbians can't satisfy. There's no state interest in denying gays and lesbians the right to marry. And it has no rational reason. If you're going to deny someone their rights, you need a very good reason.
> 
> And opponents of same sex marriage simply don't have it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blacks and whites were not treated equally until any man could marry any woman. Your argument I invalid.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, your argument is that of the advocates of interracial marriage bans. Their version of 'equality' was exactly as you describe it: the law applying the same invalid restrictions to everyone. Since blacks and whites were both restricted by these invalid laws, per their advocates they were being treated 'equally'.
> 
> *The obvious problem with their reasoning (and yours) is that there needs to be a valid reason for the restriction. *An arbitrary ban only creates unequal protection in the law for those attempting to participate in the union in violation of the invalid restriction. Interracial couples in the case of Richard and Mildred Loving. And same sex couples today.
> 
> There's no rational reason for either ban. There's no state interest served by either. There's no logic to it. As there's no actual requirement of the union of marriage that an interracial couple or a gay couple can't meet.
> 
> And if you're going to deny someone rights, you need a very good reason. And a state interest being served. And the advocates of same sex marriage bans have neither.
Click to expand...


Wrong yet again. The basis of marriage is GENDER, not race. Discriminating against races in marriage was clearly wrong. Now, calling two men "married" cannot make it so, biologically. Only the law can be inane enough to do that.

Mark


----------



## nodoginnafight

80zephyr said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you deny things to people based on race, religion, national origin, color, sexual preference, it's discrimination. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who was denied what? The laws were equally applied to every person in the US.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


If that were the case - then gays could marry and enjoy all the same rights and privileges of of hetero couples.

There is no need for gender to be a component of marriage.
And there is no need for anyone to try to push that down anyone else's throat.


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> In our Grandfather's day, these people would be locked up in "Institutions"... which sought to care for them on basic humane levels, but which was designed to prevent them from influencing others.  Ya see, such reasoning is CONTAGIOUS!
> 
> 
> 
> And before that, executed. But there's no valid reason for that either. As there's nothing inherently 'immoral' or wrong with homosexuality. And without that fundamental and invalid assumption of 'immorality', stripping gays of their rights makes absolutely no sense.
> 
> Which might explain why the courts have sided so overwhelmingly with same sex couples. As have the public.
Click to expand...


There is nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality, besides the fact that it goes against biological design in the same way any deviancy does.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

nodoginnafight said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you deny things to people based on race, religion, national origin, color, sexual preference, it's discrimination. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who was denied what? The laws were equally applied to every person in the US.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that were the case - then gays could marry and enjoy all the same rights and privileges of of hetero couples.
> 
> There is no need for gender to be a component of marriage.
> And there is no need for anyone to try to push that down anyone else's throat.
Click to expand...


Of course there is a need for gender in marriage. If it were not the case, history would be replete with men marrying men and women marrying women.

It was understood then(and should be now), that the family unit is the basic building block of our society. Since gays cannot have children, the question becomes moot.

And, by allowing a group the title of "marriage" when that is not possible waters down marriage, and the family unit.

Mark


----------



## nodoginnafight

"Of course there is a need for gender in marriage."

Of course there is not.
There was a lot of slavery in history too.
Poor argument - try again.


----------



## 80zephyr

nodoginnafight said:


> "Of course there is a need for gender in marriage."
> 
> Of course there is not.
> There was a lot of slavery in history too.
> Poor argument - try again.



Why would I? You have nothing to rebut what marriage was(and is) for thousands of years. You can call to men "married", but it won't make it so.

Mark


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Of course there is a need for gender in marriage."
> 
> Of course there is not.
> There was a lot of slavery in history too.
> Poor argument - try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I? You have nothing to rebut what marriage was(and is) for thousands of years. You can call to men "married", but it won't make it so.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Actually in many countries and in many states it is so.  You don't like it, but oh well.


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please.
> 
> Do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I chose not to unlike you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it matter who you are attracted to? If a man is attracted to a horse, we would think he was "off". Only when a man is attracted to another man do we think its "sensible".
> 
> Our bodies were designed by nature to couple with the opposite sex. Anything else is illogical and abnormal.
> 
> But, I am quite used to the left telling us that up is down and left is right.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So masturbation is illogical and abnormal? How about blow jobs? Celibacy?  Are old people fucking equally 'illogical and abnormal'?
> 
> Dude, sex has more than the lone purpose you recognize. Just because sex can produce kids doesn't mean that kids are the only purpose in sex. Anymore than eating to fuel the body is the only purpose of eating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illogical and abnormal are when a person does not follow natures plan. A person who likes blow up dolls is illogical and abnormal.
> 
> Is he having fun? Sure. Doesn't make any less illiogical and abnormal.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

And that man is allowed to marry (not the doll because it cannot consent).


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please.
> 
> Do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I chose not to unlike you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it matter who you are attracted to? If a man is attracted to a horse, we would think he was "off". Only when a man is attracted to another man do we think its "sensible".
> 
> Our bodies were designed by nature to couple with the opposite sex. Anything else is illogical and abnormal.
> 
> But, I am quite used to the left telling us that up is down and left is right.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So masturbation is illogical and abnormal? How about blow jobs? Celibacy?  Are old people fucking equally 'illogical and abnormal'?
> 
> Dude, sex has more than the lone purpose you recognize. Just because sex can produce kids doesn't mean that kids are the only purpose in sex. Anymore than eating to fuel the body is the only purpose of eating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illogical and abnormal are when a person does not follow natures plan. A person who likes blow up dolls is illogical and abnormal.
> 
> Is he having fun? Sure. Doesn't make any less illiogical and abnormal.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


And how, pray tell....does masturbation follow 'nature's plan'? How does celibacy? What part of nature's plan is satisfied by nana and pop-pop knocking boots? How about blowjobs......illogical and abnormal?

As each of these acts has as much chance of producing children as say, a pair of lesbians making out.

Your folly is in assuming that there's no logical reason to have sex save procreation. And that's absurd. Its logical to have sex if it simply feels good. You could use it for bonding. You could use it for stress relief. Hell, you could use it for cardio. It could carry some religious significance. It could be to comfort someone. 

Your assessment of 'logical' and 'normal' is illogical and irrational. As it ignores a plethora of logical reasons to have sex, and ignores them for no other reason than its inconvenient to your argument.


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can define 'marriage' however you want.  Nobody cares.
> 
> What people care about is treating some people differently in the eyes of the law.  Either remove the economic advantages given to married couples or grant those benefits to ALL married couples.
> 
> This is NOT rocket science!
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently it is rocket science. If all men and all women are treated the same, that's called equality. Any eligible man can marry any eligible woman. Changing it to include men with men and women with women is a special consideration and has zip to do with equality. You can't be more equal if it's already equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The exact same logic was used when interracial marriage was banned. Blacks and white were both subject to the law, so it was 'equal'. Allowing them to marry each other was a 'special consideration' and had 'zip to do with equality'.
> 
> It was a bullshit argument then. And nearly 50 years later, its still a fetid corpse of an argument. As the standard itself is invalid, unjust, and unequal, with the restrictions having nothing to do with the requirements of the union.
> 
> Its the same with gay marriage. There's no requirement of marriage that gays and lesbians can't satisfy. There's no state interest in denying gays and lesbians the right to marry. And it has no rational reason. If you're going to deny someone their rights, you need a very good reason.
> 
> And opponents of same sex marriage simply don't have it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blacks and whites were not treated equally until any man could marry any woman. Your argument I invalid.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, your argument is that of the advocates of interracial marriage bans. Their version of 'equality' was exactly as you describe it: the law applying the same invalid restrictions to everyone. Since blacks and whites were both restricted by these invalid laws, per their advocates they were being treated 'equally'.
> 
> *The obvious problem with their reasoning (and yours) is that there needs to be a valid reason for the restriction. *An arbitrary ban only creates unequal protection in the law for those attempting to participate in the union in violation of the invalid restriction. Interracial couples in the case of Richard and Mildred Loving. And same sex couples today.
> 
> There's no rational reason for either ban. There's no state interest served by either. There's no logic to it. As there's no actual requirement of the union of marriage that an interracial couple or a gay couple can't meet.
> 
> And if you're going to deny someone rights, you need a very good reason. And a state interest being served. And the advocates of same sex marriage bans have neither.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong yet again. The basis of marriage is GENDER, not race. Discriminating against races in marriage was clearly wrong. Now, calling two men "married" cannot make it so, biologically. Only the law can be inane enough to do that.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Ok, let's go with your idea of gender....in this country, the government cannot discriminate based on gender.  There.  Your argument against same sex marriage shot down.


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the record, two gays are not "having sex". Sex is when a penis goes into a vagina. Anything else is not sex.
> 
> 
> 
> Millions upon millions of teenage girls will be thrilled to hear this, their parents not so much.
> 
> It wasn't sex daddy, I was just blowing him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *You can call a blow job sex, it won't make it so.*
> 
> I suppose you believe that sucking on someones toes is having sex as well..
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Ah...President Clinton, is that you?


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you deny things to people based on race, religion, national origin, color, sexual preference, it's discrimination. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who was denied what? The laws were equally applied to every person in the US.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

And the SCOTUS laughed that right out of their court.


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> In our Grandfather's day, these people would be locked up in "Institutions"... which sought to care for them on basic humane levels, but which was designed to prevent them from influencing others.  Ya see, such reasoning is CONTAGIOUS!
> 
> 
> 
> And before that, executed. But there's no valid reason for that either. As there's nothing inherently 'immoral' or wrong with homosexuality. And without that fundamental and invalid assumption of 'immorality', stripping gays of their rights makes absolutely no sense.
> 
> Which might explain why the courts have sided so overwhelmingly with same sex couples. As have the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality, besides the fact that it goes against biological design in the same way any deviancy does.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Celibacy 'goes against biological design'. Old people fucking 'goes against biological design'. Blow jobs 'go against biological design'. Masturbation 'goes against biological design'.

I wouldn't consider any of them to be 'immoral', 'illogical' or 'abnormal'. And with the possible exception of celibacy, none would be a valid basis to deny someone the right to marry. 

The worst thing you can say about homosexuality is that its sexually unproductive. But then you could say the same thing of anyone who uses a condom or birth control.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't a man marry a cow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give it a rest.  You lost faggot-hater, and they won.
Click to expand...


Really.. _faggot_?

My God, you're such a miserable waste of humanity.


----------



## Skylar

bodecea said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Of course there is a need for gender in marriage."
> 
> Of course there is not.
> There was a lot of slavery in history too.
> Poor argument - try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I? You have nothing to rebut what marriage was(and is) for thousands of years. You can call to men "married", but it won't make it so.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually in many countries and in many states it is so.  You don't like it, but oh well.
Click to expand...


Exactly. Its hillarious to hear folks insist that their made up social construct is the only valid made up social construct. And our made up social construct isn't. 

We made marriage. It is...whatever we say it is.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Soggy in NOLA said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't a man marry a cow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give it a rest.  You lost faggot-hater, and they won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really.. _faggot_?
> 
> My God, you're such a miserable waste of humanity.
Click to expand...


LOL!  Leftists are sub-standard variants of humanity.  Which for those keeping score, renders the common Leftists to the unenviable status of "Sub-Human".

As a result, they do not enjoy the requirement common to actual humanity, of treating them as such; which means that because of their disordered minds, they truly do not possess the rights common to humanity, due to their intellectual inadequacies which preclude them from bearing the responsibilities that sustain such rights.

In short they simply lack the means required for freedom.

In greater nature, they are what is otherwise recognized as: _*FOOD!*_


----------



## 80zephyr

bodecea said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Of course there is a need for gender in marriage."
> 
> Of course there is not.
> There was a lot of slavery in history too.
> Poor argument - try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I? You have nothing to rebut what marriage was(and is) for thousands of years. You can call to men "married", but it won't make it so.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually in many countries and in many states it is so.  You don't like it, but oh well.
Click to expand...


Yes, many counties and states have gone round the bend. I suppose they could start passing laws calling all men tree stumps, but it wouldn't make it so.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

bodecea said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I chose not to unlike you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it matter who you are attracted to? If a man is attracted to a horse, we would think he was "off". Only when a man is attracted to another man do we think its "sensible".
> 
> Our bodies were designed by nature to couple with the opposite sex. Anything else is illogical and abnormal.
> 
> But, I am quite used to the left telling us that up is down and left is right.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So masturbation is illogical and abnormal? How about blow jobs? Celibacy?  Are old people fucking equally 'illogical and abnormal'?
> 
> Dude, sex has more than the lone purpose you recognize. Just because sex can produce kids doesn't mean that kids are the only purpose in sex. Anymore than eating to fuel the body is the only purpose of eating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illogical and abnormal are when a person does not follow natures plan. A person who likes blow up dolls is illogical and abnormal.
> 
> Is he having fun? Sure. Doesn't make any less illiogical and abnormal.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that man is allowed to marry (not the doll because it cannot consent).
Click to expand...


Doesn't change what I said. Not one whit.

Mark


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Of course there is a need for gender in marriage."
> 
> Of course there is not.
> There was a lot of slavery in history too.
> Poor argument - try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I? You have nothing to rebut what marriage was(and is) for thousands of years. You can call to men "married", but it won't make it so.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually in many countries and in many states it is so.  You don't like it, but oh well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, many counties and states have gone round the bend. I suppose they could start passing laws calling all men tree stumps, but it wouldn't make it so.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...



The difference being that marriage is a social construct. It means whatever we decide it means.


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't a man marry a cow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give it a rest.  You lost faggot-hater, and they won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really.. _faggot_?
> 
> My God, you're such a miserable waste of humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  *Leftists are sub-standard variants of humanity*.  Which for those keeping score, renders the common Leftists to the unenviable status of "Sub-Human".
> 
> As a result, they do not enjoy the requirement common to actual humanity, of treating them as such; which means that because of their disordered minds, they truly do not possess the rights common to humanity, due to their intellectual inadequacies which preclude them from bearing the responsibilities that sustain such rights.
> 
> In short they simply lack the means required for freedom.
> 
> In greater nature, they are what is otherwise recognized as: _*FOOD!*_
Click to expand...

Classic de-humanizing those you disagree with.


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I chose not to unlike you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it matter who you are attracted to? If a man is attracted to a horse, we would think he was "off". Only when a man is attracted to another man do we think its "sensible".
> 
> Our bodies were designed by nature to couple with the opposite sex. Anything else is illogical and abnormal.
> 
> But, I am quite used to the left telling us that up is down and left is right.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So masturbation is illogical and abnormal? How about blow jobs? Celibacy?  Are old people fucking equally 'illogical and abnormal'?
> 
> Dude, sex has more than the lone purpose you recognize. Just because sex can produce kids doesn't mean that kids are the only purpose in sex. Anymore than eating to fuel the body is the only purpose of eating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illogical and abnormal are when a person does not follow natures plan. A person who likes blow up dolls is illogical and abnormal.
> 
> Is he having fun? Sure. Doesn't make any less illiogical and abnormal.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how, pray tell....does masturbation follow 'nature's plan'? How does celibacy? What part of nature's plan is satisfied by nana and pop-pop knocking boots? How about blowjobs......illogical and abnormal?
> 
> As each of these acts has as much chance of producing children as say, a pair of lesbians making out.
> 
> Your folly is in assuming that there's no logical reason to have sex save procreation. And that's absurd. Its logical to have sex if it simply feels good. You could use it for bonding. You could use it for stress relief. Hell, you could use it for cardio. It could carry some religious significance. It could be to comfort someone.
> 
> Your assessment of 'logical' and 'normal' is illogical and irrational. As it ignores a plethora of logical reasons to have sex, and ignores them for no other reason than its inconvenient to your argument.
Click to expand...


I am not the one to make what I said logical and normal. Nature does that. I am only telling you what nature tells us.

Mark


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it matter who you are attracted to? If a man is attracted to a horse, we would think he was "off". Only when a man is attracted to another man do we think its "sensible".
> 
> Our bodies were designed by nature to couple with the opposite sex. Anything else is illogical and abnormal.
> 
> But, I am quite used to the left telling us that up is down and left is right.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So masturbation is illogical and abnormal? How about blow jobs? Celibacy?  Are old people fucking equally 'illogical and abnormal'?
> 
> Dude, sex has more than the lone purpose you recognize. Just because sex can produce kids doesn't mean that kids are the only purpose in sex. Anymore than eating to fuel the body is the only purpose of eating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illogical and abnormal are when a person does not follow natures plan. A person who likes blow up dolls is illogical and abnormal.
> 
> Is he having fun? Sure. Doesn't make any less illiogical and abnormal.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that man is allowed to marry (not the doll because it cannot consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't change what I said. Not one whit.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

 Sure it does. Consent is a requisite of any marriage. An actual requirement of the union. Anyone or anything that can't offer consent can't join the union. 

Gays can offer consent. And can meet every requirement of marriage. Demonstrating the uselessness of your claims.


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it matter who you are attracted to? If a man is attracted to a horse, we would think he was "off". Only when a man is attracted to another man do we think its "sensible".
> 
> Our bodies were designed by nature to couple with the opposite sex. Anything else is illogical and abnormal.
> 
> But, I am quite used to the left telling us that up is down and left is right.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So masturbation is illogical and abnormal? How about blow jobs? Celibacy?  Are old people fucking equally 'illogical and abnormal'?
> 
> Dude, sex has more than the lone purpose you recognize. Just because sex can produce kids doesn't mean that kids are the only purpose in sex. Anymore than eating to fuel the body is the only purpose of eating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illogical and abnormal are when a person does not follow natures plan. A person who likes blow up dolls is illogical and abnormal.
> 
> Is he having fun? Sure. Doesn't make any less illiogical and abnormal.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that man is allowed to marry (not the doll because it cannot consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't change what I said. Not one whit.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

So you agree that gay marriage is legally valid.


----------



## 80zephyr

bodecea said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't a man marry a cow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give it a rest.  You lost faggot-hater, and they won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really.. _faggot_?
> 
> My God, you're such a miserable waste of humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  *Leftists are sub-standard variants of humanity*.  Which for those keeping score, renders the common Leftists to the unenviable status of "Sub-Human".
> 
> As a result, they do not enjoy the requirement common to actual humanity, of treating them as such; which means that because of their disordered minds, they truly do not possess the rights common to humanity, due to their intellectual inadequacies which preclude them from bearing the responsibilities that sustain such rights.
> 
> In short they simply lack the means required for freedom.
> 
> In greater nature, they are what is otherwise recognized as: _*FOOD!*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Classic de-humanizing those you disagree with.
Click to expand...


Your one to talk. Say, why don't you also berate those that are calling us homophobes and faggot haters?

Or does your silence show you are complicit in their beliefs?

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Of course there is a need for gender in marriage."
> 
> Of course there is not.
> There was a lot of slavery in history too.
> Poor argument - try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I? You have nothing to rebut what marriage was(and is) for thousands of years. You can call to men "married", but it won't make it so.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually in many countries and in many states it is so.  You don't like it, but oh well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, many counties and states have gone round the bend. I suppose they could start passing laws calling all men tree stumps, but it wouldn't make it so.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference being that marriage is a social construct. It means whatever we decide it means.
Click to expand...


So is gender. If we say its the same, its the same. Sorta like race.

We can "say" it is marriage, but if we are using commonly accepted terms that have certain definitions, we would be lying.

I assume that doesn't bother you.

Mark


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it matter who you are attracted to? If a man is attracted to a horse, we would think he was "off". Only when a man is attracted to another man do we think its "sensible".
> 
> Our bodies were designed by nature to couple with the opposite sex. Anything else is illogical and abnormal.
> 
> But, I am quite used to the left telling us that up is down and left is right.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So masturbation is illogical and abnormal? How about blow jobs? Celibacy?  Are old people fucking equally 'illogical and abnormal'?
> 
> Dude, sex has more than the lone purpose you recognize. Just because sex can produce kids doesn't mean that kids are the only purpose in sex. Anymore than eating to fuel the body is the only purpose of eating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illogical and abnormal are when a person does not follow natures plan. A person who likes blow up dolls is illogical and abnormal.
> 
> Is he having fun? Sure. Doesn't make any less illiogical and abnormal.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how, pray tell....does masturbation follow 'nature's plan'? How does celibacy? What part of nature's plan is satisfied by nana and pop-pop knocking boots? How about blowjobs......illogical and abnormal?
> 
> As each of these acts has as much chance of producing children as say, a pair of lesbians making out.
> 
> Your folly is in assuming that there's no logical reason to have sex save procreation. And that's absurd. Its logical to have sex if it simply feels good. You could use it for bonding. You could use it for stress relief. Hell, you could use it for cardio. It could carry some religious significance. It could be to comfort someone.
> 
> Your assessment of 'logical' and 'normal' is illogical and irrational. As it ignores a plethora of logical reasons to have sex, and ignores them for no other reason than its inconvenient to your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not the one to make what I said logical and normal. Nature does that. I am only telling you what nature tells us.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Says you. And you're not Nature. You can't make your claims work logically or rationally. So you use a tired and rather predictable fallacy of logic called 'Appeal to Authority'. Where something must be so because the 'Authority' said it was.

Nature hasn't said shit. You have. And sex can logically serve many, many purposes beyond procreation. Just as eating can serve many, many more purposes than merely fueling the body. 

But just for giggles, I want to hear you say it. T*ell us that an old married couple having sex is illogical and abnormal.* I mean, if you really believe your standard, it should be easy.

If you don't......you'll give us some excuse for why you won't.


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> We can "say" it is marriage, but if we are using commonly accepted terms that have certain definitions, we would be lying.



With 55% approving of gay marriage, your 'accepted terms' angle doesn't seem to be working. And remember, interracial marriage didn't receive majority public support until the mid 90s.

Are you telling us that interracial marriage wasn't 'real marriage' until say, the Clinton Administration? 

Marriage is whatever we say it is. And in 36 of 50 States, marriage includes same sex unions.


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it matter who you are attracted to? If a man is attracted to a horse, we would think he was "off". Only when a man is attracted to another man do we think its "sensible".
> 
> Our bodies were designed by nature to couple with the opposite sex. Anything else is illogical and abnormal.
> 
> But, I am quite used to the left telling us that up is down and left is right.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So masturbation is illogical and abnormal? How about blow jobs? Celibacy?  Are old people fucking equally 'illogical and abnormal'?
> 
> Dude, sex has more than the lone purpose you recognize. Just because sex can produce kids doesn't mean that kids are the only purpose in sex. Anymore than eating to fuel the body is the only purpose of eating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illogical and abnormal are when a person does not follow natures plan. A person who likes blow up dolls is illogical and abnormal.
> 
> Is he having fun? Sure. Doesn't make any less illiogical and abnormal.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that man is allowed to marry (not the doll because it cannot consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't change what I said. Not one whit.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it does. Consent is a requisite of any marriage. An actual requirement of the union. Anyone or anything that can't offer consent can't join the union.
> 
> Gays can offer consent. And can meet every requirement of marriage. Demonstrating the uselessness of your claims.
Click to expand...


Since when is consent a requisite of marriage? Do the Muslims know this? BTW, you cannot meet every requirement of marriage. You cannot procreate. Hell you can't even consummate the marriage.

Mark


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

80zephyr said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Of course there is a need for gender in marriage."
> 
> Of course there is not.
> There was a lot of slavery in history too.
> Poor argument - try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I? You have nothing to rebut what marriage was(and is) for thousands of years. You can call to men "married", but it won't make it so.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually in many countries and in many states it is so.  You don't like it, but oh well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, many counties and states have gone round the bend. I suppose they could start passing laws calling all men tree stumps, but it wouldn't make it so.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...



Isn't it wonderful how not a single culture, throughout human history, that has embraced "Homosexuality" has so much as survived, let alone prospered... yet the Left in their individual and collective delusion pretend that such is an immutable fact.

If you really want to have some fun, ask the next Leftist who advocates for the normalization of sexual abnormality to provide you with a current example of a culture that embraced Homosexuality, more than say... oh I dunno... say a couple of centuries back, that still exists today.

Several possible outcomes.  First they'll conflate the query, pointing to a culture that existed at the start of the deadline which as SINCE embraced homosexuality and which exists today.

Second, they'll ignore the query entirely...

Third, they'll just make shit up!  (Which is my personal fave, but everyone doesn't have to enjoy that one as much as I do...)


----------



## 80zephyr

bodecea said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it matter who you are attracted to? If a man is attracted to a horse, we would think he was "off". Only when a man is attracted to another man do we think its "sensible".
> 
> Our bodies were designed by nature to couple with the opposite sex. Anything else is illogical and abnormal.
> 
> But, I am quite used to the left telling us that up is down and left is right.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So masturbation is illogical and abnormal? How about blow jobs? Celibacy?  Are old people fucking equally 'illogical and abnormal'?
> 
> Dude, sex has more than the lone purpose you recognize. Just because sex can produce kids doesn't mean that kids are the only purpose in sex. Anymore than eating to fuel the body is the only purpose of eating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illogical and abnormal are when a person does not follow natures plan. A person who likes blow up dolls is illogical and abnormal.
> 
> Is he having fun? Sure. Doesn't make any less illiogical and abnormal.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that man is allowed to marry (not the doll because it cannot consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't change what I said. Not one whit.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you agree that gay marriage is legally valid.
Click to expand...


I agree that the law has tried to change the meaning of marriage, and that they allow it.

But, like I said, calling a man a tree stump will not make it so.

Mark


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So masturbation is illogical and abnormal? How about blow jobs? Celibacy?  Are old people fucking equally 'illogical and abnormal'?
> 
> Dude, sex has more than the lone purpose you recognize. Just because sex can produce kids doesn't mean that kids are the only purpose in sex. Anymore than eating to fuel the body is the only purpose of eating.
> 
> 
> 
> Illogical and abnormal are when a person does not follow natures plan. A person who likes blow up dolls is illogical and abnormal.
> 
> Is he having fun? Sure. Doesn't make any less illiogical and abnormal.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that man is allowed to marry (not the doll because it cannot consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't change what I said. Not one whit.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you agree that gay marriage is legally valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that the law has tried to change the meaning of marriage, and that they allow it.
> 
> But, like I said, calling a man a tree stump will not make it so.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


The law has certainly expanded the meaning of marriage. Just as they did in Loving V. Virgnia. As before that ruling, interracial marriage wasn't considered 'real marriage' in many states. Go back far enough and it wasn't recognized as 'real marriage' in any state. 

But all the previous uses of the term still apply. That's why opposition to gay marriage is so silly; its not like the marriages of straights are in any way effected by gay marriage. Or that we're gonna 'run out of marriage'. There's plenty for gays and straights.


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it matter who you are attracted to? If a man is attracted to a horse, we would think he was "off". Only when a man is attracted to another man do we think its "sensible".
> 
> Our bodies were designed by nature to couple with the opposite sex. Anything else is illogical and abnormal.
> 
> But, I am quite used to the left telling us that up is down and left is right.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So masturbation is illogical and abnormal? How about blow jobs? Celibacy?  Are old people fucking equally 'illogical and abnormal'?
> 
> Dude, sex has more than the lone purpose you recognize. Just because sex can produce kids doesn't mean that kids are the only purpose in sex. Anymore than eating to fuel the body is the only purpose of eating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illogical and abnormal are when a person does not follow natures plan. A person who likes blow up dolls is illogical and abnormal.
> 
> Is he having fun? Sure. Doesn't make any less illiogical and abnormal.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how, pray tell....does masturbation follow 'nature's plan'? How does celibacy? What part of nature's plan is satisfied by nana and pop-pop knocking boots? How about blowjobs......illogical and abnormal?
> 
> As each of these acts has as much chance of producing children as say, a pair of lesbians making out.
> 
> Your folly is in assuming that there's no logical reason to have sex save procreation. And that's absurd. Its logical to have sex if it simply feels good. You could use it for bonding. You could use it for stress relief. Hell, you could use it for cardio. It could carry some religious significance. It could be to comfort someone.
> 
> Your assessment of 'logical' and 'normal' is illogical and irrational. As it ignores a plethora of logical reasons to have sex, and ignores them for no other reason than its inconvenient to your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not the one to make what I said logical and normal. Nature does that. I am only telling you what nature tells us.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you. And you're not Nature. You can't make your claims work logically or rationally. So you use a tired and rather predictable fallacy of logic called 'Appeal to Authority'. Where something must be so because the 'Authority' said it was.
> 
> Nature hasn't said shit. You have. And sex can logically serve many, many purposes beyond procreation. Just as eating can serve many, many more purposes than merely fueling the body.
> 
> But just for giggles, I want to hear you say it. T*ell us that an old married couple having sex is illogical and abnormal.* I mean, if you really believe your standard, it should be easy.
> 
> If you don't......you'll give us some excuse for why you won't.
Click to expand...


Old men and women having sex is perfectly normal. Like I stated earlier, the sex drive is second only to self preservation in evolution.

Tell me, do normal people usually go a day or two(at least) before thinking about "having fun" again? Why do you think that is?

Mark


----------



## hangover

Like Kinky Friedman said, "Gays should be able to marry, so they can be as miserable as the rest of us."


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Isn't it wonderful how not a single culture, throughout human history, that has embraced "Homosexuality" has so much as survived, let alone prospered... yet the Left in their individual and collective delusion pretend that such is an immutable fact.



Laughing...and virtually every culture that has rejected homosexuality has also fallen. If you were to look at the span of human history, almost all cultures that ever existed fell. Your implications of 'causation' are thus proven silly nonsense.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

bodecea said:


> So you agree that gay marriage is legally valid.



Legally valid?

Depends upon what you mean by valid. 

If you mean that the legality is in sync with soundly reasoned morality, then no.

If you strip the essential morality from legality, holding only to the legislative threshold met to pass such, then in a tiny minority of the states, yes.  But where you include in such the subjective judicial decrees which overturn the valid legislation to the contrary, then No.

Stripping morality from legality has always lead to planetary catastrophe... with the Nuremberg trials pointing to the moral deprivation common to the otherwise PERFECTLY LEGAL practice common to 'the final solution'.

Such will inevitably come as the end to the would-be LEGAL-RIGHT to Abortion... as such represents the same fatally flawed amoral construct.


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So masturbation is illogical and abnormal? How about blow jobs? Celibacy?  Are old people fucking equally 'illogical and abnormal'?
> 
> Dude, sex has more than the lone purpose you recognize. Just because sex can produce kids doesn't mean that kids are the only purpose in sex. Anymore than eating to fuel the body is the only purpose of eating.
> 
> 
> 
> Illogical and abnormal are when a person does not follow natures plan. A person who likes blow up dolls is illogical and abnormal.
> 
> Is he having fun? Sure. Doesn't make any less illiogical and abnormal.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how, pray tell....does masturbation follow 'nature's plan'? How does celibacy? What part of nature's plan is satisfied by nana and pop-pop knocking boots? How about blowjobs......illogical and abnormal?
> 
> As each of these acts has as much chance of producing children as say, a pair of lesbians making out.
> 
> Your folly is in assuming that there's no logical reason to have sex save procreation. And that's absurd. Its logical to have sex if it simply feels good. You could use it for bonding. You could use it for stress relief. Hell, you could use it for cardio. It could carry some religious significance. It could be to comfort someone.
> 
> Your assessment of 'logical' and 'normal' is illogical and irrational. As it ignores a plethora of logical reasons to have sex, and ignores them for no other reason than its inconvenient to your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not the one to make what I said logical and normal. Nature does that. I am only telling you what nature tells us.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you. And you're not Nature. You can't make your claims work logically or rationally. So you use a tired and rather predictable fallacy of logic called 'Appeal to Authority'. Where something must be so because the 'Authority' said it was.
> 
> Nature hasn't said shit. You have. And sex can logically serve many, many purposes beyond procreation. Just as eating can serve many, many more purposes than merely fueling the body.
> 
> But just for giggles, I want to hear you say it. T*ell us that an old married couple having sex is illogical and abnormal.* I mean, if you really believe your standard, it should be easy.
> 
> If you don't......you'll give us some excuse for why you won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Old men and women having sex is perfectly normal. Like I stated earlier, the sex drive is second only to self preservation in evolution.
Click to expand...


And how do old people having sex in any way serve 'evolution' or in any way add to 'self preservation'? Explain it to us. As their sex is as reproductively fruitful as any same sex couple. 

You said any sex that doesn't serve 'nature's plan' is illogical and abnormal. How do old people serve 'nature's plan'. Or the infertile having sex? Or anyone on birth control? Or the celibate? Or masturbation? Or oral sex?

You've painted yourself into a corner, Mark. As there are all kind of unproductive sexual activities that serve a litany of logical, completely normal purposes. But you've left yourself no room to wiggle in, forced to ignore every single one of those purposes by your past rhetoric. 

So explain it to us. Just don't step on any of the wet paint.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> ... and virtually every culture that has rejected homosexuality has also fallen. If you were to look at the span of human history, almost all cultures that ever existed fell. Your implications of 'causation' are thus proven silly nonsense.



So you feel that despite the probabilities for survival being bleak.... that a culture should ratchet up the odds of it doom by adopting policy which can only assure such?

ROFLMNAO!

Did I TELL YA THAT THIS WOULD BE A BLAST?

There's nothing even REMOTELY reasonable about these clowns... they're a collective river of raw insanity... in intellectual terms, as 'flaming rivers' go... they're a classic Cuyahoga analogue.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Legally valid?
> 
> Depends upon what you mean by valid.



The dictionary definition will be fine. 



> If you mean that the legality is in sync with soundly reasoned morality, then no.



Unless we don't accept you as a valid arbiter of morality. In which case your argument has no value.

And again, use the dictionary definition of 'valid'. It works fine for in both cases.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... and virtually every culture that has rejected homosexuality has also fallen. If you were to look at the span of human history, almost all cultures that ever existed fell. Your implications of 'causation' are thus proven silly nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you feel that despite the probabilities for survival being bleak.... that a culture should ratchet up the odds of it doom by adopting policy which can only assure such?
Click to expand...


Laughing......the eternal America, never to fall ever in the hundreds and millions and billions of years to come? That seems rather unlikely, don't you think?

Civilizations fall if they embrace homosexuality. They fall if they don't. When the 'effect' exists regardless of the presence of your supposed 'cause', clearly your cause isn't. 

Making your entire argument moot. As you have yet to establish causation.


----------



## Coyote

Conservative65 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The homos are damn sure demanding the rest of us not just acknowledge their choice but that we agree with it and don't say anything other than you agree with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really now?  No one is saying you have to agree with it or even acknowledge it.  Hyperbole much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  You have to watch every word in order that those freaks don't get their panties in a wad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  You can say what you want.  However there is such a thing as manners.  You may lack them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  It would be for the freak of nature that thought HE was a girl and approached my daughter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously dude - if a transgender person felt he was a female he's hardly likely to approach your daughter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  Teebowing happens when someone actually accomplishes something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  You think being a freak is normal.  When daily new stories put those abnormal freaks on the screen, you don't have to look.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care about what's normal or abnormal - a lot of that is cultural.  Inside it are real people with feelings.  And they aren't hurting you any.  So if you can't stomach it - change the channel.  I get nauseous at the overflow of hate from fundamentalists.  So I change the channel.  UInless you're a quadroplegic..I suggest you do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. When they use judges to "make" law, they demand it.
Click to expand...


Like black folks "demanded" that judges "make law" and end antimiscegenation laws? Court after court has overturned same sex marriage bans and they've represented a variety of judges.



> 2.  No you can't or one of the confused freaks might get offended.



People say offensive stuff all the time.  It's not illegal, it's just a display of bad manners. Expect to have the same dished back.  You guys sure are a bunch of whiners.



> 3.  I meant even SPEAK to her.



Then put your daughter in an all girls private school.  Situation solved.  



> 4.  Guess you don't know how the term originated.



Sure I do.  Then he became a religious rightwing hero solely because he performed religious observances on the playing field.



> 5.  There's nothing cultural about being a sexually confused freak of nature.  Sounds as if you may be one of them.



They're people. They aren't hurting you or anyone else.  So leave them alone dude.  Are they making you question your masculinity or something?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> And how do old people having sex in any way serve 'evolution' or in any way add to 'self preservation'?



False equivalence... Sexual normality serves the propagation of the species.  Without regard to who is doing it.

Just as abnormal sexuality which does not promote such... .  

This is a very simple equation, why do you suppose you seem to be having such a problem working your way though it?


----------



## WorldWatcher

80zephyr said:


> Since when is consent a requisite of marriage? Do the Muslims know this? BTW, you cannot meet every requirement of marriage. You cannot procreate. Hell you can't even consummate the marriage.
> 
> Mark



Could you site the law in any of the 50 States where procreation is a requirement of Civil Marriage?

What about State laws that require a couple be INFERTILE and therefore unable to procreate?

Thank you in advance.


>>>>


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illogical and abnormal are when a person does not follow natures plan. A person who likes blow up dolls is illogical and abnormal.
> 
> Is he having fun? Sure. Doesn't make any less illiogical and abnormal.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> And that man is allowed to marry (not the doll because it cannot consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't change what I said. Not one whit.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you agree that gay marriage is legally valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that the law has tried to change the meaning of marriage, and that they allow it.
> 
> But, like I said, calling a man a tree stump will not make it so.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law has certainly expanded the meaning of marriage. Just as they did in Loving V. Virgnia. As before that ruling, interracial marriage wasn't considered 'real marriage' in many states. Go back far enough and it wasn't recognized as 'real marriage' in any state.
> 
> But all the previous uses of the term still apply. That's why opposition to gay marriage is so silly; its not like the marriages of straights are in any way effected by gay marriage. Or that we're gonna 'run out of marriage'. There's plenty for gays and straights.
Click to expand...


And one more time. Marriage was NOT expanded in the "Loving" case.

As to gay marriage being a threat to marriage and family, I don't agree. We heard the same leftist chants concerning divorce. We heard the same leftist chants concerning single motherhood and welfare.

Lets just say that your track record as to what you believe does not impress me.

Does gay marriage affect straight marriage? It could. I don't know of even one study that shows gay men to be monogamous. Not one. So, if it is "OK" for a married gay couple to cheat, why not everyone else? And, before you "pooh-pooh" the thought, it is a fact that peoples marriage affect other people marriages. Our divorce rate proves that.

Its sick. And its the reason half of Americas kids grow up in one parent homes.


Mark


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Laughing......the eternal America ...



First America was not at issue, yet there ya are setting it as first in your responding priorities.

Now I wonder why that is?

Can you explain that?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

WorldWatcher said:


> Could you site the law in any of the 50 States where procreation is a requirement of Civil Marriage?
> 
> Thank you in advance.
> 
> 
> >>>>



I can...

Let me help ya through it.

All 50 states exist in Nature and are dependent upon Nature for their continued existence... where ANY state rejects the moral foundation intrinsic IN Nature, the state sets itself to suffer the otherwise unavoidable and catastrophic consequences of their failure to respect the laws in nature which govern human behavior.

Thus for law to be valid, it must rest upon the soundly reasoned morality inherent in natural law... or such law leads the state toward its certain demise.  AND where the fate of THAT state is intrinsically tied to others, its demise endangers the viability of the whole of that subsequent Union.

Feel better?


----------



## Conservative65

Coyote said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The homos are damn sure demanding the rest of us not just acknowledge their choice but that we agree with it and don't say anything other than you agree with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really now?  No one is saying you have to agree with it or even acknowledge it.  Hyperbole much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  You have to watch every word in order that those freaks don't get their panties in a wad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  You can say what you want.  However there is such a thing as manners.  You may lack them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  It would be for the freak of nature that thought HE was a girl and approached my daughter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously dude - if a transgender person felt he was a female he's hardly likely to approach your daughter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  Teebowing happens when someone actually accomplishes something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  You think being a freak is normal.  When daily new stories put those abnormal freaks on the screen, you don't have to look.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care about what's normal or abnormal - a lot of that is cultural.  Inside it are real people with feelings.  And they aren't hurting you any.  So if you can't stomach it - change the channel.  I get nauseous at the overflow of hate from fundamentalists.  So I change the channel.  UInless you're a quadroplegic..I suggest you do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. When they use judges to "make" law, they demand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like black folks "demanded" that judges "make law" and end antimiscegenation laws? Court after court has overturned same sex marriage bans and they've represented a variety of judges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  No you can't or one of the confused freaks might get offended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People say offensive stuff all the time.  It's not illegal, it's just a display of bad manners. Expect to have the same dished back.  You guys sure are a bunch of whiners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  I meant even SPEAK to her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then put your daughter in an all girls private school.  Situation solved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  Guess you don't know how the term originated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure I do.  Then he became a religious rightwing hero solely because he performed religious observances on the playing field.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  There's nothing cultural about being a sexually confused freak of nature.  Sounds as if you may be one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're people. They aren't hurting you or anyone else.  So leave them alone dude.  Are they making you question your masculinity or something?
Click to expand...

 
1.  Difference between something you have no choice over and one you do. 

2.  NO one has a right not to be offended.  I don't care what anyone calls me but the peter puffers do.

3.  Don't let the freaks who don't realize having a penis means you're male in a restroom where they don't belong. 

4.  AFTER accomplishing something.

5.  I'll leave them alone when they stop demanding I accept their freak way of life.  I see you use the typical but weak argument.  No need to worry about my masculinity.  I do things the way nature intended with the opposite sex.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... and virtually every culture that has rejected homosexuality has also fallen. If you were to look at the span of human history, almost all cultures that ever existed fell. Your implications of 'causation' are thus proven silly nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you feel that despite the probabilities for survival being bleak.... that a culture should ratchet up the odds of it doom by adopting policy which can only assure such?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing......the eternal America ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First America was not at issue, yet there ya are setting it as first in your responding priories.
Click to expand...


Its the civilization I live in. So its immediately relevant to your delusions of my 'probability for survival'. And the idea of America's eternal survival is silly nonsense. Of course its going to fall eventually. Be it decades or centuries or millennia, who knows. 

But no civilization, in the history of earth...has lasted eternally. All of them eventually collapse. If they accept homosexuality. If they don't. It doesn't matter. They fall either way. 

Demonstrating the absurdity of your claims of 'causation'. As your 'effect' happens regardless of the existence of your imagined 'cause'.


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illogical and abnormal are when a person does not follow natures plan. A person who likes blow up dolls is illogical and abnormal.
> 
> Is he having fun? Sure. Doesn't make any less illiogical and abnormal.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how, pray tell....does masturbation follow 'nature's plan'? How does celibacy? What part of nature's plan is satisfied by nana and pop-pop knocking boots? How about blowjobs......illogical and abnormal?
> 
> As each of these acts has as much chance of producing children as say, a pair of lesbians making out.
> 
> Your folly is in assuming that there's no logical reason to have sex save procreation. And that's absurd. Its logical to have sex if it simply feels good. You could use it for bonding. You could use it for stress relief. Hell, you could use it for cardio. It could carry some religious significance. It could be to comfort someone.
> 
> Your assessment of 'logical' and 'normal' is illogical and irrational. As it ignores a plethora of logical reasons to have sex, and ignores them for no other reason than its inconvenient to your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not the one to make what I said logical and normal. Nature does that. I am only telling you what nature tells us.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you. And you're not Nature. You can't make your claims work logically or rationally. So you use a tired and rather predictable fallacy of logic called 'Appeal to Authority'. Where something must be so because the 'Authority' said it was.
> 
> Nature hasn't said shit. You have. And sex can logically serve many, many purposes beyond procreation. Just as eating can serve many, many more purposes than merely fueling the body.
> 
> But just for giggles, I want to hear you say it. T*ell us that an old married couple having sex is illogical and abnormal.* I mean, if you really believe your standard, it should be easy.
> 
> If you don't......you'll give us some excuse for why you won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Old men and women having sex is perfectly normal. Like I stated earlier, the sex drive is second only to self preservation in evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how do old people having sex in any way serve 'evolution' or in any way add to 'self preservation'? Explain it to us. As their sex is as reproductively fruitful as any same sex couple.
> 
> You said any sex that doesn't serve 'nature's plan' is illogical and abnormal. How do old people serve 'nature's plan'. Or the infertile having sex? Or anyone on birth control? Or the celibate? Or masturbation? Or oral sex?
> 
> You've painted yourself into a corner, Mark. As there are all kind of unproductive sexual activities that serve a litany of logical, completely normal purposes. But you've left yourself no room to wiggle in, forced to ignore every single one of those purposes by your past rhetoric.
> 
> So explain it to us. Just don't step on any of the wet paint.
Click to expand...


I have explained it to you. In evolution, the drive to reproduce is what CAUSES ALL THESE THINGS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

It is not about "fun", evolutionarily, its about reproduction. If you want to have fun with sex, knock yourself out. But, the only reason you want to have that fun is because your body is telling you to. As a man, I need to ejaculate on a consistent basis. When I have that need, I would rather do it with a women. But, if none is available, my body tells me I need that release to stop "feeling horny".

This is simply basic human nature. I thought the left believed in science and evolution.

Mark


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> All 50 states exist in Nature and are dependent upon Nature for their continued existence... where ANY state rejects the moral foundation intrinsic IN Nature, the state sets itself to suffer the otherwise unavoidable and catastrophic consequences of their failure to respect the laws in nature which govern human behavior.



Nature doesn't have 'morality'. Rendering all of your babble after that fallacy moot.



> Thus for law to be valid, it must rest upon the soundly reasoned morality inherent in natural law... or such law leads the state toward its certain demise.  AND where the fate of THAT state is intrinsically tied to others, its demise endangers the viability of the whole of that subsequent Union.



There is no 'natural law of marriage'. Nature has fucking. We invented marriage. And it means whatever we say it means. 

Sigh....you keep trying to use your 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy. And keep failing, as your claims have no logical or rational basis.


----------



## 80zephyr

WorldWatcher said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since when is consent a requisite of marriage? Do the Muslims know this? BTW, you cannot meet every requirement of marriage. You cannot procreate. Hell you can't even consummate the marriage.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you site the law in any of the 50 States where procreation is a requirement of Civil Marriage?
> 
> What about State laws that require a couple be INFERTILE and therefore unable to procreate?
> 
> Thank you in advance.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


If you don't understand the concept by now, another post probably will not help you.

Mark


----------



## nodoginnafight

80zephyr said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Of course there is a need for gender in marriage."
> 
> Of course there is not.
> There was a lot of slavery in history too.
> Poor argument - try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I? You have nothing to rebut what marriage was(and is) for thousands of years. You can call to men "married", but it won't make it so.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


I can see the idiocy of your argument is very well ingrained.

Lemme make it more simple since apparently you need that.

The fact that something was done in history doesn't mean it was right. It's like saying, "we've ALWAYS made the blacks drink from that fountain."

It's a stupid argument. Every time you repeat it - you just look stupid all over again.


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> All 50 states exist in Nature and are dependent upon Nature for their continued existence... where ANY state rejects the moral foundation intrinsic IN Nature, the state sets itself to suffer the otherwise unavoidable and catastrophic consequences of their failure to respect the laws in nature which govern human behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nature doesn't have 'morality'. Rendering all of your babble after that fallacy moot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus for law to be valid, it must rest upon the soundly reasoned morality inherent in natural law... or such law leads the state toward its certain demise.  AND where the fate of THAT state is intrinsically tied to others, its demise endangers the viability of the whole of that subsequent Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no 'natural law of marriage'. Nature has fucking. We invented marriage. And it means whatever we say it means.
> 
> Sigh....you keep trying to use your 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy. And keep failing, as your claims have no logical or rational basis.
Click to expand...


You are WRONG. Nature "invented" marriage when it demanded that a man has to have sex with a women for procreation.

"Marriage" is simply the word we use to describe the process nature intended. That you want to redefine the word will not change its meaning.

Mark


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> It is not about "fun", evolutionarily, its about reproduction.



More accurately, sex is about fun AND is can be about reproduction. The fun part is the reward for the act. And the good sensations are more than a logical and normal reason to do it. 

But I digress.......*how do old people having sex in any way serve 'evolution' or in any way add to 'self preservation'?* Explain it to us. You've said that sex is about reproduction. And they can't reproduce. Thus, what possible purpose could be served in their copulation if sex is ONLY about reproduction? 

Corner, meet Mark. Enjoy the paint.


----------



## 80zephyr

nodoginnafight said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Of course there is a need for gender in marriage."
> 
> Of course there is not.
> There was a lot of slavery in history too.
> Poor argument - try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I? You have nothing to rebut what marriage was(and is) for thousands of years. You can call to men "married", but it won't make it so.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see the idiocy of your argument is very well ingrained.
> 
> Lemme make it more simple since apparently you need that.
> 
> The fact that something was done in history doesn't mean it was right. It's like saying, "we've ALWAYS made the blacks drink from that fountain."
> 
> It's a stupid argument. Every time you repeat it - you just look stupid all over again.
Click to expand...


"We" didn't create marriage. Nature did. We simply named it.

Your comparison to blacks at a fountain...now, that's stupid.

Mark


----------



## nodoginnafight

I'm be glad when the middle schools crank back up and we won't have to be exposed to moronic arguments like Zephyr's


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> You are WRONG. Nature "invented" marriage when it demanded that a man has to have sex with a women for procreation.



Obvious nonsense. Nature is about _reproduction_. How that is done is reproductively irrelevant. Rape passes genetic material. Sex with reproductively viable children passes genetic material. I wouldn't consider either to be particularly 'moral', nor the 'invention of nature'. But they serve your 'nature's plan', don't they?

As do polygamy, one night stands, harems, orgies, gang bangs, etc..

If marriage were intrinsic to nature, then anything that reproduces would be married. Yet only we are.....*because its our invention.*  A social construct we made up for our own convenience. And it is whatever we say it is.

Our construct isn't particularly connected to reproduction. The infertile can marry. The old can marry. The childless get all the same benefits of marriage as those with children. No one is required to have children or be able to have them in order to get married.

Why then would we exclude gays from marriage based on their inability to meet a standard that *doesn't exist *and* applies to no one? *


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not about "fun", evolutionarily, its about reproduction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More accurately, sex is about fun AND is can be about reproduction. The fun part is the reward for the act. And the good sensations are more than a logical and normal reason to do it.
> 
> But I digress.......*how do old people having sex in any way serve 'evolution' or in any way add to 'self preservation'?* Explain it to us. You've said that sex is about reproduction. And they can't reproduce. Thus, what possible purpose could be served in their copulation if sex is ONLY about reproduction?
> 
> Corner, meet Mark. Enjoy the paint.
Click to expand...


If you didn't understand my last explanation, I cannot help you. But, you are getting there when you stated that "fun is the reward for the act".

Yes, it is. As nature set up so that the species would perpetuate itself.

Mark


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the record, two gays are not "having sex". Sex is when a penis goes into a vagina. Anything else is not sex.
> 
> 
> 
> Millions upon millions of teenage girls will be thrilled to hear this, their parents not so much.
> 
> It wasn't sex daddy, I was just blowing him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can call a blow job sex, it won't make it so.
> 
> I suppose you believe that sucking on someones toes is having sex as well..
Click to expand...

When your teenage daughter has some kid's cock in her mouth, that's sex, dummy.


----------



## Coyote

Conservative65 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The homos are damn sure demanding the rest of us not just acknowledge their choice but that we agree with it and don't say anything other than you agree with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really now?  No one is saying you have to agree with it or even acknowledge it.  Hyperbole much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  You have to watch every word in order that those freaks don't get their panties in a wad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  You can say what you want.  However there is such a thing as manners.  You may lack them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  It would be for the freak of nature that thought HE was a girl and approached my daughter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously dude - if a transgender person felt he was a female he's hardly likely to approach your daughter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  Teebowing happens when someone actually accomplishes something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  You think being a freak is normal.  When daily new stories put those abnormal freaks on the screen, you don't have to look.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care about what's normal or abnormal - a lot of that is cultural.  Inside it are real people with feelings.  And they aren't hurting you any.  So if you can't stomach it - change the channel.  I get nauseous at the overflow of hate from fundamentalists.  So I change the channel.  UInless you're a quadroplegic..I suggest you do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. When they use judges to "make" law, they demand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like black folks "demanded" that judges "make law" and end antimiscegenation laws? Court after court has overturned same sex marriage bans and they've represented a variety of judges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  No you can't or one of the confused freaks might get offended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People say offensive stuff all the time.  It's not illegal, it's just a display of bad manners. Expect to have the same dished back.  You guys sure are a bunch of whiners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  I meant even SPEAK to her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then put your daughter in an all girls private school.  Situation solved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  Guess you don't know how the term originated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure I do.  Then he became a religious rightwing hero solely because he performed religious observances on the playing field.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  There's nothing cultural about being a sexually confused freak of nature.  Sounds as if you may be one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're people. They aren't hurting you or anyone else.  So leave them alone dude.  Are they making you question your masculinity or something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  Difference between something you have no choice over and one you do.
Click to expand...


That's debatable.  At this point in time, most research seems to point at sexual orientation in homosexuals being hard-wired with distinct biological differences in brain chemistry and other things.  



> 2.  NO one has a right not to be offended.  I don't care what anyone calls me but the peter puffers do.



Uh...isn't that what I just said dude?  I suspect there are things people could say to you that would offend and anger you, just like any other human being.  That said - people have a right to say and those offended have the right to say something in return.  You do understand that right?



> 3.  Don't let the freaks who don't realize having a penis means you're male in a restroom where they don't belong.



You're too hung up on anatomy.  Ever heard of hermaphrodites?



> 4.  AFTER accomplishing something.



His accomplishment was not what was hailed - his Christian demonstrations were what made him a rightwing hero. I suspect a number of pro athletes who publically came out of the closet also have athletic achievements on their records.



> 5.  I'll leave them alone when they stop demanding I accept their freak way of life.  I see you use the typical but weak argument.  No need to worry about my masculinity.  I do things the way nature intended with the opposite sex.



No one is demanding you "accept" anything.  Ever heard of ignore?


----------



## 80zephyr

nodoginnafight said:


> I'm be glad when the middle schools crank back up and we won't have to be exposed to moronic arguments like Zephyr's



As a debater, you are not very good at this. As to my education, I figure I could put it up against yours, any day.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the record, two gays are not "having sex". Sex is when a penis goes into a vagina. Anything else is not sex.
> 
> 
> 
> Millions upon millions of teenage girls will be thrilled to hear this, their parents not so much.
> 
> It wasn't sex daddy, I was just blowing him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can call a blow job sex, it won't make it so.
> 
> I suppose you believe that sucking on someones toes is having sex as well..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When your teenage daughter has some kid's cock in her mouth, that's sex, dummy.
Click to expand...


Well, I am new here, and it is taking me a little time to get a handle on the posters. You just love to be rude and crude. I suppose I can accept that, for a while at least.

As to your "point". That is called foreplay. And it can lead to sex. If you don't believe me, look it up.

Mark


----------



## Dogmaphobe

80zephyr said:


> "We" didn't create marriage. Nature did. We simply named it.
> 
> Your comparison to blacks at a fountain...now, that's stupid.
> 
> Mark




"WE" named it?

 and here I thought I was getting old. You must be in the thousands by now.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> First America was not at issue, yet there ya are setting it as first in your responding priories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its the civilization I live in. ...
Click to expand...


Huh... yet your first priority was to cite "America", a concept with which you have absolutely no kinship.

Folks... the disordered mind is a marvel of random output, isn't it?

The Ideological Left is the "Magic 8-Ball" of intellects. 

Ask them anything and you've a 1-20 chance of seeing: "It is decidedly so."  And the odds that you'll get absolutely NO REASONING for the response, matches the 8 Ball's incredible 100%.  

And for precisely the same reason: It can't REASON.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the sex drive in humans is there to "have fun", and not for procreation?
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You simply don't have a clue as how evolution works, do you?
Click to expand...

Oh but I do, and it doesn't work as you believe.


----------



## Conservative65

Coyote said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The homos are damn sure demanding the rest of us not just acknowledge their choice but that we agree with it and don't say anything other than you agree with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really now?  No one is saying you have to agree with it or even acknowledge it.  Hyperbole much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  You have to watch every word in order that those freaks don't get their panties in a wad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  You can say what you want.  However there is such a thing as manners.  You may lack them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  It would be for the freak of nature that thought HE was a girl and approached my daughter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously dude - if a transgender person felt he was a female he's hardly likely to approach your daughter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  Teebowing happens when someone actually accomplishes something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  You think being a freak is normal.  When daily new stories put those abnormal freaks on the screen, you don't have to look.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care about what's normal or abnormal - a lot of that is cultural.  Inside it are real people with feelings.  And they aren't hurting you any.  So if you can't stomach it - change the channel.  I get nauseous at the overflow of hate from fundamentalists.  So I change the channel.  UInless you're a quadroplegic..I suggest you do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. When they use judges to "make" law, they demand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like black folks "demanded" that judges "make law" and end antimiscegenation laws? Court after court has overturned same sex marriage bans and they've represented a variety of judges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  No you can't or one of the confused freaks might get offended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People say offensive stuff all the time.  It's not illegal, it's just a display of bad manners. Expect to have the same dished back.  You guys sure are a bunch of whiners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  I meant even SPEAK to her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then put your daughter in an all girls private school.  Situation solved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  Guess you don't know how the term originated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure I do.  Then he became a religious rightwing hero solely because he performed religious observances on the playing field.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  There's nothing cultural about being a sexually confused freak of nature.  Sounds as if you may be one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're people. They aren't hurting you or anyone else.  So leave them alone dude.  Are they making you question your masculinity or something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  Difference between something you have no choice over and one you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's debatable.  At this point in time, most research seems to point at sexual orientation in homosexuals being hard-wired with distinct biological differences in brain chemistry and other things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  NO one has a right not to be offended.  I don't care what anyone calls me but the peter puffers do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh...isn't that what I just said dude?  I suspect there are things people could say to you that would offend and anger you, just like any other human being.  That said - people have a right to say and those offended have the right to say something in return.  You do understand that right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  Don't let the freaks who don't realize having a penis means you're male in a restroom where they don't belong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're too hung up on anatomy.  Ever heard of hermaphrodites?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  AFTER accomplishing something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His accomplishment was not what was hailed - his Christian demonstrations were what made him a rightwing hero. I suspect a number of pro athletes who publically came out of the closet also have athletic achievements on their records.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  I'll leave them alone when they stop demanding I accept their freak way of life.  I see you use the typical but weak argument.  No need to worry about my masculinity.  I do things the way nature intended with the opposite sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is demanding you "accept" anything.  Ever heard of ignore?
Click to expand...

 
1. Who is doing the research?

2.  If I get offended, it's my problem.  I thought I said I don't care what they call me or say about me.  The problem is when the peter puffers get offended, they don't say anything, they whine and sue becasue someone doesn't like what they are. 

3.  When my daughers were born, the doctor said in both cases you have daughers based on one thing only.  I'll put her medical training up against less than 1/10 of one percent. 

4.  He didn't Tebow unless he accomplished something.  NO different than any other player dancing around when they did the same thing.

5.  When they go around the legislative system to get a single judge to approve what they want, that's demanding.  Like I said, when they stop using terms like homophobic and bigot to describe someone that thinks differently than they do about what they are, I'll ignore.  As long as they say look at me, I'll say crawl back under your rock or in the closet.


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are WRONG. Nature "invented" marriage when it demanded that a man has to have sex with a women for procreation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obvious nonsense. Nature is about _reproduction_. How that is done is reproductively irrelevant. Rape passes genetic material. Sex with reproductively viable children passes genetic material. I wouldn't consider either to be particularly 'moral', nor the 'invention of nature'. But they serve your 'nature's plan', don't they?
> 
> As do polygamy, one night stands, harems, orgies, gang bangs, etc..
> 
> If marriage were intrinsic to nature, then anything that reproduces would be married. Yet only we are.....*because its our invention.*  A social construct we made up for our own convenience. And it is whatever we say it is.
> 
> Our construct isn't particularly connected to reproduction. The infertile can marry. The old can marry. The childless get all the same benefits of marriage as those with children. No one is required to have children or be able to have them in order to get married.
> 
> Why then would we exclude gays from marriage based on their inability to meet a standard that *doesn't exist *and* applies to no one? *
Click to expand...


The standard exists, and always did. Since nature designed us that we need a male and a female for reproduction, that coupling was called marriage because human offspring need both parents to develop in a well rounded manner.

In essence, humans named reproduction "marriage" to lead to a stable family unit and society.

So, the standard does exist, and applies to everyone.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Dogmaphobe said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We" didn't create marriage. Nature did. We simply named it.
> 
> Your comparison to blacks at a fountain...now, that's stupid.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "WE" named it?
> 
> and here I thought I was getting old. You must be in the thousands by now.
Click to expand...


We did name it, did we not? What nature "forced" together by having us have the urge to procreate.

Mark


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> More accurately, sex is about fun...



And in that ONE sentence... "THE PROBLEM" is forever defined.

Just as the concession is hereby duly noted and summarily accepted.

Crazy ironic huh?

(The reader should note that I said about 30 pages back that the Left needs to reject the stark consequences of natural law, as a means to claim themselves immune from the consequences of such... and that such was a consequence of the delusion intrinsic to their perverse form of human reasoning... and that evidence of such was in their need to set aside the responsibilities inherent in the "Right to Choose"... and that the idiocy at the center of the Right to Murder the most innocent of Human beings who are conceived as a direct result of their willful behavior stemmed from their "Right to Have Fun" which was the founded upon a profound sociopathy, common in every notorious mass murderer in human history.  That in truth, Sex was a the result of the natural design of human physiology, wherein a sense of 'pleasure' was induced, to promote sex, as a means to propagate the species and that because such wrought such massive responsibilities, set within the nature of humanity itself, the lengthy gestation, the severity of such on the female's means to sustain herself due to such, the decades long period prior to maturity of the human being... that such required discipline and marriage as part and parcel of the natural laws that promoted such discipline and that religion was the typical purveyor of that discipline.)

Pretty cool huh?


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> First America was not at issue, yet there ya are setting it as first in your responding priories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its the civilization I live in. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh... yet your first priority was to cite "America", a concept with which you have absolutely no kinship.
Click to expand...


Says you. And your personal opinion is essentially meaningless. As your standard was *my* perception of my survival, my perception is the only one that matters. 

And I'm under no illusion that America is the lone exemption in the history of civilization, lasting eternally for the decades and centuries and epochs to come. All civilizations eventually collapse and virtually all already have. If they accept homosexuality or if they don't.

So much for your claims of causation.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Soggy in NOLA said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't a man marry a cow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give it a rest.  You lost faggot-hater, and they won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really.. _faggot_?
> 
> My God, you're such a miserable waste of humanity.
Click to expand...

No, I'm honest...


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> And in that ONE sentence... "THE PROBLEM" is forever defined.
> 
> Just as the concession is hereby duly noted and summarily accepted.



Your tell already? Well that was easy. 



> (The reader should note that I said about 30 pages back that the Left needs to reject the stark consequences of natural law, as a means to claim themselves immune from the consequences of such...



And I've said that you don't speak for nature, god, science or any of the other authorities you claim to speak for. You are using the 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy because you can't support your claims logically or rationally.

As your latest rout from the debate and abandonment of your every position demonstrates. If your claims had merit, you wouldn't need to keep abandoning them.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the record, two gays are not "having sex". Sex is when a penis goes into a vagina. Anything else is not sex.
> 
> 
> 
> Millions upon millions of teenage girls will be thrilled to hear this, their parents not so much.
> 
> It wasn't sex daddy, I was just blowing him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can call a blow job sex, it won't make it so.
> 
> I suppose you believe that sucking on someones toes is having sex as well..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When your teenage daughter has some kid's cock in her mouth, that's sex, dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I am new here, and it is taking me a little time to get a handle on the posters. You just love to be rude and crude. I suppose I can accept that, for a while at least.
> 
> As to your "point". That is called foreplay. And it can lead to sex. If you don't believe me, look it up.
Click to expand...

You're right, I don't believe you, because you're an idiot, who signs his name as if anyone gives a fuck who you are or whether you live or die, which we don't.

And when I'm fucking my wife's ass or we are 69, believe me, that's still sex whether you like it or not.


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> The standard exists, and always did.



Not in any state. No one is required to have kids or be able to have them.

And I noticed you straight up refuse to explain your reason why pop-pop and nana aren't 'illogical, abnormal' deviants when they have sex. After all.....its doesn't serve any 'plan of nature'.



> Since nature designed us that we need a male and a female for reproduction, that coupling was called marriage because human offspring need both parents to develop in a well rounded manner.



Marriage isn't necessary for reproduction. Its useful in societies, as it helps keep things organized. But marriage is no more 'intrinsic' than one's favorite color. Or Queen's English. Both are just inventions for our convenience. And they are what we say they are.

In the case of marriage, in 36 of 50 states we say marriage includes men and men. And women and women. And those marriage as just as valid as a man and woman.



> In essence, humans named reproduction "marriage" to lead to a stable family unit and society.



Its certainly useful for society, as it keeps things organized. But there are millions upon millions of exceptions to the 'reproductive rule' that still work as building blocks of society. Marriage can serve as a building block of society based on the family. Or a building block of society, based on two adults. Either works just fine.

You make the same blunder regarding marriage that you do sex: *you fallaciously assume there can be one and only one valid purpose. *And all others are 'illogical and abnormal'. But there can be many valid purposes, each logical and rational in their own right. Your claims make no more sense than to insist that the only 'logical and normal' reason to eat is to fuel the body.

What if you're really in the mood for a hamburger? Wouldn't that be a logical reason to eat one?



> So, the standard does exist, and applies to everyone.



50 of 50 states say otherwise. That you disagree is gloriously irrelevant. As gays and lesbians get married anyway in 36 of 50 of those states.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only combat veterans kill themselves more often than gay men. And gay men kill themselves 5 times as often as the general populous. Somebody isn't happy, wouldn't you say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd kill myself if I chose to be gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please.
> 
> Do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I chose not to unlike you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are lesbians so angry all the time? Even gay men try to keep away from you all, finding little in common. Perhaps women are so hormonal and bitchy, you shouldn't put two of them together like that. They need a man to calm them down. Just saying.
Click to expand...


Why are homophobic bigots so angry all of the time?

Perhaps  they are just frustrated by their failure in life and project their anger out on blaming homosexuals for their own inadequacies.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are WRONG. Nature "invented" marriage when it demanded that a man has to have sex with a women for procreation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obvious nonsense. Nature is about _reproduction_. How that is done is reproductively irrelevant. Rape passes genetic material. Sex with reproductively viable children passes genetic material. I wouldn't consider either to be particularly 'moral', nor the 'invention of nature'. But they serve your 'nature's plan', don't they?
> 
> As do polygamy, one night stands, harems, orgies, gang bangs, etc..
> 
> If marriage were intrinsic to nature, then anything that reproduces would be married. Yet only we are.....*because its our invention.*  A social construct we made up for our own convenience. And it is whatever we say it is.
> 
> Our construct isn't particularly connected to reproduction. The infertile can marry. The old can marry. The childless get all the same benefits of marriage as those with children. No one is required to have children or be able to have them in order to get married.
> 
> Why then would we exclude gays from marriage based on their inability to meet a standard that *doesn't exist *and* applies to no one? *
Click to expand...


Understand what she is saying here folks.

It MUST be one way or the other... either nature's plan is to propagate at the expense of every other consideration or nature has no plan.

"It is Decidedly so"

Of course, Nature's design provides for balance, doesn't it?

In the sub-species, that balance is applied through limited sexual hormonal activity triggered by the end of winter, providing that the probability that the environment will promote a successful gestation and time for training the offspring to a point of individual viability.  

Limiting sexual desire also promotes survival in that the 'fittest get it' rule provides for most of the animal world that periods of combat provide for the tests of 'who gets what twat', the best get the best and on down the line down to those who get none... which in the Human world is where ya find the homosexuals.  

Yes... sadly, Cinemax has lied AGAIN!  Despite the grand scheme of deceit, the homosexuals are not the hardbodied, symmetrically acute peaks of beauty that they're portrayed as on the TeeVee... .   

They're the duds, left to hump each other's rhetorical leg in impotent displays of feckless, would-be dominance.

It's just one of nature's wonderful ways of culling from the herd, those who simply have nothing to offer the species... in terms of desirable traits.  

Now... again, homosexuals exist and that's fine.  But like The Clap, which also exists, its not something that a viable culture can promote and remain viable.


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the record, two gays are not "having sex". Sex is when a penis goes into a vagina. Anything else is not sex.
> 
> 
> 
> Millions upon millions of teenage girls will be thrilled to hear this, their parents not so much.
> 
> It wasn't sex daddy, I was just blowing him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can call a blow job sex, it won't make it so.
> 
> I suppose you believe that sucking on someones toes is having sex as well..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When your teenage daughter has some kid's cock in her mouth, that's sex, dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I am new here, and it is taking me a little time to get a handle on the posters. You just love to be rude and crude. I suppose I can accept that, for a while at least.
> 
> As to your "point". That is called foreplay. And it can lead to sex. If you don't believe me, look it up.
Click to expand...


Not if you nut it isn't. That's unproductive sex. Just like say, masturbation. Or old people fucking. 

With celebacy being just as 'illogical' and 'abnormal' per your own standards of 'nature's plan'.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

PaintMyHouse said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't a man marry a cow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give it a rest.  You lost faggot-hater, and they won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really.. _faggot_?
> 
> My God, you're such a miserable waste of humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I'm honest...
Click to expand...


What ya are, is an imbecile.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Not if you nut it isn't. That's unproductive sex. Just like say, masturbation. Or old people fucking.
> 
> With celebacy being just as 'illogical' and 'abnormal' per your own standards of 'nature's plan'.




And there is ya have it folks... ROCK BOTTOM!  

And aren't you lucky that you were here to witness it!

BACK TO IGNORE Nitwit!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Why do I ever think that these people are worthy of another chance?

They NEVER ARE... .


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah- I can see how that would make you feel threatened..........
> 
> Really- I mean how petty are homophobes anyway?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't know. I never met one.
Click to expand...


Just look in the mirror or ask your wife about how petty her homophobic bigot of a husband is.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't a man marry a cow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give it a rest.  You lost faggot-hater, and they won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really.. _faggot_?
> 
> My God, you're such a miserable waste of humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I'm honest...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What ya are, is an imbecile.
Click to expand...

No dumbass, that's pure projection.  You don't have the brains God gave a goat, but you sure think you do that's for sure.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you nut it isn't. That's unproductive sex. Just like say, masturbation. Or old people fucking.
> 
> With celebacy being just as 'illogical' and 'abnormal' per your own standards of 'nature's plan'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there is ya have it folks... ROCK BOTTOM!
> 
> And aren't you lucky that you were here to witness it!
> 
> BACK TO IGNORE Nitwit!
Click to expand...


I thought you had everyone on ignore- based upon the content of your posts.


----------



## rcfieldz

It's a sin...don't do it.


----------



## Iceweasel

bodecea said:


> Ok, let's go with your idea of gender....in this country, the government cannot discriminate based on gender.  There.  Your argument against same sex marriage shot down.


Wrong. You are talking about a RELATIONSHIP and pretending it's a person.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are WRONG. Nature "invented" marriage when it demanded that a man has to have sex with a women for procreation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obvious nonsense. Nature is about _reproduction_. How that is done is reproductively irrelevant. Rape passes genetic material. Sex with reproductively viable children passes genetic material. I wouldn't consider either to be particularly 'moral', nor the 'invention of nature'. But they serve your 'nature's plan', don't they?
> 
> As do polygamy, one night stands, harems, orgies, gang bangs, etc..
> 
> If marriage were intrinsic to nature, then anything that reproduces would be married. Yet only we are.....*because its our invention.*  A social construct we made up for our own convenience. And it is whatever we say it is.
> 
> Our construct isn't particularly connected to reproduction. The infertile can marry. The old can marry. The childless get all the same benefits of marriage as those with children. No one is required to have children or be able to have them in order to get married.
> 
> Why then would we exclude gays from marriage based on their inability to meet a standard that *doesn't exist *and* applies to no one? *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Understand what she is saying here folks.
> 
> It MUST be one way or the other... either nature's plan is to propagate at the expense of every other consideration or nature has no plan.
Click to expand...


Obviously, it doesn't. Your ability to type the word 'must' doesn't create an actual dichotomy. Merely a false one. 

Nature doesn't have a 'plan'. It has fucking. And there are a litany of reasons for it that are perfectly logical. The simplest being that it feels good. Its perfectly logical to do something that feels good. Even if your sex is unproductive. 

Your reasoning assumes that there can be one and only one valid purpose in sex. And there's nothing that mandates such exclusivity. There can be all sorts of reasons. If you have sex to work on your abs or have sex to consummate your marriage, the ova and sperm doesn't give a shit. 

Likewise, most men don't care how they nut. If its an amazing blow job, or unprotected vaginial sex....its the sensation they chase. Not your Appeal to Authority. And that's a perfectly valid, reasonable, logical and rational purpose.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you nut it isn't. That's unproductive sex. Just like say, masturbation. Or old people fucking.
> 
> With celebacy being just as 'illogical' and 'abnormal' per your own standards of 'nature's plan'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there is ya have it folks... ROCK BOTTOM!
> 
> And aren't you lucky that you were here to witness it!
> 
> BACK TO IGNORE Nitwit!
Click to expand...


Laughing......you don't need an excuse to run, Keyes. Just run. As you obviously can't carry your argument using logic or reason.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Why do I ever think that these people are worthy of another chance?
> 
> They NEVER ARE... .



Christ would disagree with you. Pretty much indefinitely.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you the same Coyote I've come to know and love?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> umh....maybe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you'll remember I have some close gay friends who I highly respect. You and I discussed them at length on other forums.  It isn't gay people I have a problem with, it's the assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet here you are- in every thread- complaining about all homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Just the faggots.
Click to expand...


F*ggot- N*gger- C*nt- K*ke

All words used by bigots in the same way for the same purpose. 

And bigots always rationalize why its okay that they use any of these words.

But we all know why they use them- they use them to attempt to hurt others.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah what BS revisionist history.
> 
> Homophobes like yourself project your anger onto everyone else.
> 
> The reality is that homophobia and general anti-homosexual sentiment is declining.
> 
> And that decline is happening in direct proportion and timing to the efforts of the gay population to come out of the closet.
> 
> When people say that they don't want homosexual lifestyles shoved in their face, they mean that they want to go back to the old days when it was cool to bully homosexuals and when it was okay to arrest them for being attracted to the same gender.
> 
> When it was okay to call someone a f*ggot.
> 
> Just like when it was okay to call someone a n*gger.
> 
> They miss the 'good old days'- of easy hating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or we could protect homosexuals by law like everyone else and they can keep their shit in the bedroom...like everyone else. There are other choices.
Click to expand...


Homophobes like yourself project your anger onto everyone else.

The reality is that homophobia and general anti-homosexual sentiment is declining.

And that decline is happening in direct proportion and timing to the efforts of the gay population to come out of the closet.

When people say that they don't want homosexual lifestyles shoved in their face, they mean that they want to go back to the old days when it was cool to bully homosexuals and when it was okay to arrest them for being attracted to the same gender.

When it was okay to call someone a f*ggot.

Just like when it was okay to call someone a n*gger.

They miss the 'good old days'- of easy hating.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> That's debatable.



No, it's not.  There is no evidence that people have no choice but to engage in sex.  Every time sex has ever occurred it came as a result of a choice made, OKA: A Decision.



> At this point in time, most research seems to point at sexual orientation in homosexuals being hard-wired with distinct biological differences in brain chemistry and other things.



Nope... there is no evidence of the kind and every time such has been trotted out, its been refuted.  

You're speaking of genetics and there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO EVIDENCE of any genetic component to sexual deviancy.  Such is the result of training.  And that 'brain chemistry' reflects that which the brain is experiencing, such is irrelevant, where the question is 'choice or genetic predisposition'. 

The brain chemistry of a thief is distinct from the non-thief... this based upon the non-thief accessing elements of the brain which consider broader equations... such as objectively reasoned morality.  Where the sociopath's brain makes no such consideration.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only combat veterans kill themselves more often than gay men. And gay men kill themselves 5 times as often as the general populous. Somebody isn't happy, wouldn't you say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd kill myself if I chose to be gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please.
> 
> Do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I chose not to unlike you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I CHOSE to be attracted to women.
Click to expand...


So you could choose to be attracted to men?

I have always been attracted to women- not my choice- I just love everything about them- the curves, the walk- wow- sorry- don't get that from men.


----------



## Skylar

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you the same Coyote I've come to know and love?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> umh....maybe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you'll remember I have some close gay friends who I highly respect. You and I discussed them at length on other forums.  It isn't gay people I have a problem with, it's the assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet here you are- in every thread- complaining about all homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Just the faggots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> F*ggot- N*gger- C*nt- K*ke
> 
> All words used by bigots in the same way for the same purpose.
> 
> And bigots always rationalize why its okay that they use any of these words.
> 
> But we all know why they use them- they use them to attempt to hurt others.
Click to expand...


Oh, they're pretty much abandoning all pretense now. We have our resident anti-gay bigots threatening that unless gays 'sit down and shut the fuck up' that there is going to be a war that 'makes hate crimes seem like Sunday Brunch'. With their ilk reasoning 'Even Jesus went on a rampage'.

And like violent thugs everywhere, they insist that any such attacks will be the fault of the victim being beaten. Its an argument that should come with its own wife beater T shirt and case of Pabst Blue Ribbon.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

God these assholes are dumb.  One thinks that if walks into his daughter's bedroom and finds her on her knees stripped to her panties, her boyfriend standing over her with his jeans and tighty whiteys at his ankles, and his cock in her mouth that he would react by saying, Oh good, I was worried that you two might be having sex but I can see it's just foreplay so have fun kids.  Morons here, total fucking morons.


----------



## Skylar

PaintMyHouse said:


> God these assholes are dumb.  One thinks that if walks into his daughter's bedroom and finds her on her knees stripped to her panties, her boyfriend standing over her with his jeans and tighty whiteys at his ankles, and his cock in her mouth that he would react by saying, Oh good, I was worried that you two might be having sex but I can see it's just foreplay so have fun kids.  Morons here, total fucking morons.



Have some sympathy....most are straddled with lackluster 2nd tier arguments. As their true motivation of 'GOD HATE FAGS' doesn't really play well in a rational, reasoned debate.


----------



## hangover

It is said that if you masturbate you will go blind. But I say that if you don't masturbate, there's a real good chance you'll get prostate cancer.
Use it or lose it. There are exceptions of course...like if you get laid three or four times a week. Masturbation is safe sex.

I was watching a show on the LEARNING CHANNEL the other night called STRANGE SEX, and they had a dude on that had 14 inches. He said he never had a woman that could take it all. I wondered if he played his own flute. Be honest...If you could, would you? I admit, I had a wet dream about it once.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Skylar said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> God these assholes are dumb.  One thinks that if walks into his daughter's bedroom and finds her on her knees stripped to her panties, her boyfriend standing over her with his jeans and tighty whiteys at his ankles, and his cock in her mouth that he would react by saying, Oh good, I was worried that you two might be having sex but I can see it's just foreplay so have fun kids.  Morons here, total fucking morons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have some sympathy....most are straddled with lackluster 2nd tier arguments. As their true motivation of 'GOD HATE FAGS' doesn't really play well in a rational, reasoned debate.
Click to expand...

I have no sympathy for people this damn dumb, who can't deal with the fact that all or their arguments have been presented to the courts, and they have all fucking gotten tossed out by more rational minds who know they are utter bullshit from people who hate fags.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

hangover said:


> It is said that if you masturbate you will go blind. But I say that if you don't masturbate, there's a real good chance you'll get prostate cancer.
> Use it or lose it. There are exceptions of course...like if you get laid three or four times a week. Masturbation is safe sex.
> 
> I was watching a show on the LEARNING CHANNEL the other night called STRANGE SEX, and they had a dude on that had 14 inches. He said he never had a woman that could take it all. I wondered if he played his own flute. Be honest...If you could, would you? I admit, I had a wet dream about it once.


Vaginas aren't made that deep, not even close, and with a dick that long blowing yourself would be a snap.


----------



## mdk

Skylar said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> umh....maybe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you'll remember I have some close gay friends who I highly respect. You and I discussed them at length on other forums.  It isn't gay people I have a problem with, it's the assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet here you are- in every thread- complaining about all homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Just the faggots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> F*ggot- N*gger- C*nt- K*ke
> 
> All words used by bigots in the same way for the same purpose.
> 
> And bigots always rationalize why its okay that they use any of these words.
> 
> But we all know why they use them- they use them to attempt to hurt others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, they're pretty much abandoning all pretense now. We have our resident anti-gay bigots threatening that unless gays 'sit down and shut the fuck up' that there is going to be a war that 'makes hate crimes seem like Sunday Brunch'. With their ilk reasoning 'Even Jesus went on a rampage'.
> 
> And like violent thugs everywhere, they insist that any such attacks will be the fault of the victim being beaten. Its an argument should come with its own wife beater T shirt and case of Pabst Blue Ribbon.
Click to expand...


They are losing their crusade on almost every front and as predicted they will become more rabid as the defeats mount. They are nothing but loud windbags and whom won't actually do anything concerning gays other then anonymously bitch and moan on message boards.


----------



## hangover

PaintMyHouse said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is said that if you masturbate you will go blind. But I say that if you don't masturbate, there's a real good chance you'll get prostate cancer.
> Use it or lose it. There are exceptions of course...like if you get laid three or four times a week. Masturbation is safe sex.
> 
> I was watching a show on the LEARNING CHANNEL the other night called STRANGE SEX, and they had a dude on that had 14 inches. He said he never had a woman that could take it all. I wondered if he played his own flute. Be honest...If you could, would you? I admit, I had a wet dream about it once.
> 
> 
> 
> Vaginas aren't made that deep, not even close, and with a dick that long blowing yourself would be a snap.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that....I saw a woman get fisted by another girl clear up to her elbow. And then there's the Donkey shows in Mexico.


----------



## boilermaker55

Now where has this kind of hatred been professed so vehemently stated in this context, Mein Fuhrer!





Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't a man marry a cow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give it a rest.  You lost faggot-hater, and they won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really.. _faggot_?
> 
> My God, you're such a miserable waste of humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  Leftists are sub-standard variants of humanity.  Which for those keeping score, renders the common Leftists to the unenviable status of "Sub-Human".
> 
> As a result, they do not enjoy the requirement common to actual humanity, of treating them as such; which means that because of their disordered minds, they truly do not possess the rights common to humanity, due to their intellectual inadequacies which preclude them from bearing the responsibilities that sustain such rights.
> 
> In short they simply lack the means required for freedom.
> 
> In greater nature, they are what is otherwise recognized as: _*FOOD!*_
Click to expand...


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd kill myself if I chose to be gay.
> 
> 
> 
> Please.
> 
> Do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I chose not to unlike you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I CHOSE to be attracted to women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you could choose to be attracted to men?
> 
> I have always been attracted to women- not my choice- I just love everything about them- the curves, the walk- wow- sorry- don't get that from men.
Click to expand...

 
I don't get that from men either.  That's why I chose women.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please.
> 
> Do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I chose not to unlike you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I CHOSE to be attracted to women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you could choose to be attracted to men?
> 
> I have always been attracted to women- not my choice- I just love everything about them- the curves, the walk- wow- sorry- don't get that from men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't get that from men either.  That's why I chose women.
Click to expand...


Oh I certainly chose to have sex with women- I chose to marry a woman- but I never, ever chose to be attracted to women.

IF you can choose to be attracted to women- then you should be able to chose to be attracted to men.

If you find the idea of a stubbly male face kissing your lips repugnant- like I do- then your attraction is not a choice.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd kill myself if I chose to be gay.
> 
> 
> 
> Please.
> 
> Do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I chose not to unlike you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are lesbians so angry all the time? Even gay men try to keep away from you all, finding little in common. Perhaps women are so hormonal and bitchy, you shouldn't put two of them together like that. They need a man to calm them down. Just saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are homophobic bigots so angry all of the time?
> 
> Perhaps  they are just frustrated by their failure in life and project their anger out on blaming homosexuals for their own inadequacies.
Click to expand...

 
Sounds like the homos are the angry ones.  They whine and cry about how people should like them.


----------



## boilermaker55

Funny, suddenly you have an appeal fo understanding or sympathy.
Yet you have no compassion for others.
one word for you, Hypocrite!





80zephyr said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> 
> 
> Give it a rest.  You lost faggot-hater, and they won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really.. _faggot_?
> 
> My God, you're such a miserable waste of humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  *Leftists are sub-standard variants of humanity*.  Which for those keeping score, renders the common Leftists to the unenviable status of "Sub-Human".
> 
> As a result, they do not enjoy the requirement common to actual humanity, of treating them as such; which means that because of their disordered minds, they truly do not possess the rights common to humanity, due to their intellectual inadequacies which preclude them from bearing the responsibilities that sustain such rights.
> 
> In short they simply lack the means required for freedom.
> 
> In greater nature, they are what is otherwise recognized as: _*FOOD!*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Classic de-humanizing those you disagree with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your one to talk. Say, why don't you also berate those that are calling us homophobes and faggot haters?
> 
> Or does your silence show you are complicit in their beliefs?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I chose not to unlike you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I CHOSE to be attracted to women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you could choose to be attracted to men?
> 
> I have always been attracted to women- not my choice- I just love everything about them- the curves, the walk- wow- sorry- don't get that from men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't get that from men either.  That's why I chose women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I certainly chose to have sex with women- I chose to marry a woman- but I never, ever chose to be attracted to women.
> 
> IF you can choose to be attracted to women- then you should be able to chose to be attracted to men.
> 
> If you find the idea of a stubbly male face kissing your lips repugnant- like I do- then your attraction is not a choice.
Click to expand...

 
I choose not to be attracted to men. 

I find a lot of things repugnant.  Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please.
> 
> Do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I chose not to unlike you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are lesbians so angry all the time? Even gay men try to keep away from you all, finding little in common. Perhaps women are so hormonal and bitchy, you shouldn't put two of them together like that. They need a man to calm them down. Just saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are homophobic bigots so angry all of the time?
> 
> Perhaps  they are just frustrated by their failure in life and project their anger out on blaming homosexuals for their own inadequacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like the homos are the angry ones.  They whine and cry about how people should like them.
Click to expand...


I am seeing the whining from homophobic bigots here- whining and crying about how unfair it is for them to have to experience a gay football player- or how unfair it is for them that a baker 2000 miles from them is being forced to obey the law. 

I see the homophobes crying about how unfair it is that they have to treat homosexuals fairly in the workplace. 

How everything would be just fine if homosexuals would just stop being all uppity and go back to the closet where they belong.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Howey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please.
> 
> Do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I chose not to unlike you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are lesbians so angry all the time? Even gay men try to keep away from you all, finding little in common. Perhaps women are so hormonal and bitchy, you shouldn't put two of them together like that. They need a man to calm them down. Just saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are homophobic bigots so angry all of the time?
> 
> Perhaps  they are just frustrated by their failure in life and project their anger out on blaming homosexuals for their own inadequacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like the homos are the angry ones.  They whine and cry about how people should like them.
Click to expand...

No, they don't.  The whiners are you little Christian faggot-haters, who can't deal with the fact that their society is leaving them in the past, yet again.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I CHOSE to be attracted to women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you could choose to be attracted to men?
> 
> I have always been attracted to women- not my choice- I just love everything about them- the curves, the walk- wow- sorry- don't get that from men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't get that from men either.  That's why I chose women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I certainly chose to have sex with women- I chose to marry a woman- but I never, ever chose to be attracted to women.
> 
> IF you can choose to be attracted to women- then you should be able to chose to be attracted to men.
> 
> If you find the idea of a stubbly male face kissing your lips repugnant- like I do- then your attraction is not a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I choose not to be attracted to men.
> 
> I find a lot of things repugnant.  Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?
Click to expand...


Then you are probably bisexual.

As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive. 

I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.

If you think you could chose to be turned on by a photo of Clooney in a bathing suit- then you  are probably bisexual.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I chose not to unlike you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are lesbians so angry all the time? Even gay men try to keep away from you all, finding little in common. Perhaps women are so hormonal and bitchy, you shouldn't put two of them together like that. They need a man to calm them down. Just saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are homophobic bigots so angry all of the time?
> 
> Perhaps  they are just frustrated by their failure in life and project their anger out on blaming homosexuals for their own inadequacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like the homos are the angry ones.  They whine and cry about how people should like them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am seeing the whining from homophobic bigots here- whining and crying about how unfair it is for them to have to experience a gay football player- or how unfair it is for them that a baker 2000 miles from them is being forced to obey the law.
> 
> I see the homophobes crying about how unfair it is that they have to treat homosexuals fairly in the workplace.
> 
> How everything would be just fine if homosexuals would just stop being all uppity and go back to the closet where they belong.
Click to expand...

 
You have it all wrong.  I don't have a problem if a football player is gay.  I have a problem is the focus is on him being gay rather than what he's there to do.  My problem isn't with the baker doing the cake.  My problem is the same ones saying the baker should saying that it would be OK if a gay baker refused to put something on a wedding cake. 

I don't have a problem treating an employee fairly regardless of sexual orientation.  I have a problem with having to watch every word because one of them might get offended and get his panties in a wad.


----------



## Skylar

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I CHOSE to be attracted to women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you could choose to be attracted to men?
> 
> I have always been attracted to women- not my choice- I just love everything about them- the curves, the walk- wow- sorry- don't get that from men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't get that from men either.  That's why I chose women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I certainly chose to have sex with women- I chose to marry a woman- but I never, ever chose to be attracted to women.
> 
> IF you can choose to be attracted to women- then you should be able to chose to be attracted to men.
> 
> If you find the idea of a stubbly male face kissing your lips repugnant- like I do- then your attraction is not a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I choose not to be attracted to men.
> 
> I find a lot of things repugnant.  Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are probably bisexual.
> 
> As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.
> 
> I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.
Click to expand...


Oh, Holly Hunter. Nice! That woman is an unsung gem of pure feminine hotness. But then I've always had a thing for strong willed women. And the characters she plays just turn that crank.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I CHOSE to be attracted to women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you could choose to be attracted to men?
> 
> I have always been attracted to women- not my choice- I just love everything about them- the curves, the walk- wow- sorry- don't get that from men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't get that from men either.  That's why I chose women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I certainly chose to have sex with women- I chose to marry a woman- but I never, ever chose to be attracted to women.
> 
> IF you can choose to be attracted to women- then you should be able to chose to be attracted to men.
> 
> If you find the idea of a stubbly male face kissing your lips repugnant- like I do- then your attraction is not a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I choose not to be attracted to men.
> 
> I find a lot of things repugnant.  Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are probably bisexual.
> 
> As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.
> 
> I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.
> 
> If you think you could chose to be turned on by a photo of Clooney in a bathing suit- then you  are probably bisexual.
Click to expand...

 
I could choose to be a criminal.  Does that make me one? 

I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Iceweasel said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, let's go with your idea of gender....in this country, the government cannot discriminate based on gender.  There.  Your argument against same sex marriage shot down.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. You are talking about a RELATIONSHIP and pretending it's a person.
Click to expand...


What's more, Marriage includes BOTH GENDERS... therefore there is no potential discrimination of someone based upon gender, except where the standard REQUIRES discrimination, wherein someone of the same gender as the initiating applicant seeks to be married.  

And therein, lies the rub. The Left, as one should expect of evil is attacking ALL standards critical to the viability of western civilization.  The natural standards of marriage are just one of the latests to be fired upon.

Understand, the goal is to destroy civilization.  Not that the individuals idiots understand that, the energy that animates them, requires that they NOT.  Because even at the exquisitely pitiful intellectual levels of these clowns, if they ever come to realize the destruction they're causing to their own house... they could very easily turn from their current 'feelings' and that would not serve evil well, at all.

Also, the law speaks to discrimination for very specific considerations, such as housing, employment and the like.

It would be wrong to prevent someone from living somewhere because they're a man, unless that somewhere was in say... the ladies room.



Ask her is she sees how that works... .


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?
> 
> 
> 
> Why are lesbians so angry all the time? Even gay men try to keep away from you all, finding little in common. Perhaps women are so hormonal and bitchy, you shouldn't put two of them together like that. They need a man to calm them down. Just saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are homophobic bigots so angry all of the time?
> 
> Perhaps  they are just frustrated by their failure in life and project their anger out on blaming homosexuals for their own inadequacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like the homos are the angry ones.  They whine and cry about how people should like them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am seeing the whining from homophobic bigots here- whining and crying about how unfair it is for them to have to experience a gay football player- or how unfair it is for them that a baker 2000 miles from them is being forced to obey the law.
> 
> I see the homophobes crying about how unfair it is that they have to treat homosexuals fairly in the workplace.
> 
> How everything would be just fine if homosexuals would just stop being all uppity and go back to the closet where they belong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have it all wrong.  I don't have a problem if a football player is gay.  I have a problem is the focus is on him being gay rather than what he's there to do.  My problem isn't with the baker doing the cake.  My problem is the same ones saying the baker should saying that it would be OK if a gay baker refused to put something on a wedding cake.
> 
> I don't have a problem treating an employee fairly regardless of sexual orientation.  I have a problem with having to watch every word because one of them might get offended and get his panties in a wad.
Click to expand...


Why do you care about the football player at all? Why do you care whether he is gay- or whether the focus is on him because he is gay?

As far as the baker is concerned- the baker is subject to State law- that applies to everyone covered in that law- I would object if the baker refused to bake a wedding cake to a Christian couple because they were Christian or a black couple because they were black or a Jewish couple because they are jewish.

You have to watch every word you say at work? Well good for you- then your HR department has gotten through to you. Yes- you can't say something that will embaress the company at work. You can't say things that are sexist that might offend women- you can't say things that are racists that might offend racial minorities- and you can't call people f*ggots because its the wrong thing to do at work.


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you could choose to be attracted to men?
> 
> I have always been attracted to women- not my choice- I just love everything about them- the curves, the walk- wow- sorry- don't get that from men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get that from men either.  That's why I chose women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I certainly chose to have sex with women- I chose to marry a woman- but I never, ever chose to be attracted to women.
> 
> IF you can choose to be attracted to women- then you should be able to chose to be attracted to men.
> 
> If you find the idea of a stubbly male face kissing your lips repugnant- like I do- then your attraction is not a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I choose not to be attracted to men.
> 
> I find a lot of things repugnant.  Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are probably bisexual.
> 
> As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.
> 
> I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.
> 
> If you think you could chose to be turned on by a photo of Clooney in a bathing suit- then you  are probably bisexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could choose to be a criminal.  Does that make me one?
> 
> I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.
Click to expand...


So with a mere choice you could find a man's hairy ass as sexually attractive as a woman's shapely backside?

Then Sy's right. You're probably bi already. For most of us, its not a choice. Its just an attribute.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you could choose to be attracted to men?
> 
> I have always been attracted to women- not my choice- I just love everything about them- the curves, the walk- wow- sorry- don't get that from men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get that from men either.  That's why I chose women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I certainly chose to have sex with women- I chose to marry a woman- but I never, ever chose to be attracted to women.
> 
> IF you can choose to be attracted to women- then you should be able to chose to be attracted to men.
> 
> If you find the idea of a stubbly male face kissing your lips repugnant- like I do- then your attraction is not a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I choose not to be attracted to men.
> 
> I find a lot of things repugnant.  Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are probably bisexual.
> 
> As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.
> 
> I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.
> 
> If you think you could chose to be turned on by a photo of Clooney in a bathing suit- then you  are probably bisexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could choose to be a criminal.  Does that make me one?
> 
> I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.
Click to expand...


Whatever dude- if you choose not to find men sexually attractive, you might be bisexual.


----------



## Syriusly

Skylar said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you could choose to be attracted to men?
> 
> I have always been attracted to women- not my choice- I just love everything about them- the curves, the walk- wow- sorry- don't get that from men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get that from men either.  That's why I chose women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I certainly chose to have sex with women- I chose to marry a woman- but I never, ever chose to be attracted to women.
> 
> IF you can choose to be attracted to women- then you should be able to chose to be attracted to men.
> 
> If you find the idea of a stubbly male face kissing your lips repugnant- like I do- then your attraction is not a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I choose not to be attracted to men.
> 
> I find a lot of things repugnant.  Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are probably bisexual.
> 
> As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.
> 
> I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, Holly Hunter. Nice! That woman is an unsung gem of pure feminine hotness. But then I've always had a thing for strong willed women. And the characters she plays just turn that crank.
Click to expand...


Oh yeah baby.......

If I could choose to be as turned on by George Clooney as I was by Holly Hunter- I would be bisexual.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, let's go with your idea of gender....in this country, the government cannot discriminate based on gender.  There.  Your argument against same sex marriage shot down.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. You are talking about a RELATIONSHIP and pretending it's a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's more, Marriage includes BOTH GENDERS... therefore there is no potential discrimination of someone based upon gender, except where the standard REQUIRES discrimination, wherein someone of the same gender as the initiating applicant seeks to be married.
Click to expand...


The same argument was made regarding interracial marriage. That since the laws included both blacks and whites, there was no potential for discrimination based on race.

*The obvious problem being.....there's no valid reason for the restriction.* As there's nothing required by marriage that a white man and black woman couldn't meet. And likewise, there's nothing required by marriage that a lesbian and a lesbian couldn't meet.

And no state interest served in denying same sex couples their right to marry. Nor can a logical, rational reason be given.

All of which is required if you're going to deny someone rights.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are lesbians so angry all the time? Even gay men try to keep away from you all, finding little in common. Perhaps women are so hormonal and bitchy, you shouldn't put two of them together like that. They need a man to calm them down. Just saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are homophobic bigots so angry all of the time?
> 
> Perhaps  they are just frustrated by their failure in life and project their anger out on blaming homosexuals for their own inadequacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like the homos are the angry ones.  They whine and cry about how people should like them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am seeing the whining from homophobic bigots here- whining and crying about how unfair it is for them to have to experience a gay football player- or how unfair it is for them that a baker 2000 miles from them is being forced to obey the law.
> 
> I see the homophobes crying about how unfair it is that they have to treat homosexuals fairly in the workplace.
> 
> How everything would be just fine if homosexuals would just stop being all uppity and go back to the closet where they belong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have it all wrong.  I don't have a problem if a football player is gay.  I have a problem is the focus is on him being gay rather than what he's there to do.  My problem isn't with the baker doing the cake.  My problem is the same ones saying the baker should saying that it would be OK if a gay baker refused to put something on a wedding cake.
> 
> I don't have a problem treating an employee fairly regardless of sexual orientation.  I have a problem with having to watch every word because one of them might get offended and get his panties in a wad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you care about the football player at all? Why do you care whether he is gay- or whether the focus is on him because he is gay?
> 
> As far as the baker is concerned- the baker is subject to State law- that applies to everyone covered in that law- I would object if the baker refused to bake a wedding cake to a Christian couple because they were Christian or a black couple because they were black or a Jewish couple because they are jewish.
> 
> You have to watch every word you say at work? Well good for you- then your HR department has gotten through to you. Yes- you can't say something that will embaress the company at work. You can't say things that are sexist that might offend women- you can't say things that are racists that might offend racial minorities- and you can't call people f*ggots because its the wrong thing to do at work.
Click to expand...

 
Why do people care if he is gay and focus on that rather than the reason he was supposed to be selected?  Very little was said about his skills for the job.  Plenty was made out of what his supporters say is supposed to be a private matter. 

13 Gay Bakeries Refuse to Make Traditional Marriage Cake With the Message Gay Marriage Is Wrong #!

The problem is you never know what someone might not think twice of one day and complain about the next.   The problem is the politically correct crowd is a bunch of pussies that get upset if someone says something they may happen to not like.   Unlike them, I don't care.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get that from men either.  That's why I chose women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I certainly chose to have sex with women- I chose to marry a woman- but I never, ever chose to be attracted to women.
> 
> IF you can choose to be attracted to women- then you should be able to chose to be attracted to men.
> 
> If you find the idea of a stubbly male face kissing your lips repugnant- like I do- then your attraction is not a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I choose not to be attracted to men.
> 
> I find a lot of things repugnant.  Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are probably bisexual.
> 
> As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.
> 
> I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, Holly Hunter. Nice! That woman is an unsung gem of pure feminine hotness. But then I've always had a thing for strong willed women. And the characters she plays just turn that crank.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yeah baby.......
> 
> If I could choose to be as turned on by George Clooney as I was by Holly Hunter- I would be bisexual.
Click to expand...

 
I can't because I choose not to.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are homophobic bigots so angry all of the time?
> 
> Perhaps  they are just frustrated by their failure in life and project their anger out on blaming homosexuals for their own inadequacies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the homos are the angry ones.  They whine and cry about how people should like them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am seeing the whining from homophobic bigots here- whining and crying about how unfair it is for them to have to experience a gay football player- or how unfair it is for them that a baker 2000 miles from them is being forced to obey the law.
> 
> I see the homophobes crying about how unfair it is that they have to treat homosexuals fairly in the workplace.
> 
> How everything would be just fine if homosexuals would just stop being all uppity and go back to the closet where they belong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have it all wrong.  I don't have a problem if a football player is gay.  I have a problem is the focus is on him being gay rather than what he's there to do.  My problem isn't with the baker doing the cake.  My problem is the same ones saying the baker should saying that it would be OK if a gay baker refused to put something on a wedding cake.
> 
> I don't have a problem treating an employee fairly regardless of sexual orientation.  I have a problem with having to watch every word because one of them might get offended and get his panties in a wad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you care about the football player at all? Why do you care whether he is gay- or whether the focus is on him because he is gay?
> 
> As far as the baker is concerned- the baker is subject to State law- that applies to everyone covered in that law- I would object if the baker refused to bake a wedding cake to a Christian couple because they were Christian or a black couple because they were black or a Jewish couple because they are jewish.
> 
> You have to watch every word you say at work? Well good for you- then your HR department has gotten through to you. Yes- you can't say something that will embaress the company at work. You can't say things that are sexist that might offend women- you can't say things that are racists that might offend racial minorities- and you can't call people f*ggots because its the wrong thing to do at work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do people care if he is gay and focus on that rather than the reason he was supposed to be selected?  Very little was said about his skills for the job.  Plenty was made out of what his supporters say is supposed to be a private matter..
Click to expand...


First of all- lets talk about what is 'private' and what is 'public'- 

What a person does in his or her bedroom is indeed private- and I don't need to hear anyone tell me how he banged his wife or his husband last night. 

But a person's sexual preference has always been public- heterosexuals have been public about our attractions always- holding hands, kissing in public, getting married in public.

You know why people are making a big deal of this guy- because there have always been rumors about gays in pro sports but there has been a stigma attached to it.  Coming out publicly is working to overcome the stigma.

We have seen the same thing with others regarding  mental illness and drug dependency(why did Betty Ford come out publicly with her dependency issue?) and medical conditions(Michael J. Fox and his Parkinson's).

Personally, I dont' care whether this guy is gay or not- and when he was cut, I figured he just didn't have what it takes to make it. 

But I understand why people do go public with issues to raise public awareness- I had no problem when Betty Ford did it- or when Michael J. Fox did it.


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I certainly chose to have sex with women- I chose to marry a woman- but I never, ever chose to be attracted to women.
> 
> IF you can choose to be attracted to women- then you should be able to chose to be attracted to men.
> 
> If you find the idea of a stubbly male face kissing your lips repugnant- like I do- then your attraction is not a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I choose not to be attracted to men.
> 
> I find a lot of things repugnant.  Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are probably bisexual.
> 
> As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.
> 
> I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, Holly Hunter. Nice! That woman is an unsung gem of pure feminine hotness. But then I've always had a thing for strong willed women. And the characters she plays just turn that crank.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yeah baby.......
> 
> If I could choose to be as turned on by George Clooney as I was by Holly Hunter- I would be bisexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't because I choose not to.
Click to expand...

But if you choose, you clearly can. 

That makes you and I fundamentally different. I just don't find men sexually attractive. I don't have a choice in the matter.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

It should be noted again... due to the obtuse nature of evil, that race is GENETIC... and not sexual.

The SCOTUS did not proclaim in its finding that Race could not be used as a means to prevent a man and a woman of distinct races from being married that marriage was open to people of the same gender.

That is because they had no reason to do so.  And why did they not have a reason to do so? 

They had no reason to do so because Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman, without regard to the melatonin content of their skin; meaning that race is irrelevant to marriage.

This in contrast to GENDER... and VOLUME... which are CENTRAL to marriage, as such requires that only TWO PEOPLE can enter into such and that each of those must represent the distinct genders, One male, One Female... .

And this without regard to weeping and gnashing of the intellectually less fortunate tooth.

It should also be noted that in deciding that the 2nd amendment protects the right of the individual to own and effectively use firearms, that SCOTUS did not conclude that men could marry men...  just as in their decision that the responsibilities inherent in the right to free speech preclude a right to injure others through false speech... the court also DID NOT convey that a woman could marry her dog.

Ya see, a decision on the limits of one subject standard, in no way invalidates the otherwise essential cultural elements known as "standards".


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get that from men either.  That's why I chose women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I certainly chose to have sex with women- I chose to marry a woman- but I never, ever chose to be attracted to women.
> 
> IF you can choose to be attracted to women- then you should be able to chose to be attracted to men.
> 
> If you find the idea of a stubbly male face kissing your lips repugnant- like I do- then your attraction is not a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I choose not to be attracted to men.
> 
> I find a lot of things repugnant.  Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are probably bisexual.
> 
> As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.
> 
> I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.
> 
> If you think you could chose to be turned on by a photo of Clooney in a bathing suit- then you  are probably bisexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could choose to be a criminal.  Does that make me one?
> 
> I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever dude- if you choose not to find men sexually attractive, you might be bisexual.
Click to expand...

 
That would make me a heterosexual. 

I guess if I COULD be a bankobber but choose not to that still makes one.

By the when you include "dude" in your response, it weakens whatever you have to say.


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I choose not to be attracted to men.
> 
> I find a lot of things repugnant.  Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are probably bisexual.
> 
> As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.
> 
> I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, Holly Hunter. Nice! That woman is an unsung gem of pure feminine hotness. But then I've always had a thing for strong willed women. And the characters she plays just turn that crank.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yeah baby.......
> 
> If I could choose to be as turned on by George Clooney as I was by Holly Hunter- I would be bisexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't because I choose not to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But if you choose, you clearly can.
> 
> That makes you and I fundamentally different. I just don't find men sexually attractive. I don't have a choice in the matter.
Click to expand...

 
It makes us different but it doesn't make me what anything other than a heterosexual that chose to be heterosexual.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could you site the law in any of the 50 States where procreation is a requirement of Civil Marriage?
> 
> Thank you in advance.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can...
> 
> Let me help ya through it.
> 
> All 50 states exist in Nature and are dependent upon Nature for their continued existence... where ANY state rejects the moral foundation intrinsic IN Nature, the state sets itself to suffer the otherwise unavoidable and catastrophic consequences of their failure to respect the laws in nature which govern human behavior.
> 
> Thus for law to be valid, it must rest upon the soundly reasoned morality inherent in natural law... or such law leads the state toward its certain demise.  AND where the fate of THAT state is intrinsically tied to others, its demise endangers the viability of the whole of that subsequent Union.
> 
> Feel better?
Click to expand...



You failed to make one citation to an actual law, you projected your opinion, but no links to actual laws.

Not surprising.


>>>>


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> The problem is you never know what someone might not think twice of one day and complain about the next.   The problem is the politically correct crowd is a bunch of pussies that get upset if someone says something they may happen to not like.   Unlike them, I don't care.



Yeah well for one thing- if you go around calling your co-workers 'a bunch of pussies'- you probably will run into issues.

If you go around talking about n*ggers and f*ggots you probably will run into problems.

If you want to tell jokes you find hilarious about q*eers and how they don't like c*nts you probably are going to have problems.

But like you said- you just don't care. 

Others do.


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get that from men either.  That's why I chose women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I certainly chose to have sex with women- I chose to marry a woman- but I never, ever chose to be attracted to women.
> 
> IF you can choose to be attracted to women- then you should be able to chose to be attracted to men.
> 
> If you find the idea of a stubbly male face kissing your lips repugnant- like I do- then your attraction is not a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I choose not to be attracted to men.
> 
> I find a lot of things repugnant.  Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are probably bisexual.
> 
> As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.
> 
> I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.
> 
> If you think you could chose to be turned on by a photo of Clooney in a bathing suit- then you  are probably bisexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could choose to be a criminal.  Does that make me one?
> 
> I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So with a mere choice you could find a man's hairy ass as sexually attractive as a woman's shapely backside?
> 
> Then Sy's right. You're probably bi already. For most of us, its not a choice. Its just an attribute.
Click to expand...

 
I don't make that choice.  You assume that because I can I would.  Doesn't work that way.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Syriusly said:


> First of all- lets talk about what is 'private' and what is 'public'-



Marriage: Public.

Sex: Private.

Nothing complex about it.

Marriage: the Joining of one man and one woman; PUBLIC

Homosexuality: Abnormal Sexuality caused by abnormal reasoning; PUBLIC.

But, what two homosexuals do in the privacy of their own home with a goat, a midget, a unicycle, a gerbil, a case of Quakerstate and a shower curtain, is their PRIVATE BUSINESS... until the video is published on the web.  Then it's public.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are probably bisexual.
> 
> As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.
> 
> I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, Holly Hunter. Nice! That woman is an unsung gem of pure feminine hotness. But then I've always had a thing for strong willed women. And the characters she plays just turn that crank.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yeah baby.......
> 
> If I could choose to be as turned on by George Clooney as I was by Holly Hunter- I would be bisexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't because I choose not to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But if you choose, you clearly can.
> 
> That makes you and I fundamentally different. I just don't find men sexually attractive. I don't have a choice in the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It makes us different but it doesn't make me what anything other than a heterosexual that chose to be heterosexual.
Click to expand...


A heterosexual who chooses to be attracted to women and chooses not to be attracted to men is probably a bisexual.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all- lets talk about what is 'private' and what is 'public'-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage: Public.
> 
> Sex: Private.
> 
> Nothing complex about it.
> 
> Marriage: the Joining of one man and one woman; PUBLIC
> 
> Homosexuality: Abnormal Sexuality caused by abnormal reasoning; PUBLIC.
> 
> But, what two homosexuals do in the privacy of their own home with a goat, a midget, a unicycle, a gerbil, a case of Quakerstate and a shower curtain, is their PRIVATE BUSINESS... until the video is published on the web.  Then it's public.
Click to expand...


More Batshit crazy crap from Keys.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is you never know what someone might not think twice of one day and complain about the next.   The problem is the politically correct crowd is a bunch of pussies that get upset if someone says something they may happen to not like.   Unlike them, I don't care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah well for one thing- if you go around calling your co-workers 'a bunch of pussies'- you probably will run into issues.
> 
> If you go around talking about n*ggers and f*ggots you probably will run into problems.
> 
> If you want to tell jokes you find hilarious about q*eers and how they don't like c*nts you probably are going to have problems.
> 
> But like you said- you just don't care.
> 
> Others do.
Click to expand...

 
I called you a pussy. 

I don't care because I'm man enough to not do so.  If others do care, it's their problem.


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are homophobic bigots so angry all of the time?
> 
> Perhaps  they are just frustrated by their failure in life and project their anger out on blaming homosexuals for their own inadequacies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the homos are the angry ones.  They whine and cry about how people should like them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am seeing the whining from homophobic bigots here- whining and crying about how unfair it is for them to have to experience a gay football player- or how unfair it is for them that a baker 2000 miles from them is being forced to obey the law.
> 
> I see the homophobes crying about how unfair it is that they have to treat homosexuals fairly in the workplace.
> 
> How everything would be just fine if homosexuals would just stop being all uppity and go back to the closet where they belong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have it all wrong.  I don't have a problem if a football player is gay.  I have a problem is the focus is on him being gay rather than what he's there to do.  My problem isn't with the baker doing the cake.  My problem is the same ones saying the baker should saying that it would be OK if a gay baker refused to put something on a wedding cake.
> 
> I don't have a problem treating an employee fairly regardless of sexual orientation.  I have a problem with having to watch every word because one of them might get offended and get his panties in a wad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you care about the football player at all? Why do you care whether he is gay- or whether the focus is on him because he is gay?
> 
> As far as the baker is concerned- the baker is subject to State law- that applies to everyone covered in that law- I would object if the baker refused to bake a wedding cake to a Christian couple because they were Christian or a black couple because they were black or a Jewish couple because they are jewish.
> 
> You have to watch every word you say at work? Well good for you- then your HR department has gotten through to you. Yes- you can't say something that will embaress the company at work. You can't say things that are sexist that might offend women- you can't say things that are racists that might offend racial minorities- and you can't call people f*ggots because its the wrong thing to do at work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do people care if he is gay and focus on that rather than the reason he was supposed to be selected?  Very little was said about his skills for the job.  Plenty was made out of what his supporters say is supposed to be a private matter.
> 
> 13 Gay Bakeries Refuse to Make Traditional Marriage Cake With the Message Gay Marriage Is Wrong #!
> 
> The problem is you never know what someone might not think twice of one day and complain about the next.   The problem is the politically correct crowd is a bunch of pussies that get upset if someone says something they may happen to not like.   Unlike them, I don't care.
Click to expand...


Clever! I'd have to say that I'd side with with the traditional marriage advocates if the gay bakers refused to sell them a cake. But as for the message, I'm pretty cool with anyone refusing to write whatever they find offensive.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, Holly Hunter. Nice! That woman is an unsung gem of pure feminine hotness. But then I've always had a thing for strong willed women. And the characters she plays just turn that crank.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah baby.......
> 
> If I could choose to be as turned on by George Clooney as I was by Holly Hunter- I would be bisexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't because I choose not to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But if you choose, you clearly can.
> 
> That makes you and I fundamentally different. I just don't find men sexually attractive. I don't have a choice in the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It makes us different but it doesn't make me what anything other than a heterosexual that chose to be heterosexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A heterosexual who chooses to be attracted to women and chooses not to be attracted to men is probably a bisexual.
Click to expand...

 
It's a heterosexual that knows what he chooses.  To be bisexual, by definition, I'd have to be attracted to men.  I'm not by choice.  So much for your foolish claim.


----------



## WorldWatcher

80zephyr said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since when is consent a requisite of marriage? Do the Muslims know this? BTW, you cannot meet every requirement of marriage. You cannot procreate. Hell you can't even consummate the marriage.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you site the law in any of the 50 States where procreation is a requirement of Civil Marriage?
> 
> What about State laws that require a couple be INFERTILE and therefore unable to procreate?
> 
> Thank you in advance.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't understand the concept by now, another post probably will not help you.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


You made the claim that "You cannot meet every requirement of marriage. You cannot procreate." concerning homosexuals (which of course is false since just because one is homosexual does not mean that person is infertile).

I'm sorry you don't understand that "requirements" of marriage are those listed in Civil Law as it pertains to Civil Marriage.  If you are going to make claims about the law, don't be upset when someone makes a call out asking for proof of your claims.

On the other hand if you don't understand the concept of "requirements" under the law being applicable to the functioning of a law, another post probably will not help you.



You inability to back up your claim in duly noted.


>>>>


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the homos are the angry ones.  They whine and cry about how people should like them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am seeing the whining from homophobic bigots here- whining and crying about how unfair it is for them to have to experience a gay football player- or how unfair it is for them that a baker 2000 miles from them is being forced to obey the law.
> 
> I see the homophobes crying about how unfair it is that they have to treat homosexuals fairly in the workplace.
> 
> How everything would be just fine if homosexuals would just stop being all uppity and go back to the closet where they belong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have it all wrong.  I don't have a problem if a football player is gay.  I have a problem is the focus is on him being gay rather than what he's there to do.  My problem isn't with the baker doing the cake.  My problem is the same ones saying the baker should saying that it would be OK if a gay baker refused to put something on a wedding cake.
> 
> I don't have a problem treating an employee fairly regardless of sexual orientation.  I have a problem with having to watch every word because one of them might get offended and get his panties in a wad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you care about the football player at all? Why do you care whether he is gay- or whether the focus is on him because he is gay?
> 
> As far as the baker is concerned- the baker is subject to State law- that applies to everyone covered in that law- I would object if the baker refused to bake a wedding cake to a Christian couple because they were Christian or a black couple because they were black or a Jewish couple because they are jewish.
> 
> You have to watch every word you say at work? Well good for you- then your HR department has gotten through to you. Yes- you can't say something that will embaress the company at work. You can't say things that are sexist that might offend women- you can't say things that are racists that might offend racial minorities- and you can't call people f*ggots because its the wrong thing to do at work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do people care if he is gay and focus on that rather than the reason he was supposed to be selected?  Very little was said about his skills for the job.  Plenty was made out of what his supporters say is supposed to be a private matter.
> 
> 13 Gay Bakeries Refuse to Make Traditional Marriage Cake With the Message Gay Marriage Is Wrong #!
> 
> The problem is you never know what someone might not think twice of one day and complain about the next.   The problem is the politically correct crowd is a bunch of pussies that get upset if someone says something they may happen to not like.   Unlike them, I don't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clever! I'd have to say that I'd side with with the traditional marriage advocates if the gay bakers refused to sell them a cake. But as for the message, I'm pretty cool with anyone refusing to write whatever they find offensive.
Click to expand...

 
What if the Christian baker was offended by two male figures on top of a wedding cake or putting two male names on a wedding cake?  That's a message.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

WorldWatcher said:


> You failed to make one citation to an actual law, you projected your opinion, but no [references] to actual laws.
> 
> 
> >>>>



Nonsense: 

I cited the law numerous times:

1- "All 50 states exist in Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

2- "are dependent upon Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

3- "where ANY state rejects the moral foundation intrinsic IN Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

4- "the state sets itself to suffer the otherwise unavoidable and catastrophic consequences of their failure to respect the laws in nature which govern human behavior": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

5- "Thus for law to be valid, it must rest upon the soundly reasoned morality inherent in natural law":  Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

6- "or such law leads the state toward its certain demise.": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.

7- "AND where the fate of THAT state is intrinsically tied to others, its demise endangers the viability of the whole of that subsequent Union.": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am seeing the whining from homophobic bigots here- whining and crying about how unfair it is for them to have to experience a gay football player- or how unfair it is for them that a baker 2000 miles from them is being forced to obey the law.
> 
> I see the homophobes crying about how unfair it is that they have to treat homosexuals fairly in the workplace.
> 
> How everything would be just fine if homosexuals would just stop being all uppity and go back to the closet where they belong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have it all wrong.  I don't have a problem if a football player is gay.  I have a problem is the focus is on him being gay rather than what he's there to do.  My problem isn't with the baker doing the cake.  My problem is the same ones saying the baker should saying that it would be OK if a gay baker refused to put something on a wedding cake.
> 
> I don't have a problem treating an employee fairly regardless of sexual orientation.  I have a problem with having to watch every word because one of them might get offended and get his panties in a wad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you care about the football player at all? Why do you care whether he is gay- or whether the focus is on him because he is gay?
> 
> As far as the baker is concerned- the baker is subject to State law- that applies to everyone covered in that law- I would object if the baker refused to bake a wedding cake to a Christian couple because they were Christian or a black couple because they were black or a Jewish couple because they are jewish.
> 
> You have to watch every word you say at work? Well good for you- then your HR department has gotten through to you. Yes- you can't say something that will embaress the company at work. You can't say things that are sexist that might offend women- you can't say things that are racists that might offend racial minorities- and you can't call people f*ggots because its the wrong thing to do at work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do people care if he is gay and focus on that rather than the reason he was supposed to be selected?  Very little was said about his skills for the job.  Plenty was made out of what his supporters say is supposed to be a private matter.
> 
> 13 Gay Bakeries Refuse to Make Traditional Marriage Cake With the Message Gay Marriage Is Wrong #!
> 
> The problem is you never know what someone might not think twice of one day and complain about the next.   The problem is the politically correct crowd is a bunch of pussies that get upset if someone says something they may happen to not like.   Unlike them, I don't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clever! I'd have to say that I'd side with with the traditional marriage advocates if the gay bakers refused to sell them a cake. But as for the message, I'm pretty cool with anyone refusing to write whatever they find offensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if the Christian baker was offended by two male figures on top of a wedding cake or putting two male names on a wedding cake?  That's a message.
Click to expand...



What if he was offended by two Jewish names on a wedding cake?


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I choose not to be attracted to men.
> 
> I find a lot of things repugnant.  Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are probably bisexual.
> 
> As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.
> 
> I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, Holly Hunter. Nice! That woman is an unsung gem of pure feminine hotness. But then I've always had a thing for strong willed women. And the characters she plays just turn that crank.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yeah baby.......
> 
> If I could choose to be as turned on by George Clooney as I was by Holly Hunter- I would be bisexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't because I choose not to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But if you choose, you clearly can.
> 
> That makes you and I fundamentally different. I just don't find men sexually attractive. I don't have a choice in the matter.
Click to expand...

 
There are a lot of things I don't do by choice.  Based on your reasonsing, I could be defined as all of them simply because I made a choice related to them.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could you site the law in any of the 50 States where procreation is a requirement of Civil Marriage?
> 
> Thank you in advance.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can...
> 
> Let me help ya through it.
> 
> All 50 states exist in Nature and are dependent upon Nature for their continued existence... where ANY state rejects the moral foundation intrinsic IN Nature, the state sets itself to suffer the otherwise unavoidable and catastrophic consequences of their failure to respect the laws in nature which govern human behavior.
> 
> Thus for law to be valid, it must rest upon the soundly reasoned morality inherent in natural law... or such law leads the state toward its certain demise.  AND where the fate of THAT state is intrinsically tied to others, its demise endangers the viability of the whole of that subsequent Union.
> 
> Feel better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You failed to make one citation to an actual law, you projected your opinion, but no links to actual laws.
> 
> Not surprising.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cited the law numerous times:
> 
> 1- "All 50 states exist in Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.
> 
> 2- "are dependent upon Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.
> 
> 3- "where ANY state rejects the moral foundation intrinsic IN Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.
> 
> 4- "the state sets itself to suffer the otherwise unavoidable and catastrophic consequences of their failure to respect the laws in nature which govern human behavior": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.
> 
> 5- "Thus for law to be valid, it must rest upon the soundly reasoned morality inherent in natural law":  Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.
> 
> 6- "or such law leads the state toward its certain demise.": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.
> 
> 7- "AND where the fate of THAT state is intrinsically tied to others, its demise endangers the viability of the whole of that subsequent Union.": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.
Click to expand...


7 points of batshit crazy.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is you never know what someone might not think twice of one day and complain about the next.   The problem is the politically correct crowd is a bunch of pussies that get upset if someone says something they may happen to not like.   Unlike them, I don't care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah well for one thing- if you go around calling your co-workers 'a bunch of pussies'- you probably will run into issues.
> 
> If you go around talking about n*ggers and f*ggots you probably will run into problems.
> 
> If you want to tell jokes you find hilarious about q*eers and how they don't like c*nts you probably are going to have problems.
> 
> But like you said- you just don't care.
> 
> Others do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I called you a pussy.
> 
> I don't care because I'm man enough to not do so.  If others do care, it's their problem.
Click to expand...


See here on the boards thats fine.

But in the workplace- in most places- that could get you fired.

Not because everyone is politically correct- but because you would just be being an asshole at work.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Syriusly said:


> What if he was offended by two Jewish names on a wedding cake?



So what?

Who could possibly care? 

If you were a baker and so offended... as a Baptist, I'd probably just leave.  OR... more likely, engage you in debate, record it and humiliate you eternally through the magic of youtube... THEN leave.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have it all wrong.  I don't have a problem if a football player is gay.  I have a problem is the focus is on him being gay rather than what he's there to do.  My problem isn't with the baker doing the cake.  My problem is the same ones saying the baker should saying that it would be OK if a gay baker refused to put something on a wedding cake.
> 
> I don't have a problem treating an employee fairly regardless of sexual orientation.  I have a problem with having to watch every word because one of them might get offended and get his panties in a wad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you care about the football player at all? Why do you care whether he is gay- or whether the focus is on him because he is gay?
> 
> As far as the baker is concerned- the baker is subject to State law- that applies to everyone covered in that law- I would object if the baker refused to bake a wedding cake to a Christian couple because they were Christian or a black couple because they were black or a Jewish couple because they are jewish.
> 
> You have to watch every word you say at work? Well good for you- then your HR department has gotten through to you. Yes- you can't say something that will embaress the company at work. You can't say things that are sexist that might offend women- you can't say things that are racists that might offend racial minorities- and you can't call people f*ggots because its the wrong thing to do at work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do people care if he is gay and focus on that rather than the reason he was supposed to be selected?  Very little was said about his skills for the job.  Plenty was made out of what his supporters say is supposed to be a private matter.
> 
> 13 Gay Bakeries Refuse to Make Traditional Marriage Cake With the Message Gay Marriage Is Wrong #!
> 
> The problem is you never know what someone might not think twice of one day and complain about the next.   The problem is the politically correct crowd is a bunch of pussies that get upset if someone says something they may happen to not like.   Unlike them, I don't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clever! I'd have to say that I'd side with with the traditional marriage advocates if the gay bakers refused to sell them a cake. But as for the message, I'm pretty cool with anyone refusing to write whatever they find offensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if the Christian baker was offended by two male figures on top of a wedding cake or putting two male names on a wedding cake?  That's a message.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What if he was offended by two Jewish names on a wedding cake?
Click to expand...

 
There lies the problem.  A Christian baker can be offended by the message yet be required to bake the cake.  The homo can be offended and nothing else is said about it nor is he forced to bake the cake.   It's not a matter of something being offensive, it's a matter of WHO claims to have been offended.  If the Christian baker is required to bake the cake, then homo should have the same requirement.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could you site the law in any of the 50 States where procreation is a requirement of Civil Marriage?
> 
> Thank you in advance.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can...
> 
> Let me help ya through it.
> 
> All 50 states exist in Nature and are dependent upon Nature for their continued existence... where ANY state rejects the moral foundation intrinsic IN Nature, the state sets itself to suffer the otherwise unavoidable and catastrophic consequences of their failure to respect the laws in nature which govern human behavior.
> 
> Thus for law to be valid, it must rest upon the soundly reasoned morality inherent in natural law... or such law leads the state toward its certain demise.  AND where the fate of THAT state is intrinsically tied to others, its demise endangers the viability of the whole of that subsequent Union.
> 
> Feel better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You failed to make one citation to an actual law, you projected your opinion, but no links to actual laws.
> 
> Not surprising.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cited the law numerous times:
> 
> 1- "All 50 states exist in Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.
> 
> 2- "are dependent upon Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.
> 
> 3- "where ANY state rejects the moral foundation intrinsic IN Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.
> 
> 4- "the state sets itself to suffer the otherwise unavoidable and catastrophic consequences of their failure to respect the laws in nature which govern human behavior": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.
> 
> 5- "Thus for law to be valid, it must rest upon the soundly reasoned morality inherent in natural law":  Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.
> 
> 6- "or such law leads the state toward its certain demise.": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.
> 
> 7- "AND where the fate of THAT state is intrinsically tied to others, its demise endangers the viability of the whole of that subsequent Union.": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 7 points of batshit crazy.
Click to expand...


OH!  How positively sweet of you.

An unsolicited concession! 

Duly noted and summarily accepted!

(Thank you again... that was a wonderful demonstration of the Freudian propensity for sub-conscious honesty.)


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is you never know what someone might not think twice of one day and complain about the next.   The problem is the politically correct crowd is a bunch of pussies that get upset if someone says something they may happen to not like.   Unlike them, I don't care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah well for one thing- if you go around calling your co-workers 'a bunch of pussies'- you probably will run into issues.
> 
> If you go around talking about n*ggers and f*ggots you probably will run into problems.
> 
> If you want to tell jokes you find hilarious about q*eers and how they don't like c*nts you probably are going to have problems.
> 
> But like you said- you just don't care.
> 
> Others do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I called you a pussy.
> 
> I don't care because I'm man enough to not do so.  If others do care, it's their problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See here on the boards thats fine.
> 
> But in the workplace- in most places- that could get you fired.
> 
> Not because everyone is politically correct- but because you would just be being an asshole at work.
Click to expand...

 
So you get to define what being an asshole means?  Sorry, you don't.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> It should be noted again... due to the obtuse nature of evil, that race is GENETIC... and not sexual.



Race is a social construct based loosely on general physical characteristics. The physical characteristics are genetic. The construct around them is invented. And its as real as say, any given language. 



> The SCOTUS did not proclaim in its finding that Race could not be used as a means to prevent a man and a woman of distinct races from being married that marriage was open to people of the same gender.
> 
> That is because they had no reason to do so.  And why did they not have a reason to do so?
> 
> They had no reason to do so because Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman, without regard to the melatonin content of their skin; meaning that race is irrelevant to marriage.



Marriage, like race, is a social construct. And it is whatever we decide it is. It carries with it a variety of legal benefits,  privileges, and immunities. If you're going to deny those benefits, privileges and immunities to a couple, you'll need a valid reason. 

And in the case of gay marriage bans, no such reason exists. Nor any compelling State interest. 



> This in contrast to GENDER... and VOLUME... which are CENTRAL to marriage, as such requires that only TWO PEOPLE can enter into such and that each of those must represent the distinct genders, One male, One Female... .



Actually, marriage has included polygamy in many cultures. Most commonly, one man and multiple women. The meaning of marriage is flexible like that. It means whatever we decide it does.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You failed to make one citation to an actual law, you projected your opinion, but no [references] to actual laws.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense:
> 
> I cited the law numerous times:
> 
> 1- "All 50 states exist in Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.
> 
> 2- "are dependent upon Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.
> 
> 3- "where ANY state rejects the moral foundation intrinsic IN Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.
> 
> 4- "the state sets itself to suffer the otherwise unavoidable and catastrophic consequences of their failure to respect the laws in nature which govern human behavior": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.
> 
> 5- "Thus for law to be valid, it must rest upon the soundly reasoned morality inherent in natural law":  Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.
> 
> 6- "or such law leads the state toward its certain demise.": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.
> 
> 7- "AND where the fate of THAT state is intrinsically tied to others, its demise endangers the viability of the whole of that subsequent Union.": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.
Click to expand...



And still no link to any law in any of the 50 State that list the ability of the couple to procreate together as a requirement of Civil Marriage.

Not surprising.


Would you like to see a requirement under Civil Law that requires that a couple be INFERTILE before being allowed to Civilly Marry?  A law which proves your claim in false.


>>>>


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am seeing the whining from homophobic bigots here- whining and crying about how unfair it is for them to have to experience a gay football player- or how unfair it is for them that a baker 2000 miles from them is being forced to obey the law.
> 
> I see the homophobes crying about how unfair it is that they have to treat homosexuals fairly in the workplace.
> 
> How everything would be just fine if homosexuals would just stop being all uppity and go back to the closet where they belong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have it all wrong.  I don't have a problem if a football player is gay.  I have a problem is the focus is on him being gay rather than what he's there to do.  My problem isn't with the baker doing the cake.  My problem is the same ones saying the baker should saying that it would be OK if a gay baker refused to put something on a wedding cake.
> 
> I don't have a problem treating an employee fairly regardless of sexual orientation.  I have a problem with having to watch every word because one of them might get offended and get his panties in a wad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you care about the football player at all? Why do you care whether he is gay- or whether the focus is on him because he is gay?
> 
> As far as the baker is concerned- the baker is subject to State law- that applies to everyone covered in that law- I would object if the baker refused to bake a wedding cake to a Christian couple because they were Christian or a black couple because they were black or a Jewish couple because they are jewish.
> 
> You have to watch every word you say at work? Well good for you- then your HR department has gotten through to you. Yes- you can't say something that will embaress the company at work. You can't say things that are sexist that might offend women- you can't say things that are racists that might offend racial minorities- and you can't call people f*ggots because its the wrong thing to do at work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do people care if he is gay and focus on that rather than the reason he was supposed to be selected?  Very little was said about his skills for the job.  Plenty was made out of what his supporters say is supposed to be a private matter.
> 
> 13 Gay Bakeries Refuse to Make Traditional Marriage Cake With the Message Gay Marriage Is Wrong #!
> 
> The problem is you never know what someone might not think twice of one day and complain about the next.   The problem is the politically correct crowd is a bunch of pussies that get upset if someone says something they may happen to not like.   Unlike them, I don't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clever! I'd have to say that I'd side with with the traditional marriage advocates if the gay bakers refused to sell them a cake. But as for the message, I'm pretty cool with anyone refusing to write whatever they find offensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if the Christian baker was offended by two male figures on top of a wedding cake or putting two male names on a wedding cake?  That's a message.
Click to expand...


That's a figurine. If they were asked to write something that they found offensive, I'd be inclined to give the christian bakers a mulligan. But if they refused to sell cake.....not so much. I'd hold the gay bakers to the same standard.


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have it all wrong.  I don't have a problem if a football player is gay.  I have a problem is the focus is on him being gay rather than what he's there to do.  My problem isn't with the baker doing the cake.  My problem is the same ones saying the baker should saying that it would be OK if a gay baker refused to put something on a wedding cake.
> 
> I don't have a problem treating an employee fairly regardless of sexual orientation.  I have a problem with having to watch every word because one of them might get offended and get his panties in a wad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you care about the football player at all? Why do you care whether he is gay- or whether the focus is on him because he is gay?
> 
> As far as the baker is concerned- the baker is subject to State law- that applies to everyone covered in that law- I would object if the baker refused to bake a wedding cake to a Christian couple because they were Christian or a black couple because they were black or a Jewish couple because they are jewish.
> 
> You have to watch every word you say at work? Well good for you- then your HR department has gotten through to you. Yes- you can't say something that will embaress the company at work. You can't say things that are sexist that might offend women- you can't say things that are racists that might offend racial minorities- and you can't call people f*ggots because its the wrong thing to do at work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do people care if he is gay and focus on that rather than the reason he was supposed to be selected?  Very little was said about his skills for the job.  Plenty was made out of what his supporters say is supposed to be a private matter.
> 
> 13 Gay Bakeries Refuse to Make Traditional Marriage Cake With the Message Gay Marriage Is Wrong #!
> 
> The problem is you never know what someone might not think twice of one day and complain about the next.   The problem is the politically correct crowd is a bunch of pussies that get upset if someone says something they may happen to not like.   Unlike them, I don't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clever! I'd have to say that I'd side with with the traditional marriage advocates if the gay bakers refused to sell them a cake. But as for the message, I'm pretty cool with anyone refusing to write whatever they find offensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if the Christian baker was offended by two male figures on top of a wedding cake or putting two male names on a wedding cake?  That's a message.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a figurine. If they were asked to write something that they found offensive, I'd be inclined to give the christian bakers a mulligan. But if they refused to sell cake.....not so much. I'd hold the gay bakers to the same standard.
Click to expand...

 
So messages can only be in words?


----------



## Coyote

Conservative65 said:


> 1. Who is doing the research?



Who like in what?  Individual people?  Scientific disciplines?
Here are some links to research publications:
Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females - Nature Genetics
PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects
Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex - life - 16 June 2008 - New Scientist




> 2.  If I get offended, it's my problem.  I thought I said I don't care what they call me or say about me.  The problem is *when the peter puffers get offended, they don't say anything, they whine and sue becasue someone doesn't like what they are.*



Examples? And, is that any different from other people's behavior (ie - straight people who get offended by something?)



> 3.  When my daughers were born, the doctor said in both cases you have daughers based on one thing only.  I'll put her medical training up against less than 1/10 of one percent.



Like I said, look up hermaphrodite.



> 4.  He didn't Tebow unless he accomplished something.  NO different than any other player dancing around when they did the same thing.



The pro-athletes who came out gay were already accomplished athletes.  Coming out was not their sole accomplishment.  The leftwing media picked up on the coming out and made it front page news - a hero for gay rights.

Tebow was an accomplished athlete who did a religious ritual when he won.  That ritual was not his sole accomplishment.  The rightwing media picked up on his religious ritual and made it front page news - a hero for the religious right.

It's the same.



> 5.  *When they go around the legislative system to get a single judge to approve what they want, that's demanding.*  Like I said, when they stop using terms like homophobic and bigot to describe someone that thinks differently than they do about what they are, I'll ignore.  As long as they say look at me, I'll say crawl back under your rock or in the closet.



Are you suggesting people who feel wronged should not make use of the courts but stick to the legislative system?  Like Hobby Lobby?


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is you never know what someone might not think twice of one day and complain about the next.   The problem is the politically correct crowd is a bunch of pussies that get upset if someone says something they may happen to not like.   Unlike them, I don't care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah well for one thing- if you go around calling your co-workers 'a bunch of pussies'- you probably will run into issues.
> 
> If you go around talking about n*ggers and f*ggots you probably will run into problems.
> 
> If you want to tell jokes you find hilarious about q*eers and how they don't like c*nts you probably are going to have problems.
> 
> But like you said- you just don't care.
> 
> Others do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I called you a pussy.
> 
> I don't care because I'm man enough to not do so.  If others do care, it's their problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See here on the boards thats fine.
> 
> But in the workplace- in most places- that could get you fired.
> 
> Not because everyone is politically correct- but because you would just be being an asshole at work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you get to define what being an asshole means?  Sorry, you don't.
Click to expand...


Oh when it comes to you- yes i can.


----------



## Conservative65

PaintMyHouse said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I chose not to unlike you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are lesbians so angry all the time? Even gay men try to keep away from you all, finding little in common. Perhaps women are so hormonal and bitchy, you shouldn't put two of them together like that. They need a man to calm them down. Just saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are homophobic bigots so angry all of the time?
> 
> Perhaps  they are just frustrated by their failure in life and project their anger out on blaming homosexuals for their own inadequacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like the homos are the angry ones.  They whine and cry about how people should like them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they don't.  The whiners are you little Christian faggot-haters, who can't deal with the fact that their society is leaving them in the past, yet again.
Click to expand...

 
That's the motivation behind their entire agenda.  If you don't do what I want, I bitch and whine and make someone force it on society. 

Don't worry, when I'm gone, my kids will continue to fight against you faggot lovers.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

It's recently come to my attention that the Intellectually Less Fortunate seem to  be moving toward the profound idiocy wherein it is held that Race, or the classifications wherein distinction biological differences are observed and subsequently classified... are a fabrication of humanity or that such represents a 'social construct'.

Such is, as these things usually are: *FALSE.*

That humanity observes the distinctions between a rock and a hard place, we do not create these things through that observance. 

The notion that we do, predicates nearly every rationalization wherein it is held that since we created such, we can simply ignore such and in so doing; Un-Create it. 

When one pretends that a person is not black, one insults them as a person, devaluing them.  One also tells on their own prejudice that the elevated melatonin levels, being higher than one's self, represent negative characteristics which ONE "FEELS" renders them inferior to one's lower melatonin values.

And this is how we, the people of reason, can "KNOW" that the Ideological  Left is without a close second the most racist herd of idiots to ever slide down a birth canal.

And THAT is not even a remotely debatable point.

It should be noted that it was CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS who pushed for desegregation, it was Conservative Republicans who advocated for the stripping of racial prejudice from the culture and it was the Conservative Republicans who fought for the end of restrictions on racial diversity in marriage.  And it was the DEMOCRATS who opposed _ALL OF IT!  _


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

WorldWatcher said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You failed to make one citation to an actual law, you projected your opinion, but no [references] to actual laws.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense:
> 
> I cited the law numerous times:
> 
> 1- "All 50 states exist in Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.
> 
> 2- "are dependent upon Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.
> 
> 3- "where ANY state rejects the moral foundation intrinsic IN Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.
> 
> 4- "the state sets itself to suffer the otherwise unavoidable and catastrophic consequences of their failure to respect the laws in nature which govern human behavior": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.
> 
> 5- "Thus for law to be valid, it must rest upon the soundly reasoned morality inherent in natural law":  Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.
> 
> 6- "or such law leads the state toward its certain demise.": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.
> 
> 7- "AND where the fate of THAT state is intrinsically tied to others, its demise endangers the viability of the whole of that subsequent Union.": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And still no link to any law in any of the 50 State that list the ability of the couple to procreate together as a requirement of Civil Marriage.
> 
> Not surprising.
> 
> 
> Would you like to see a requirement under Civil Law that requires that a couple be INFERTILE before being allowed to Civilly Marry?  A law which proves your claim in false.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Marriage is a function of nature, not law... it of course has a legal component, but nature designed it and it is nature that requires that such is the joining of one man and one woman, and it is nature that precludes any two people of the same gender who play house, from every being married.  

The Law may provide it to be LEGAL that a person can flap their arms and fly... it is nature that defines such flight as 'falling' as well as the punishment for such, over toward *the sudden stop* right at the end there.

Now would you care to cite the laws forbidding the flapping of arms to fly being illegal?  Thus proving that THAT is why people aren't flappin' and flyin' all over the dam' place?

I'm all about the fairness... AND the learnin' so if you would like to cite such, I'm here for ya.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> 1- "All 50 states exist in Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.



You don't speak for 'Nature', nor is there any marriage in 'Nature'. That's a social construct that we invented.

Your post is also an 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy, where you can't establish your claims logically or rationally...so your argument is that you must be right because an 'authority' says so. In this case, you pretending to be 'nature'.

Rendering you both factually inaccurate and logically invalid. Any claims based on the same fallacy are equally invalid.



> 3- "where ANY state rejects the moral foundation intrinsic IN Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.



Nature has no morality. It has fucking. All moral implications are what we apply.  And I don't accept you as an arbiter of moral authority. So you're left with nothing but your opinion.

Which we don't base our laws upon.



> 4- "the state sets itself to suffer the otherwise unavoidable and catastrophic consequences of their failure to respect the laws in nature which govern human behavior": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.



And yet when you've ever tried to establish causation between your imagined 'breaching of the laws of nature' and the 'catastrophic consequences', you've failed perfectly.

Without causation, your entire point is moot.



> 5- "Thus for law to be valid, it must rest upon the soundly reasoned morality inherent in natural law":  Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.



As you're neither an authoritative arbiter of 'sound moral reasoning' nor 'natural law', your assessment of whether or not a given law rests soundly on either is irrelevant, even by your standards.

Sigh, but way to work that 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy yet again.


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you care about the football player at all? Why do you care whether he is gay- or whether the focus is on him because he is gay?
> 
> As far as the baker is concerned- the baker is subject to State law- that applies to everyone covered in that law- I would object if the baker refused to bake a wedding cake to a Christian couple because they were Christian or a black couple because they were black or a Jewish couple because they are jewish.
> 
> You have to watch every word you say at work? Well good for you- then your HR department has gotten through to you. Yes- you can't say something that will embaress the company at work. You can't say things that are sexist that might offend women- you can't say things that are racists that might offend racial minorities- and you can't call people f*ggots because its the wrong thing to do at work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do people care if he is gay and focus on that rather than the reason he was supposed to be selected?  Very little was said about his skills for the job.  Plenty was made out of what his supporters say is supposed to be a private matter.
> 
> 13 Gay Bakeries Refuse to Make Traditional Marriage Cake With the Message Gay Marriage Is Wrong #!
> 
> The problem is you never know what someone might not think twice of one day and complain about the next.   The problem is the politically correct crowd is a bunch of pussies that get upset if someone says something they may happen to not like.   Unlike them, I don't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clever! I'd have to say that I'd side with with the traditional marriage advocates if the gay bakers refused to sell them a cake. But as for the message, I'm pretty cool with anyone refusing to write whatever they find offensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if the Christian baker was offended by two male figures on top of a wedding cake or putting two male names on a wedding cake?  That's a message.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a figurine. If they were asked to write something that they found offensive, I'd be inclined to give the christian bakers a mulligan. But if they refused to sell cake.....not so much. I'd hold the gay bakers to the same standard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So messages can only be in words?
Click to expand...


Speech is generally regarded as words and text.


----------



## Coyote

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Understand what she is saying here folks.
> 
> It MUST be one way or the other... either nature's plan is to propagate at the expense of every other consideration or nature has no plan.
> 
> "It is Decidedly so"
> 
> Of course, Nature's design provides for balance, doesn't it?
> 
> In the sub-species, that balance is applied through limited sexual hormonal activity triggered by the end of winter, providing that the probability that the environment will promote a successful gestation and time for training the offspring to a point of individual viability.



Sub-species?  Do you mean other species?  



> Limiting sexual desire also promotes survival in that the 'fittest get it' rule provides for most of the animal world that periods of combat provide for the tests of 'who gets what twat', the best get the best and on down the line down to those who get none... which in the Human world is where ya find the homosexuals.
> 
> Yes... sadly, Cinemax has lied AGAIN!  Despite the grand scheme of deceit, the homosexuals are not the hardbodied, symmetrically acute peaks of beauty that they're portrayed as on the TeeVee... .
> 
> They're the duds, left to hump each other's rhetorical leg in impotent displays of feckless, would-be dominance.
> 
> It's just one of nature's wonderful ways of culling from the herd, those who simply have nothing to offer the species... in terms of desirable traits.
> 
> Now... again, homosexuals exist and that's fine.  But like The Clap, which also exists, its not something that a viable culture can promote and remain viable.



Evolutionary success is not that simplistic and evolutionary success does not necessarily mean the passing on of every individuals genes but can be the successful survival of the group, pack or clan as a whole.  Homosexuality has been showing up at about the same rate through out human history regardless of the level of social tolerance and persecution.  That would indicate that there could be some evolutionary benefit to it or family members.

BBC News - The evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality
Homosexuality May Have Evolved In Humans Because It Helps Us Bond Scientists Say


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?
> 
> 
> 
> Why are lesbians so angry all the time? Even gay men try to keep away from you all, finding little in common. Perhaps women are so hormonal and bitchy, you shouldn't put two of them together like that. They need a man to calm them down. Just saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are homophobic bigots so angry all of the time?
> 
> Perhaps  they are just frustrated by their failure in life and project their anger out on blaming homosexuals for their own inadequacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like the homos are the angry ones.  They whine and cry about how people should like them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they don't.  The whiners are you little Christian faggot-haters, who can't deal with the fact that their society is leaving them in the past, yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the motivation behind their entire agenda.  If you don't do what I want, I bitch and whine and make someone force it on society.
> 
> Don't worry, when I'm gone, my kids will continue to fight against you faggot lovers.
Click to expand...


Oh I am sure you will try to pass your bigotry on. 

But just like racial bigotry- it is on its way out- the first step is to make it socially unacceptable to be a bigot like yourself.


----------



## Coyote

Conservative65 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?
> 
> 
> 
> Why are lesbians so angry all the time? Even gay men try to keep away from you all, finding little in common. Perhaps women are so hormonal and bitchy, you shouldn't put two of them together like that. They need a man to calm them down. Just saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are homophobic bigots so angry all of the time?
> 
> Perhaps  they are just frustrated by their failure in life and project their anger out on blaming homosexuals for their own inadequacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like the homos are the angry ones.  They whine and cry about how people should like them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they don't.  The whiners are you little Christian faggot-haters, who can't deal with the fact that their society is leaving them in the past, yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the motivation behind their entire agenda.  If you don't do what I want, I bitch and whine and make someone force it on society.
> 
> Don't worry, when I'm gone, my kids will continue to fight against you faggot lovers.
Click to expand...


Why do they have to fight against them?


----------



## Conservative65

Coyote said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Who is doing the research?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who like in what?  Individual people?  Scientific disciplines?
> Here are some links to research publications:
> Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females - Nature Genetics
> PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects
> Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex - life - 16 June 2008 - New Scientist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  If I get offended, it's my problem.  I thought I said I don't care what they call me or say about me.  The problem is *when the peter puffers get offended, they don't say anything, they whine and sue becasue someone doesn't like what they are.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Examples? And, is that any different from other people's behavior (ie - straight people who get offended by something?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  When my daughers were born, the doctor said in both cases you have daughers based on one thing only.  I'll put her medical training up against less than 1/10 of one percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, look up hermaphrodite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  He didn't Tebow unless he accomplished something.  NO different than any other player dancing around when they did the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The pro-athletes who came out gay were already accomplished athletes.  Coming out was not their sole accomplishment.  The leftwing media picked up on the coming out and made it front page news - a hero for gay rights.
> 
> Tebow was an accomplished athlete who did a religious ritual when he won.  That ritual was not his sole accomplishment.  The rightwing media picked up on his religious ritual and made it front page news - a hero for the religious right.
> 
> It's the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  *When they go around the legislative system to get a single judge to approve what they want, that's demanding.*  Like I said, when they stop using terms like homophobic and bigot to describe someone that thinks differently than they do about what they are, I'll ignore.  As long as they say look at me, I'll say crawl back under your rock or in the closet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting people who feel wronged should not make use of the courts but stick to the legislative system?  Like Hobby Lobby?
Click to expand...

 
1.  Follow the research money.

2.  When has a straight person sued because someone said something about hetersexual marriage?

3.  I don't have to.  I know what one is.  I also know that you're trying to use something that happens so rarely, it doesn't apply here.  You make it out as if it happens on a regular basis. 

4.  The leftwing media then makes a hero out of someone for something totally unrelated to their athletic accomplishments. 

5.  Hobby Lobby was sticking to what had been passed through the legislative process.  The 1st Amendment say free exercise of religion.  Since that Amendment was added to the Constitution by a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures, all Hobby Lobby was doing was getting the courts to clarify what had already been passed legislatively.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are lesbians so angry all the time? Even gay men try to keep away from you all, finding little in common. Perhaps women are so hormonal and bitchy, you shouldn't put two of them together like that. They need a man to calm them down. Just saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are homophobic bigots so angry all of the time?
> 
> Perhaps  they are just frustrated by their failure in life and project their anger out on blaming homosexuals for their own inadequacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like the homos are the angry ones.  They whine and cry about how people should like them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they don't.  The whiners are you little Christian faggot-haters, who can't deal with the fact that their society is leaving them in the past, yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the motivation behind their entire agenda.  If you don't do what I want, I bitch and whine and make someone force it on society.
> 
> Don't worry, when I'm gone, my kids will continue to fight against you faggot lovers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I am sure you will try to pass your bigotry on.
> 
> But just like racial bigotry- it is on its way out- the first step is to make it socially unacceptable to be a bigot like yourself.
Click to expand...

 
I'm sure you'll pass on that an abnormal lifestyle is the same as one that actually is normal. 

I'm sure you'll pass one that anyone not agreeing with your beliefs is a bigot.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You failed to make one citation to an actual law, you projected your opinion, but no [references] to actual laws.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense:
> 
> I cited the law numerous times:
> 
> 1- "All 50 states exist in Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.
> 
> 2- "are dependent upon Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.
> 
> 3- "where ANY state rejects the moral foundation intrinsic IN Nature": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.
> 
> 4- "the state sets itself to suffer the otherwise unavoidable and catastrophic consequences of their failure to respect the laws in nature which govern human behavior": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.
> 
> 5- "Thus for law to be valid, it must rest upon the soundly reasoned morality inherent in natural law":  Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.
> 
> 6- "or such law leads the state toward its certain demise.": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.
> 
> 7- "AND where the fate of THAT state is intrinsically tied to others, its demise endangers the viability of the whole of that subsequent Union.": Refers to Nature and the immutable laws therein.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And still no link to any law in any of the 50 State that list the ability of the couple to procreate together as a requirement of Civil Marriage.
> 
> Not surprising.
> 
> 
> Would you like to see a requirement under Civil Law that requires that a couple be INFERTILE before being allowed to Civilly Marry?  A law which proves your claim in false.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is a function of nature, not law... it of course has a legal component, but nature designed it and it is nature that requires that such is the joining of one man and one woman, and it is nature that precludes any two people of the same gender who play house, from every being married.
> 
> The Law may provide it to be LEGAL that a person can flap their arms and fly... it is nature that defines such flight as 'falling' as well as the punishment for such, over toward *the sudden stop* right at the end there.
> 
> Now would you care to cite the laws forbidding the flapping of arms to fly being illegal?  Thus proving that THAT is why people aren't flappin' and flyin' all over the dam' place?
> 
> I'm all about the fairness... AND the learnin' so if you would like to cite such, I'm here for ya.
Click to expand...



Civil Marriage is a function of law.


Find that requirement under Civil Law for Civil Marriage that requires couples be able to procreate yet?

I can show you Civil Laws that requires couples be INFERTILE to Civilly Marry, that blows (no pun intended) the whole idea that procreation is a requirement of Civil Marriage out the window.



>>>>


----------



## Conservative65

Coyote said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are lesbians so angry all the time? Even gay men try to keep away from you all, finding little in common. Perhaps women are so hormonal and bitchy, you shouldn't put two of them together like that. They need a man to calm them down. Just saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are homophobic bigots so angry all of the time?
> 
> Perhaps  they are just frustrated by their failure in life and project their anger out on blaming homosexuals for their own inadequacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like the homos are the angry ones.  They whine and cry about how people should like them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they don't.  The whiners are you little Christian faggot-haters, who can't deal with the fact that their society is leaving them in the past, yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the motivation behind their entire agenda.  If you don't do what I want, I bitch and whine and make someone force it on society.
> 
> Don't worry, when I'm gone, my kids will continue to fight against you faggot lovers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do they have to fight against them?
Click to expand...

 
Same reason you feel you have to fight for the faggots.  You think it's right, mine think it's wrong.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

There is no Dilemma for me seeing I have no issue with their sexual lifestyle. I have a issue with those that want to make them stay in the closet and not allow them to have the same basic rights we both enjoy.

Until a court forces you to marry a gay person, live with a gay person, or go to church with a gay person then there is no dilemma to me. Also as for transgender children do disagree with special treatment for them and if they must they should shower before the boys or girls or after and not during.


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do people care if he is gay and focus on that rather than the reason he was supposed to be selected?  Very little was said about his skills for the job.  Plenty was made out of what his supporters say is supposed to be a private matter.
> 
> 13 Gay Bakeries Refuse to Make Traditional Marriage Cake With the Message Gay Marriage Is Wrong #!
> 
> The problem is you never know what someone might not think twice of one day and complain about the next.   The problem is the politically correct crowd is a bunch of pussies that get upset if someone says something they may happen to not like.   Unlike them, I don't care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clever! I'd have to say that I'd side with with the traditional marriage advocates if the gay bakers refused to sell them a cake. But as for the message, I'm pretty cool with anyone refusing to write whatever they find offensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if the Christian baker was offended by two male figures on top of a wedding cake or putting two male names on a wedding cake?  That's a message.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a figurine. If they were asked to write something that they found offensive, I'd be inclined to give the christian bakers a mulligan. But if they refused to sell cake.....not so much. I'd hold the gay bakers to the same standard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So messages can only be in words?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speech is generally regarded as words and text.
Click to expand...

 

WRONG.  There are plenty of cases where the SCOTUS has upheld someone's right to symbolic speech even when it offended others. 

LII Supreme Court Collection

Burning the U.S. flag in protest, while offensive to many, has been upheld by the Court as symbolic speech.


----------



## Iceweasel

Skylar said:


> The same argument was made regarding interracial marriage. That since the laws included both blacks and whites, there was no potential for discrimination based on race.
> 
> *The obvious problem being.....there's no valid reason for the restriction.* As there's nothing required by marriage that a white man and black woman couldn't meet. And likewise, there's nothing required by marriage that a lesbian and a lesbian couldn't meet.
> 
> And no state interest served in denying same sex couples their right to marry. Nor can a logical, rational reason be given.
> 
> All of which is required if you're going to deny someone rights.


I thought lesbians were women? How can two women become opposite gendered couples? You mean if one has a sex change? Black men were treated differently that while men, that's why it was unconsitutional.

Most states still have traditional marriage so your theory doesn't hold water. No state could deny homosexual marriage if it were unconstitutional.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Who is doing the research?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who like in what?  Individual people?  Scientific disciplines?
> Here are some links to research publications:
> Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females - Nature Genetics
> PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects
> Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex - life - 16 June 2008 - New Scientist
Click to expand...


Huh... yet their not of the opposite sex?  So... that would tend toward evidence that the homosexual brain is disordered, thus is demonstrably abnormal... deviating from biological normality.

Similar in nature to the brain of the sociopath, the predeterminate value required for the psychotic, which also differs from the normal brain.  And like those brains, there's not a SCINTILLA distinction, GENETICALLY.

Now research also shows that through training the brains observable patterns can be altered, thus where an individual male for example, were to be sexually stimulated by a male... in a loving and caring manner, in the earliest stages of postnatal development, that the cerebral function of the traditional male brain would therefore be trained to respond to sexual stimulation as would be expected by a female, who's natural tendency would be triggered by males.

SO... that doesn't really help ya much.

What else ya got?


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are homophobic bigots so angry all of the time?
> 
> Perhaps  they are just frustrated by their failure in life and project their anger out on blaming homosexuals for their own inadequacies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the homos are the angry ones.  They whine and cry about how people should like them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they don't.  The whiners are you little Christian faggot-haters, who can't deal with the fact that their society is leaving them in the past, yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the motivation behind their entire agenda.  If you don't do what I want, I bitch and whine and make someone force it on society.
> 
> Don't worry, when I'm gone, my kids will continue to fight against you faggot lovers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I am sure you will try to pass your bigotry on.
> 
> But just like racial bigotry- it is on its way out- the first step is to make it socially unacceptable to be a bigot like yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you'll pass on that an abnormal lifestyle is the same as one that actually is normal.
> 
> I'm sure you'll pass one that anyone not agreeing with your beliefs is a bigot.
Click to expand...


Oh I pass on that anyone who judges people by who they are- rather than by their actions and speech- is a bigot.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Marriage is a function of nature, not law... it of course has a legal component, but nature designed it and it is nature that requires that such is the joining of one man and one woman, and it is nature that precludes any two people of the same gender who play house, from every being married.



Nope. Nature has fucking. We made up marriage. Its a legal arrangement that's useful in organization in a civilization. But its not necessary for reproduction. Else everything that reproduces would have marriage.

*And only we do. *We made it up, so it can be whatever we want it to be.



> The Law may provide it to be LEGAL that a person can flap their arms and fly... it is nature that defines such flight as 'falling' as well as the punishment for such, over toward *the sudden stop* right at the end there.



Marriage isn't gravity. Marriage is a social construct that we invented. It can encompass one man and one woman. Or one man and many women. Or one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman. 

Its flexible like that. And in 36 of 50 States in our country, marriage includes same sex unions.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Similar in nature to the brain of the sociopath, the predeterminate value required for the psychotic, which also differs from the normal brain.  And like those brains, there's not a SCINTILLA distinction, GENETICALLY.



There's no connection between homosexuality and sociopathy. Rendering your claim yet another piece of bizarre and factually baseless fear mongering.

So 'what else ya got'?


----------



## Iceweasel

mdk said:


> They are losing their crusade on almost every front and as predicted they will become more rabid as the defeats mount. They are nothing but loud windbags and whom won't actually do anything concerning gays other then anonymously bitch and moan on message boards.


We vote and most states still honor the democratic process. And we aren't the ones on a crusade. The rabid windbag is you.


----------



## Coyote

Conservative65 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Who is doing the research?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who like in what?  Individual people?  Scientific disciplines?
> Here are some links to research publications:
> Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females - Nature Genetics
> PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects
> Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex - life - 16 June 2008 - New Scientist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  If I get offended, it's my problem.  I thought I said I don't care what they call me or say about me.  The problem is *when the peter puffers get offended, they don't say anything, they whine and sue becasue someone doesn't like what they are.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Examples? And, is that any different from other people's behavior (ie - straight people who get offended by something?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  When my daughers were born, the doctor said in both cases you have daughers based on one thing only.  I'll put her medical training up against less than 1/10 of one percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, look up hermaphrodite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  He didn't Tebow unless he accomplished something.  NO different than any other player dancing around when they did the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The pro-athletes who came out gay were already accomplished athletes.  Coming out was not their sole accomplishment.  The leftwing media picked up on the coming out and made it front page news - a hero for gay rights.
> 
> Tebow was an accomplished athlete who did a religious ritual when he won.  That ritual was not his sole accomplishment.  The rightwing media picked up on his religious ritual and made it front page news - a hero for the religious right.
> 
> It's the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  *When they go around the legislative system to get a single judge to approve what they want, that's demanding.*  Like I said, when they stop using terms like homophobic and bigot to describe someone that thinks differently than they do about what they are, I'll ignore.  As long as they say look at me, I'll say crawl back under your rock or in the closet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting people who feel wronged should not make use of the courts but stick to the legislative system?  Like Hobby Lobby?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  Follow the research money.
Click to expand...


Like National Cancer Institute?  NIH? University of Arizona?



> 2.  When has a straight person sued because someone said something about hetersexual marriage?



I asked you for examples.  We haven't even determined if homosexuals have sued simply because someone said something about same sex marriage.



> 3.  I don't have to.  I know what one is.  I also know that you're trying to use something that happens so rarely, it doesn't apply here.  You make it out as if it happens on a regular basis.



Sure but it goes to show that gender and sexual orientation are complicated things - not straightforward and not "choice".



> 4.  The leftwing media then makes a hero out of someone for something totally unrelated to their athletic accomplishments.



Yes!  Just like Tebow!  You finally got it 



> 5.  Hobby Lobby was sticking to what had been passed through the legislative process.  The 1st Amendment say free exercise of religion.  Since that Amendment was added to the Constitution by a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures, all Hobby Lobby was doing was getting the courts to clarify what had already been passed legislatively.



Marriage equality proponents are making the same case - based on "equal protection" in the constitution, passed through the legislative process.  Same thing even if you don't like it


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the homos are the angry ones.  They whine and cry about how people should like them.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't.  The whiners are you little Christian faggot-haters, who can't deal with the fact that their society is leaving them in the past, yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the motivation behind their entire agenda.  If you don't do what I want, I bitch and whine and make someone force it on society.
> 
> Don't worry, when I'm gone, my kids will continue to fight against you faggot lovers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I am sure you will try to pass your bigotry on.
> 
> But just like racial bigotry- it is on its way out- the first step is to make it socially unacceptable to be a bigot like yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you'll pass on that an abnormal lifestyle is the same as one that actually is normal.
> 
> I'm sure you'll pass one that anyone not agreeing with your beliefs is a bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I pass on that anyone who judges people by who they are- rather than by their actions and speech- is a bigot.
Click to expand...

 
Then you should pass that along to all those who hate Christians because they are Christians.


----------



## Syriusly

Iceweasel said:


> [
> Most states still have traditional marriage so your theory doesn't hold water. No state could deny homosexual marriage if it were unconstitutional.



All states still have 'traditional marriage'- and now in 35 states, same gender couples get married. 

Judges have overturned state marriage bans for being unconstitutional- here is a hint- bans on mixed race marriages were unconstitutional even before the Supreme Court confirmed the lower courts decision that they were unconstitutional.  States did indeed deny mixed race marriages even though they were unconstitutional. 

And continued to do so until the Supreme Court ruling made the decision applicable to all states.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> Sub-species?  Do you mean other species?



I mean subordinate, which is to say inferior... or those species designed for use by the superior species.  Does that confuse you?  I'll explain it for you if you need the tutoring.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't.  The whiners are you little Christian faggot-haters, who can't deal with the fact that their society is leaving them in the past, yet again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the motivation behind their entire agenda.  If you don't do what I want, I bitch and whine and make someone force it on society.
> 
> Don't worry, when I'm gone, my kids will continue to fight against you faggot lovers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I am sure you will try to pass your bigotry on.
> 
> But just like racial bigotry- it is on its way out- the first step is to make it socially unacceptable to be a bigot like yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you'll pass on that an abnormal lifestyle is the same as one that actually is normal.
> 
> I'm sure you'll pass one that anyone not agreeing with your beliefs is a bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I pass on that anyone who judges people by who they are- rather than by their actions and speech- is a bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should pass that along to all those who hate Christians because they are Christians.
Click to expand...


I find that absolutely equally offensive.

Bigots who hate Christians just because they are Christians are just as much bigots as those who hate homosexuals because they think that they are f*ggots.

And yes- I say that regularly.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sub-species?  Do you mean other species?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean subordinate, which is to say inferior... or those species designed for use by the superior species.  .
Click to expand...


What the hell is a superior species?


----------



## Coyote

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Who is doing the research?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who like in what?  Individual people?  Scientific disciplines?
> Here are some links to research publications:
> Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females - Nature Genetics
> PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects
> Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex - life - 16 June 2008 - New Scientist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh... yet their not of the opposite sex?  So... that would tend toward evidence that the homosexual brain is disordered, thus is demonstrably abnormal... deviating from biological normality.
Click to expand...


"Different" does not equal "disordered" or even "abnormal" since a certain amount of deviation is normal.



> Similar in nature to the brain of the sociopath, the predeterminate value required for the psychotic, which also differs from the normal brain.  And like those brains, there's not a SCINTILLA distinction, GENETICALLY.



You have a link or study showing that the brain of a homosexual is similar to the brain of a sociopath or psychotic?  That's news to me pubes, but maybe you just made it up 



> Now research also shows that through training the brains observable patterns can be altered, thus where an individual male for example, were to be sexually stimulated by a male... in a loving and caring manner, in the earliest stages of postnatal development, that the cerebral function of the traditional male brain would therefore be trained to respond to sexual stimulation as would be expected by a female, who's natural tendency would be triggered by males.
> 
> SO... that doesn't really help ya much.
> 
> What else ya got?



Got a link that shows that and that the persons actual orientation changed as a result cause it sounds like you are talking about infantile pedophilia and I've not heard much research on that.


----------



## Coyote

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sub-species?  Do you mean other species?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean subordinate, which is to say inferior... or those species designed for use by the superior species.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell is a superior species?
Click to expand...


He doesn't know his biology.


----------



## Conservative65

Coyote said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Who is doing the research?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who like in what?  Individual people?  Scientific disciplines?
> Here are some links to research publications:
> Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females - Nature Genetics
> PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects
> Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex - life - 16 June 2008 - New Scientist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  If I get offended, it's my problem.  I thought I said I don't care what they call me or say about me.  The problem is *when the peter puffers get offended, they don't say anything, they whine and sue becasue someone doesn't like what they are.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Examples? And, is that any different from other people's behavior (ie - straight people who get offended by something?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  When my daughers were born, the doctor said in both cases you have daughers based on one thing only.  I'll put her medical training up against less than 1/10 of one percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, look up hermaphrodite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  He didn't Tebow unless he accomplished something.  NO different than any other player dancing around when they did the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The pro-athletes who came out gay were already accomplished athletes.  Coming out was not their sole accomplishment.  The leftwing media picked up on the coming out and made it front page news - a hero for gay rights.
> 
> Tebow was an accomplished athlete who did a religious ritual when he won.  That ritual was not his sole accomplishment.  The rightwing media picked up on his religious ritual and made it front page news - a hero for the religious right.
> 
> It's the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  *When they go around the legislative system to get a single judge to approve what they want, that's demanding.*  Like I said, when they stop using terms like homophobic and bigot to describe someone that thinks differently than they do about what they are, I'll ignore.  As long as they say look at me, I'll say crawl back under your rock or in the closet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting people who feel wronged should not make use of the courts but stick to the legislative system?  Like Hobby Lobby?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  Follow the research money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like National Cancer Institute?  NIH? University of Arizona?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  When has a straight person sued because someone said something about hetersexual marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you for examples.  We haven't even determined if homosexuals have sued simply because someone said something about same sex marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  I don't have to.  I know what one is.  I also know that you're trying to use something that happens so rarely, it doesn't apply here.  You make it out as if it happens on a regular basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure but it goes to show that gender and sexual orientation are complicated things - not straightforward and not "choice".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  The leftwing media then makes a hero out of someone for something totally unrelated to their athletic accomplishments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes!  Just like Tebow!  You finally got it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  Hobby Lobby was sticking to what had been passed through the legislative process.  The 1st Amendment say free exercise of religion.  Since that Amendment was added to the Constitution by a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures, all Hobby Lobby was doing was getting the courts to clarify what had already been passed legislatively.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage equality proponents are making the same case - based on "equal protection" in the constitution, passed through the legislative process.  Same thing even if you don't like it
Click to expand...

 
1.  It's not the findings but what you want to make them say.  Just look at the global warming issue. Two distinct sides on the same thing based on research both claim to be true.

2.  How many have sued claiming they were fired because they were gay.  It's the automatica assumption.

3.  It shows you use something that happens once in how many thousands of cases as if it is a regular occurrence.

4.  Tebow actually accomplished something before he Tebowed on the field.  The media made Michael Sam a hero without ever having stepped foot on an NFL field.

5.  Difference is free exercise of religion is written in the Constitution where the word marriage doesn't.  Different even if you are too fucking stupid to realize it.

By the way, those same ones you say argue equality are the first ones to deny equality to certain types of marriages they oppose.  Just suggest polygamy and theyll find all sorts of personal reasons for situations that don't affect them to say it shouldn't happen.  To them I respond, if you don't want to marry more than one person don't.


----------



## Coyote

Conservative65 said:


> 1.  It's not the findings but what you want to make them say.  Just look at the global warming issue. Two distinct sides on the same thing based on research both claim to be true.



This isn't Global Warming we're talking about.  So far you have not refuted any of these studies.



> 2.  How many have sued claiming they were fired because they were gay.  It's the automatica assumption.



Can't you answer a question or  provide examples?  We aren't talking about people being fired because they were gay (people have sued about being fired because they were black, Christian, female, disabled - so what?).  You said sued becaues people said something about them.



> 3.  It shows you use something that happens once in how many thousands of cases as if it is a regular occurrence.
> 
> 4.  Tebow actually accomplished something before he Tebowed on the field.  The media made Michael Sam a hero without ever having stepped foot on an NFL field.



Michael Sam had a good Highschool career, good enough to get multiple scholarships.  So he accomplished something.  But beyond that - he and Tebow are the same because the media made them heros NOT because of accomplishment.  Do you get it?



> 5.  Difference is free exercise of religion is written in the Constitution where the word marriage doesn't.  Different even if you are too fucking stupid to realize it.



Equal Protection IS.



> By the way, those same ones you say argue equality are the first ones to deny equality to certain types of marriages they oppose.  Just suggest polygamy and theyll find all sorts of personal reasons for situations that don't affect them to say it shouldn't happen.  To them I respond, if you don't want to marry more than one person don't.



You sure about that?

I don't care one way or the other about polygamy.  If consenting adults choose that - so be it.  It's their right.


----------



## Iceweasel

Syriusly said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Most states still have traditional marriage so your theory doesn't hold water. No state could deny homosexual marriage if it were unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All states still have 'traditional marriage'- and now in 35 states, same gender couples get married.
> 
> Judges have overturned state marriage bans for being unconstitutional- here is a hint- bans on mixed race marriages were unconstitutional even before the Supreme Court confirmed the lower courts decision that they were unconstitutional.  States did indeed deny mixed race marriages even though they were unconstitutional.
> 
> And continued to do so until the Supreme Court ruling made the decision applicable to all states.
Click to expand...

I didn't want to talk like I was trying to communicate with a toddler but if you insist....by traditional marriage, most people understand that to mean a man married to a woman if they are both eligible. And you're going to try to convince us that the Supreme Court case hasn't happened yet...because? Interracial marriage bans were obviously unconstitutional for reasons mention, men were treated differently. If you want to claim the state must be gender blind then you are saying it's unconstitutional for governments to have male and female restrooms. Your side is full of crap and is mostly forwarded through tyranny, not democracy.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Iceweasel said:


> I didn't want to talk like I was trying to communicate with a toddler but if you insist....by traditional marriage, most people understand that to mean a man married to a woman if they are both eligible. And you're going to try to convince us that the Supreme Court case hasn't happened yet...because? Interracial marriage bans were obviously unconstitutional for reasons mention, men were treated differently. If you want to claim the state must be gender blind then you are saying it's unconstitutional for governments to have male and female restrooms. Your side is full of crap and is mostly forwarded through tyranny, not democracy.



Actually the argument presented by Virginia was that men were treated the same.  Men could marry only in their same race.  Since the law applied equally to black men and white men, there was no inequality in the law.  No discrimination.


>>>>


----------



## mdk

Iceweasel said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are losing their crusade on almost every front and as predicted they will become more rabid as the defeats mount. They are nothing but loud windbags and whom won't actually do anything concerning gays other then anonymously bitch and moan on message boards.
> 
> 
> 
> We vote and most states still honor the democratic process. And we aren't the ones on a crusade. The rabid windbag is you.
Click to expand...


We vote and we still honor the democratic process as well. However you can't use the process to strip away rights of other citizens unless you have a very good reason and you don't have one. The arguments against gay marriage pretty much boil down to "gays are icky" or "God said so" isn't relevant legally. 

Besides, my post was a response to the claim that a violent war is coming against gays that would make "hate crimes look like Sunday brunch."


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> Evolutionary success is not that simplistic and evolutionary success does not necessarily mean the passing on of every individuals genes but can be the successful survival of the group, pack or clan as a whole.  Homosexuality has been showing up at about the same rate through out human history regardless of the level of social tolerance and persecution.  That would indicate that there could be some evolutionary benefit to it or family members.



Well it's adorable to conclude that there are sufficient records of instances of homosexuality to know anything meaningful about what rates have been at any particular place or time... because such is not the case.

There is little doubt that such serve a purpose and that the purpose is to discourage whatever defect is present in the relevant homosexual from being passed on, to the extent that is possible.

Some theories hold that such homosexuality spikes during societal instability where competition for sexual mates is higher... others that it acts as a harbinger of population stress; which certainly serves reason.

Of course, where such is the case, normalizing such would be as foolish as carrying dead canaries into the mine, so as to show support for the dead canaries that are already down there.

There literally is no potential justification to normalize abnormality of any kind.  As such is the personification of foolish.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

WorldWatcher said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't want to talk like I was trying to communicate with a toddler but if you insist....by traditional marriage, most people understand that to mean a man married to a woman if they are both eligible. And you're going to try to convince us that the Supreme Court case hasn't happened yet...because? Interracial marriage bans were obviously unconstitutional for reasons mention, men were treated differently. If you want to claim the state must be gender blind then you are saying it's unconstitutional for governments to have male and female restrooms. Your side is full of crap and is mostly forwarded through tyranny, not democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the argument presented by Virginia was that men were treated the same.  Men could marry only in their same race.  Since the law applied equally to black men and white men, there was no inequality in the law.  No discrimination.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Yes and that is as irrelevant to the discussion of Gender in Marriage as is the note that steel sharpens iron in a discussion of the intellectual misfortunes of the Islamic inbred.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> "Different" does not equal "disordered" or even "abnormal" since a certain amount of deviation is normal.



It literally does, when the subject is the standard of order.  Where such deviates or 'differs' from the standard, different equals disorder.


----------



## Syriusly

Iceweasel said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Most states still have traditional marriage so your theory doesn't hold water. No state could deny homosexual marriage if it were unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All states still have 'traditional marriage'- and now in 35 states, same gender couples get married.
> 
> Judges have overturned state marriage bans for being unconstitutional- here is a hint- bans on mixed race marriages were unconstitutional even before the Supreme Court confirmed the lower courts decision that they were unconstitutional.  States did indeed deny mixed race marriages even though they were unconstitutional.
> 
> And continued to do so until the Supreme Court ruling made the decision applicable to all states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't want to talk like I was trying to communicate with a toddler but if you insist....by traditional marriage, most people understand that to mean a man married to a woman if they are both eligible. And you're going to try to convince us that the Supreme Court case hasn't happened yet...because? Interracial marriage bans were obviously unconstitutional for reasons mention, men were treated differently. If you want to claim the state must be gender blind then you are saying it's unconstitutional for governments to have male and female restrooms. Your side is full of crap and is mostly forwarded through tyranny, not democracy.
Click to expand...


Not sure how that responds to my post:

All states still have 'traditional marriage'- and now in 35 states, same gender couples get married.

I am not trying to convince you that the Supreme Court hasn't ruled yet- because it hasn't. 

What I have pointed out that multiple judges have found the State laws to be unconstitutional- just as a judge at one time found Virginia's law against mixed race marriage unconstitutional.

The law was unconstitutional before the judge ruled it was- and afterwards the law became legally unenforceable. 

Interracial marriage bans remained in effect until a court found them unconstitutional. IF they were 'obviously' unconstitutional- why then did the State of Virginia insist that the mixed race marriage ban was constitutional? 

This is why people go to court- to ask the court to remedy what they believe is a violation of their constitutional rights. 

Your side is full of crap and has a long tradition of discrimination and bullying towards homosexuals, and you claim foul when the courts are used against you, but have no problem using the courts to claim protection yourself.

Hypocrites and bigots.


----------



## g5000

Does Where_r_my_keys still think "different" and "evil" are synonymous?


----------



## g5000

Fact: People who eat the recommended daily amount of vegetables are abnormal.  Most people don't.  That makes non-daily-veggie-eaters "normal", and those who eat the right amount every day "abnormal."

We should ban those carrot loving freaks from getting married!


----------



## g5000

Less than one percent of Americans are worth more than $8.4 million.

We should ban those abnormal freaks from getting married!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sub-species?  Do you mean other species?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean subordinate, which is to say inferior... or those species designed for use by the superior species.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell is a superior species?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A superior species is a species which possess attributes which provide for it to exist at level superior to a subordinate ... .
> 
> For instance, cognitive capabilities which provide for it to consider greater levels of information, provide for superior status; evidenced in the example of the human being and the Ideological Leftist.
> 
> The human being possesses the means to reason objectivity, while the inferior Ideological Leftist, does not; starkly limiting the means of the Leftist to sustain itself within a free environment.
Click to expand...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

g5000 said:


> Less than one percent of Americans are worth more than $8.4 million.
> 
> We should ban those abnormal freaks from getting married!


----------



## AVG-JOE

Iceweasel said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> When people talk about redefining marriage, that's exactly what they mean. They want to define it as something other than what it was. So you can define marriage as between gays, or multiple partners, or any other things you like. It has been redefined to mean something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can define 'marriage' however you want.  Nobody cares.
> 
> What people care about is treating some people differently in the eyes of the law.  Either remove the economic advantages given to married couples or grant those benefits to ALL married couples.
> 
> This is NOT rocket science!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently it is rocket science. If all men and all women are treated the same, that's called equality. Any eligible man can marry any eligible woman. Changing it to include men with men and women with women is a special consideration and has zip to do with equality. You can't be more equal if it's already equal.
> 
> Gays want to pretend they are a special class of citizens but deny they are after any special consideration.
Click to expand...



Interesting... especially in light of your sig line.



> Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives. -_Ronald Reagan_


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

g5000 said:


> Does Where_r_my_keys still think "different" and "evil" are synonymous?



There is nothing in the record that indicates he has... so, the answer would be 'No'.


----------



## AVG-JOE

80zephyr said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> When people talk about redefining marriage, that's exactly what they mean. They want to define it as something other than what it was. So you can define marriage as between gays, or multiple partners, or any other things you like. It has been redefined to mean something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can define 'marriage' however you want.  Nobody cares.
> 
> What people care about is treating some people differently in the eyes of the law.  Either remove the economic advantages given to married couples or grant those benefits to ALL married couples.
> 
> This is NOT rocket science!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO ONE was being treated differently. This "discrimination" was not happening.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

If there was / is no discrimination happening, explain the brew-ha ha.
​


----------



## Conservative65

Coyote said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  It's not the findings but what you want to make them say.  Just look at the global warming issue. Two distinct sides on the same thing based on research both claim to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't Global Warming we're talking about.  So far you have not refuted any of these studies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  How many have sued claiming they were fired because they were gay.  It's the automatica assumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't you answer a question or  provide examples?  We aren't talking about people being fired because they were gay (people have sued about being fired because they were black, Christian, female, disabled - so what?).  You said sued becaues people said something about them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  It shows you use something that happens once in how many thousands of cases as if it is a regular occurrence.
> 
> 4.  Tebow actually accomplished something before he Tebowed on the field.  The media made Michael Sam a hero without ever having stepped foot on an NFL field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Michael Sam had a good Highschool career, good enough to get multiple scholarships.  So he accomplished something.  But beyond that - he and Tebow are the same because the media made them heros NOT because of accomplishment.  Do you get it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  Difference is free exercise of religion is written in the Constitution where the word marriage doesn't.  Different even if you are too fucking stupid to realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal Protection IS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, those same ones you say argue equality are the first ones to deny equality to certain types of marriages they oppose.  Just suggest polygamy and theyll find all sorts of personal reasons for situations that don't affect them to say it shouldn't happen.  To them I respond, if you don't want to marry more than one person don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sure about that?
> 
> I don't care one way or the other about polygamy.  If consenting adults choose that - so be it.  It's their right.
Click to expand...

 
1.  It is about science and how different conlcusions can come from the same research. 

People Are Not Born Gay Affirms Royal College of Psychiatrists

2.  Gay West New York cop claims in lawsuit he was harassed intimidated by police director NJ.com

4.   Tebow's action of praying got media attention.  However, had he not scored a toughdown, etc. there would have been no attention because he wouldn't have Tebowed.  For Sam, the attention came before ever stepping foot on an NFL field.  Tebow also had high school accomplishments.  You don't start at Florida and win the Heisman if you don't. 

5.  Define equal.  It doens't mean you get to do exactly the same things I do or vice versa. 

Just ask them about polygamy or a sibling marriage.  They are quicker to say no to it coming up with why equality should be denied than they are about bending over and taking one in the ass for the homos.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the motivation behind their entire agenda.  If you don't do what I want, I bitch and whine and make someone force it on society.
> 
> Don't worry, when I'm gone, my kids will continue to fight against you faggot lovers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I am sure you will try to pass your bigotry on.
> 
> But just like racial bigotry- it is on its way out- the first step is to make it socially unacceptable to be a bigot like yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you'll pass on that an abnormal lifestyle is the same as one that actually is normal.
> 
> I'm sure you'll pass one that anyone not agreeing with your beliefs is a bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I pass on that anyone who judges people by who they are- rather than by their actions and speech- is a bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should pass that along to all those who hate Christians because they are Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find that absolutely equally offensive.
> 
> Bigots who hate Christians just because they are Christians are just as much bigots as those who hate homosexuals because they think that they are f*ggots.
> 
> And yes- I say that regularly.
Click to expand...

 
Strange that pro same sex marriage folks says it's OK to do that to Christians because pointing out bigotry isn't bigotry.


----------



## hipeter924

AVG-JOE said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> When people talk about redefining marriage, that's exactly what they mean. They want to define it as something other than what it was. So you can define marriage as between gays, or multiple partners, or any other things you like. It has been redefined to mean something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can define 'marriage' however you want.  Nobody cares.
> 
> What people care about is treating some people differently in the eyes of the law.  Either remove the economic advantages given to married couples or grant those benefits to ALL married couples.
> 
> This is NOT rocket science!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently it is rocket science. If all men and all women are treated the same, that's called equality. Any eligible man can marry any eligible woman. Changing it to include men with men and women with women is a special consideration and has zip to do with equality. You can't be more equal if it's already equal.
> 
> Gays want to pretend they are a special class of citizens but deny they are after any special consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting... especially in light of your sig line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives. -_Ronald Reagan_
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Well, Reagan was a hypocrite abroad though:
Efra n R os Montt - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


> Given Ríos Montt's staunch anticommunism and ties to the United States, the Reagan administration continued to support the general and his regime, paying a visit to Guatemala City in December 1982.[22] During a meeting with Ríos Montt on December 4, Reagan declared: "President Ríos Montt is a man of great personal integrity and commitment. ... I know he wants to improve the quality of life for all Guatemalans and to promote social justice."[23][24]
> 
> President Ronald Reagan claimed Guatemala's human rights conditions were improving and used this to justify several major shipments of military hardware to Ríos Montt; $4 million in helicopter spare parts and $6.3 million in additional military supplies in 1982 and 1983 respectively. The decision was taken in spite of records concerning human rights violations, by-passing the approval from Congress.[25][26][27][28][29] Meanwhile, a then-secret 1983 CIA cable noted a rise in "suspect right-wing violence" and an increasing number of bodies "appearing in ditches and gullies."[30] In turn, Guatemala was eager to resurrect the Central American Defense Council, defunct since 1969, to join forces with the right-wing governments of El Salvador and Honduras in retaliations against the leftist Sandinista government of Nicaragua.


 As long as they were the 'right people' he believed that government shouldn't run their lives.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I am sure you will try to pass your bigotry on.
> 
> But just like racial bigotry- it is on its way out- the first step is to make it socially unacceptable to be a bigot like yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you'll pass on that an abnormal lifestyle is the same as one that actually is normal.
> 
> I'm sure you'll pass one that anyone not agreeing with your beliefs is a bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I pass on that anyone who judges people by who they are- rather than by their actions and speech- is a bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should pass that along to all those who hate Christians because they are Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find that absolutely equally offensive.
> 
> Bigots who hate Christians just because they are Christians are just as much bigots as those who hate homosexuals because they think that they are f*ggots.
> 
> And yes- I say that regularly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strange that pro same sex marriage folks says it's OK to do that to Christians because pointing out bigotry isn't bigotry.
Click to expand...


Such is the nature of the bigot.

Nature requires that the first person to project bigotry on another, is demonstrating the defining trait of a bigot.


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is a function of nature, not law... it of course has a legal component, but nature designed it and it is nature that requires that such is the joining of one man and one woman, and it is nature that precludes any two people of the same gender who play house, from every being married.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Nature has fucking. We made up marriage. Its a legal arrangement that's useful in organization in a civilization. But its not necessary for reproduction. Else everything that reproduces would have marriage.
> 
> *And only we do. *We made it up, so it can be whatever we want it to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Law may provide it to be LEGAL that a person can flap their arms and fly... it is nature that defines such flight as 'falling' as well as the punishment for such, over toward *the sudden stop* right at the end there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage isn't gravity. Marriage is a social construct that we invented. It can encompass one man and one woman. Or one man and many women. Or one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman.
> 
> Its flexible like that. And in 36 of 50 States in our country, marriage includes same sex unions.
Click to expand...

 
How many of them were made legal by the legislative process vs. a pro fag activist judge?


----------



## MaryL

JakeStarkey said:


> *The Homosexual Dilemma exists only in the minds of those who dislike marriage equality, much like folks who disliked interracial marriage.
> 
> Tough for them back then and tough for you today because we are never going back.
> 
> Get over it and don't marry someone you don't love is the best advice you can get.*


This is a totally false  argument. Like if  Christians  say that if YOU don't accept Creationism , you  are anti-truth...it may be more in the mind of gays, and the preposterous gay agenda steamroller propaganda brainwashing they are trying to perpetrate. Sorry, I am not buying it. In years to come,  homosexuality will be proven to be just a sexual dysfunction, not a class of people in need of protection. I think it's going to make the supreme court reevaluate civil justice issues after the way homos have hoodwinked American culture.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

hipeter924 said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> When people talk about redefining marriage, that's exactly what they mean. They want to define it as something other than what it was. So you can define marriage as between gays, or multiple partners, or any other things you like. It has been redefined to mean something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can define 'marriage' however you want.  Nobody cares.
> 
> What people care about is treating some people differently in the eyes of the law.  Either remove the economic advantages given to married couples or grant those benefits to ALL married couples.
> 
> This is NOT rocket science!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently it is rocket science. If all men and all women are treated the same, that's called equality. Any eligible man can marry any eligible woman. Changing it to include men with men and women with women is a special consideration and has zip to do with equality. You can't be more equal if it's already equal.
> 
> Gays want to pretend they are a special class of citizens but deny they are after any special consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting... especially in light of your sig line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives. -_Ronald Reagan_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, Reagan was a hypocrite abroad though:
> Efra n R os Montt - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Given Ríos Montt's staunch anticommunism and ties to the United States, the Reagan administration continued to support the general and his regime, paying a visit to Guatemala City in December 1982.[22] During a meeting with Ríos Montt on December 4, Reagan declared: "President Ríos Montt is a man of great personal integrity and commitment. ... I know he wants to improve the quality of life for all Guatemalans and to promote social justice."[23][24]
> 
> President Ronald Reagan claimed Guatemala's human rights conditions were improving and used this to justify several major shipments of military hardware to Ríos Montt; $4 million in helicopter spare parts and $6.3 million in additional military supplies in 1982 and 1983 respectively. The decision was taken in spite of records concerning human rights violations, by-passing the approval from Congress.[25][26][27][28][29] Meanwhile, a then-secret 1983 CIA cable noted a rise in "suspect right-wing violence" and an increasing number of bodies "appearing in ditches and gullies."[30] In turn, Guatemala was eager to resurrect the Central American Defense Council, defunct since 1969, to join forces with the right-wing governments of El Salvador and Honduras in retaliations against the leftist Sandinista government of Nicaragua.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As long as they were the 'right people' he believed that government shouldn't run their lives.
Click to expand...


Being anti-communist usually requires one to bring the pain to communists. 

Communists have a long history of mass-murder, OKA: Terrorism to help people find the inner communist... and just as long a history weeping and gnashing their tooth, when they find others presenting an effective defense, through the execution of a lethal offense against them.

We see this hypocrisy on a daily basis in their tooth gnashing hysterics regarding the sub-human Palestinians.

Which is why the Left is quickly becoming irrelevant in the US and why they presently have a majority in a tiny minority of State and local governments, along with the minority status in the US Federal Legislature.

But hey... such is the nature of evil.  It's prone to gluttony, greed and over-estimating its power and influence.


----------



## g5000

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does Where_r_my_keys still think "different" and "evil" are synonymous?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the record that indicates he has... so, the answer would be 'No'.
Click to expand...

Then why are you so hung up on gays being abnormal?  You are obviously drawing a moral conclusion based on your obsession with their abnormality.


----------



## Conservative65

Coyote said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Who is doing the research?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who like in what?  Individual people?  Scientific disciplines?
> Here are some links to research publications:
> Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females - Nature Genetics
> PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects
> Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex - life - 16 June 2008 - New Scientist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh... yet their not of the opposite sex?  So... that would tend toward evidence that the homosexual brain is disordered, thus is demonstrably abnormal... deviating from biological normality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Different" does not equal "disordered" or even "abnormal" since a certain amount of deviation is normal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Similar in nature to the brain of the sociopath, the predeterminate value required for the psychotic, which also differs from the normal brain.  And like those brains, there's not a SCINTILLA distinction, GENETICALLY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a link or study showing that the brain of a homosexual is similar to the brain of a sociopath or psychotic?  That's news to me pubes, but maybe you just made it up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now research also shows that through training the brains observable patterns can be altered, thus where an individual male for example, were to be sexually stimulated by a male... in a loving and caring manner, in the earliest stages of postnatal development, that the cerebral function of the traditional male brain would therefore be trained to respond to sexual stimulation as would be expected by a female, who's natural tendency would be triggered by males.
> 
> SO... that doesn't really help ya much.
> 
> What else ya got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got a link that shows that and that the persons actual orientation changed as a result cause it sounds like you are talking about infantile pedophilia and I've not heard much research on that.
Click to expand...

 
At the point a person is attracted to the same gender, it's abnormal.


----------



## g5000

Conservative65 said:


> People Are Not Born Gay Affirms Royal College of Psychiatrists



Why don't you link to the Royal College of Psychiatrists instead of an anti-gay site?


----------



## JakeStarkey

To those who dislike marriage equality: go ahead.  Most folks don't care what you think.  It does not hurt you.  It does not hurt your children.  God will still love all of us.  Best advice for you: don't marry someone of your own sex.

Your preposterous caterwauling is only that, which only induces a self-lobotomy.

You are going to lose on this issue at SCOTUS later in the year.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Where_r_my_Keys diatribe above is one modeled on fascist propaganda.  All should remember that so many were intellectuals, lawyers, and Ph.ds.


----------



## g5000

Here.  I will link to the Royal College of Psychiatrists for you: http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/PS02_2014.pdf



> *The College wishes to clarify that homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder.*



Funny.  I wonder why the anti-gay site didn't mention that!  Hmmm...

Oh!  I wonder if it is because the anti-gay site is promoting "professional counseling to change unwanted same-sex feelings"?

Gosh.  If being gay isn't a psychiatric order according to the very body of scientists they cited, then they don't need professional counseling, now do they.



> The Royal College of Psychiatrists considers that sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors.



The anti-gay site quoted that part, and then the anti-gay people decided that meant, "If a child does not encounter such postnatal life experiences, he or she will grow up heterosexual."  This is not a scientific conclusion.

I guess they did not see the "biological" part of that statement!

And here is the part which immediately follows the part they quoted from the RC:



> *There is no evidence to go beyond this and impute any kind of choice into the origins of sexual orientation.*



Got that?  The Royal College of Psychiatrists said there is no evidence that gays have a choice in their sexual orientation.
*
*


----------



## g5000

Conservative65 said:


> At the point a person is attracted to the same gender, it's abnormal.


So?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Conservative65 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  It's not the findings but what you want to make them say.  Just look at the global warming issue. Two distinct sides on the same thing based on research both claim to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't Global Warming we're talking about.  So far you have not refuted any of these studies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  How many have sued claiming they were fired because they were gay.  It's the automatica assumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't you answer a question or  provide examples?  We aren't talking about people being fired because they were gay (people have sued about being fired because they were black, Christian, female, disabled - so what?).  You said sued becaues people said something about them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  It shows you use something that happens once in how many thousands of cases as if it is a regular occurrence.
> 
> 4.  Tebow actually accomplished something before he Tebowed on the field.  The media made Michael Sam a hero without ever having stepped foot on an NFL field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Michael Sam had a good Highschool career, good enough to get multiple scholarships.  So he accomplished something.  But beyond that - he and Tebow are the same because the media made them heros NOT because of accomplishment.  Do you get it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  Difference is free exercise of religion is written in the Constitution where the word marriage doesn't.  Different even if you are too fucking stupid to realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal Protection IS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, those same ones you say argue equality are the first ones to deny equality to certain types of marriages they oppose.  Just suggest polygamy and theyll find all sorts of personal reasons for situations that don't affect them to say it shouldn't happen.  To them I respond, if you don't want to marry more than one person don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sure about that?
> 
> I don't care one way or the other about polygamy.  If consenting adults choose that - so be it.  It's their right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  It is about science and how different conlcusions can come from the same research.
> 
> People Are Not Born Gay Affirms Royal College of Psychiatrists
> 
> 2.  Gay West New York cop claims in lawsuit he was harassed intimidated by police director NJ.com
> 
> 4.   Tebow's action of praying got media attention.  However, had he not scored a toughdown, etc. there would have been no attention because he wouldn't have Tebowed.  For Sam, the attention came before ever stepping foot on an NFL field.  Tebow also had high school accomplishments.  You don't start at Florida and win the Heisman if you don't.
> 
> 5.  Define equal.  It doens't mean you get to do exactly the same things I do or vice versa.
> 
> Just ask them about polygamy or a sibling marriage.  They are quicker to say no to it coming up with why equality should be denied than they are about bending over and taking one in the ass for the homos.
Click to expand...


It's truly unlikely that anyone is born gay... if such were the case, it would have a genetic component and there despite massive efforts to find such; with such literally being responsible for a large percentage of all genetic research, there simply is no genetic component to Sexual Abnormality.

Such is the result of early molestations, wherein adults of the same gender 'play' sex games with infants and toddlers, prematurely stimulating sexual response, thus imprinting, or 'training' he individual toward sexual arousal toward members of that initiating gender.

Which means that normalizing such can only result in a massive increase in the instances of such, which in terms of reason follows the historical reality that the cultural acceptance of homosexuality has never failed to precede, in short order, collapse of that culture.  As such cripples the human spirit, causing understandable shame, just recognition of individual inferiority and it's mighty hard to defend a nation with a group of catty, self loathing spiritual cripples.


----------



## g5000

So here is Conservative's link to the anti-gay site: People Are Not Born Gay Affirms Royal College of Psychiatrists

Here is how that article starts:



> A statement by the Royal College of Psychiatrists that people are not born gay has been welcomed as "a major admission" by a Christian charity that helps men and women change unwanted same-sex feelings.



Yeah.  Except here is what the Royal College of Psychiatrists said in the paper which that anti-gay article cited:



> Leading therapy organisations across the world have published statements warning of the ineffectiveness of treatments to change sexual orientation, their potential for harm and their influence in stigmatising lesbian, gay and bisexual people.



So the anti-gay site is being incredibly dishonest in their reporting on the Royal College's findings.  How un-Christian of them to bear such false witness!


More from the Royal College shrinks:



> *There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that  being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment. *However, it is eminently reasonable that the experiences of discrimination in society and possible rejection by friends, families and others (such as employers), means that some lesbian, gay and bisexual people experience a greater than expected prevalence of mental health and substance misuse problems. Lifestyle issues may be important in some gay men and lesbians, particularly with respect to higher rates of substance misuse.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

g5000 said:


> Here.  I will link to the Royal College of Psychiatrists for you: http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/PS02_2014.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The College wishes to clarify that homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.  I wonder why the anti-gay site didn't mention that!  Hmmm...
Click to expand...


"Communism is responsible for the murder of 150 million innocent people in the mid-20th century."

This fact is found on any number of anti-communist sites... and that doesn't make it less than truth, thus something other than a fact.

But hey... there's no way for you to have known that.  Such requires one posses the means to reason... .


----------



## MaryL

There is no proof that Homosexuality isn't a sexual dysfunction, none. And so far, I am not seeing how homosexuals are in need of constitutional protection like blacks or women or left-handed people or Handicapped persons. It's stretch to make sexual dysfunction something that should be protected under the Constitution. I still am not buying this whole "gay rights" propaganda.


----------



## g5000

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> It's truly unlikely that anyone is born gay... if such were the case, it would have a genetic component and there despite massive efforts to find such



Have they found the gene which make you like or hate carrots?


----------



## g5000

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here.  I will link to the Royal College of Psychiatrists for you: http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/PS02_2014.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The College wishes to clarify that homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.  I wonder why the anti-gay site didn't mention that!  Hmmm...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Communism is responsible for the murder of 150 million innocent people in the mid-20th century."
> 
> This fact is found on any number of anti-communist sites... and that doesn't make it less than truth, thus something other than a fact.
> 
> But hey... there's no way for you to have known that.  Such requires one posses the means to reason... .
Click to expand...


That was one of the worst red herrings I have ever seen!  BWA-HA-HA-HA!

The anti-gay site used the Royal College as their "evidence" of their claims.  The problem  you refuse to see is that they lied about the findings of the Royal College.  Simple fact.  They completely misrepresented what the psychiatrists found.  Simple fact.

And now you are attempting to defend a lying web site.


----------



## g5000

This is why when someone links to a partisan web site which filters someone else's work, you should always ask for the source material.

The hacks at the anti-gay web site lied and manufactured a mountain of bullshit to support their debunked claims and bogus pseudoscience.


----------



## g5000

The anti-gay web site supports conversion therapies.  They cited the Royal College of Psychiatrists as evidence what they are doing is correct.

But when you go to the source, the Royal College actually says the exact opposite:



> Psychiatrists should be committed to reducing inequalities, not supporting practices that are explicitly based on pathologising homosexuality. As such, *the College remains in favour of legislative efforts to ban such conversion therapies.*



So now it is time for you to reject the dishonesty and lies of the Charisma News, where_r_my_keys.  Don't be trying to gobble down some more of their manufactured bullshit.


----------



## MaryL

Heterosexuality is like the wind in the willows. Homosexuality is like  plutonium in a disco with loud techno music covered in glitter... natural or unnatural, pick which is better. And I don't like being told what to think by pseudo intellectuals.


----------



## g5000

The homosexual dilemma is that they are faced by idiotic, bigoted retards in large numbers.  End of story.


----------



## Howey

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  It's not the findings but what you want to make them say.  Just look at the global warming issue. Two distinct sides on the same thing based on research both claim to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't Global Warming we're talking about.  So far you have not refuted any of these studies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  How many have sued claiming they were fired because they were gay.  It's the automatica assumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't you answer a question or  provide examples?  We aren't talking about people being fired because they were gay (people have sued about being fired because they were black, Christian, female, disabled - so what?).  You said sued becaues people said something about them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  It shows you use something that happens once in how many thousands of cases as if it is a regular occurrence.
> 
> 4.  Tebow actually accomplished something before he Tebowed on the field.  The media made Michael Sam a hero without ever having stepped foot on an NFL field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Michael Sam had a good Highschool career, good enough to get multiple scholarships.  So he accomplished something.  But beyond that - he and Tebow are the same because the media made them heros NOT because of accomplishment.  Do you get it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  Difference is free exercise of religion is written in the Constitution where the word marriage doesn't.  Different even if you are too fucking stupid to realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal Protection IS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, those same ones you say argue equality are the first ones to deny equality to certain types of marriages they oppose.  Just suggest polygamy and theyll find all sorts of personal reasons for situations that don't affect them to say it shouldn't happen.  To them I respond, if you don't want to marry more than one person don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sure about that?
> 
> I don't care one way or the other about polygamy.  If consenting adults choose that - so be it.  It's their right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  It is about science and how different conlcusions can come from the same research.
> 
> People Are Not Born Gay Affirms Royal College of Psychiatrists
> 
> 2.  Gay West New York cop claims in lawsuit he was harassed intimidated by police director NJ.com
> 
> 4.   Tebow's action of praying got media attention.  However, had he not scored a toughdown, etc. there would have been no attention because he wouldn't have Tebowed.  For Sam, the attention came before ever stepping foot on an NFL field.  Tebow also had high school accomplishments.  You don't start at Florida and win the Heisman if you don't.
> 
> 5.  Define equal.  It doens't mean you get to do exactly the same things I do or vice versa.
> 
> Just ask them about polygamy or a sibling marriage.  They are quicker to say no to it coming up with why equality should be denied than they are about bending over and taking one in the ass for the homos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It's truly unlikely that anyone is born gay... if such were the case, it would have a genetic component and there despite massive efforts to find such; with such literally being responsible for a large percentage of all genetic research, there simply is no genetic component to Sexual Abnormality.*
> 
> Such is the result of early molestations, wherein adults of the same gender 'play' sex games with infants and toddlers, prematurely stimulating sexual response, thus imprinting, or 'training' he individual toward sexual arousal toward members of that initiating gender.
> 
> Which means that normalizing such can only result in a massive increase in the instances of such, which in terms of reason follows the historical reality that the cultural acceptance of homosexuality has never failed to precede, in short order, collapse of that culture.  As such cripples the human spirit, causing understandable shame, just recognition of individual inferiority and it's mighty hard to defend a nation with a group of catty, self loathing spiritual cripples.
Click to expand...


I don't care to comment on the rest of the dribble you posted (wipe that cum off your mouth, mkay?) I'll just comment on the bolded part of the above.

Our level of knowledge of the human psyche is at best, at a stone-age level. We have only a miniscule knowlege of human physiology, DNA, and genomes. Right now we're comparable to two monkeys trying to start a fire.

You, I, nobody, has any idea what makes one homosexual.


----------



## beagle9

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> How sad it is for him, that sex is ONLY about procreation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's an understandable confusion when your life is ruled by a book that emphasizes begatting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't make it past the first half of Genesis, huh?  Short attention span, a symptom of Leftist dumbing down and lowering of standards
> 
> I read the Bible from cover to cover before I was 10 just to show it can be done even by a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Probably a comprehension problem, because certain things won't be revealed unless the reader has an open mind when reading it, and if the mind is closed due to the heart not being where it should be, then the book will become boring very quickly to that person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Books like the Bible, or the Koran have to be read in context and with an understanding of the times it was written and the fact that there are layers of meaning beyond just the words.  I do understand that.  And part's of them are sheer poetry.
> 
> But I am an irreverant creature and always will be and if people use the Bible ,or the Koran, to bring about injustice then I think it's our duty to speak up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet somehow in your twisted Leftist brain, American conservatives who are extremely tolerant of homosexuality but just don't agree with it are more of a danger than Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt where homosexuals are hung in the streets. In fact, perversely the same Left that celebrates "gay rights" will also throw their support behind Islam and Muslims, reminding everyone ad nauseum that not all Muslims are terrorists every time a terrorist act occurs with the blessing of the Muslim community.  All these "peaceful Muslims" think homosexuality is so wicked and socially harmful that they should be executed.  Former Iranian president Ahmadinejad spoke to American college students and seeing their metrosexual qualities volunteered, "There are no homosexuals in Iran" to the oblivious idiots so proud to have such a progressive man speak to them.   Your knee jerk affinity to Islam virtually ignores that they actually kill homosexuals every day while at the same time seeing mortal danger in Christians who remind you that God considers homosexuality to be a sinful lifestyle.
> 
> How you maintain such duality only betrays how utterly deceived you people are.
Click to expand...

Spot On...


----------



## Mac1958

g5000 said:


> The homosexual dilemma is that they are faced by idiotic, bigoted retards in large numbers.  End of story.



The "dilemma" will fade with time.  Fairly quickly, I'd guess, as the next generation really doesn't seem to give a crap.

The argument against gay marriage has a weak foundation, and trotting out religion ain't gonna cut it.

.


----------



## deltex1

Trotting out religion
Trotting out morality
Trotting out justice
Trotting out social norms
Trotting out customs and mores
Trotting out tradition

Etc etc

So old fashioned.  We've thown most of it out, and look where we are now.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

g5000 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here.  I will link to the Royal College of Psychiatrists for you: http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/PS02_2014.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The College wishes to clarify that homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.  I wonder why the anti-gay site didn't mention that!  Hmmm...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Communism is responsible for the murder of 150 million innocent people in the mid-20th century."
> 
> This fact is found on any number of anti-communist sites... and that doesn't make it less than truth, thus something other than a fact.
> 
> But hey... there's no way for you to have known that.  Such requires one posses the means to reason... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was one of the worst red herrings I...
Click to expand...


Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

deltex1 said:


> Trotting out religion
> Trotting out morality
> Trotting out justice
> Trotting out social norms
> Trotting out customs and mores
> Trotting out tradition
> 
> Etc etc
> 
> So old fashioned.  We've thown most of it out, and look where we are now.



Mired in an impotent, feckless culture, wherein a full 30% are literally incapable of sound reason; so devolved that they demand a RIGHT to murder children who are still in their mothers WOMB and who 'feel strongly' that demonstrably deviant behavior is perfectly normal... .


----------



## MaryL

Religion is moot. So is Homosexuality, future generations will find the truth from the propaganda.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

g5000 said:


> This is why when someone links to a partisan web site which filters someone else's work, you should always ask for the source material.
> 
> The hacks at the anti-gay web site lied and manufactured a mountain of bullshit to support their debunked claims and bogus pseudoscience.



ROFLMNAO!  That is _ADORABLE!
_
I just adore watching Leftist try to reason.


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the sex drive in humans is there to "have fun", and not for procreation?
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You simply don't have a clue as how evolution works, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh but I do, and it doesn't work as you believe.
Click to expand...


Of course it does. The sex drive is natures way of prepeutuating


PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the record, two gays are not "having sex". Sex is when a penis goes into a vagina. Anything else is not sex.
> 
> 
> 
> Millions upon millions of teenage girls will be thrilled to hear this, their parents not so much.
> 
> It wasn't sex daddy, I was just blowing him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can call a blow job sex, it won't make it so.
> 
> I suppose you believe that sucking on someones toes is having sex as well..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When your teenage daughter has some kid's cock in her mouth, that's sex, dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I am new here, and it is taking me a little time to get a handle on the posters. You just love to be rude and crude. I suppose I can accept that, for a while at least.
> 
> As to your "point". That is called foreplay. And it can lead to sex. If you don't believe me, look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right, I don't believe you, because you're an idiot, who signs his name as if anyone gives a fuck who you are or whether you live or die, which we don't.
> 
> And when I'm fucking my wife's ass or we are 69, believe me, that's still sex whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...


Umm. No. Its foreplay.


PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the record, two gays are not "having sex". Sex is when a penis goes into a vagina. Anything else is not sex.
> 
> 
> 
> Millions upon millions of teenage girls will be thrilled to hear this, their parents not so much.
> 
> It wasn't sex daddy, I was just blowing him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can call a blow job sex, it won't make it so.
> 
> I suppose you believe that sucking on someones toes is having sex as well..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When your teenage daughter has some kid's cock in her mouth, that's sex, dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I am new here, and it is taking me a little time to get a handle on the posters. You just love to be rude and crude. I suppose I can accept that, for a while at least.
> 
> As to your "point". That is called foreplay. And it can lead to sex. If you don't believe me, look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right, I don't believe you, because you're an idiot, who signs his name as if anyone gives a fuck who you are or whether you live or die, which we don't.
> 
> And when I'm fucking my wife's ass or we are 69, believe me, that's still sex whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...


Whether I like it or not is irrelevant. You learn in third grade sex ed what sex is. Maybe you should have went to class.

Foreplay: erotic stimulation preceding sexual intercourse.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> The standard exists, and always did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not in any state. No one is required to have kids or be able to have them.
> 
> And I noticed you straight up refuse to explain your reason why pop-pop and nana aren't 'illogical, abnormal' deviants when they have sex. After all.....its doesn't serve any 'plan of nature'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since nature designed us that we need a male and a female for reproduction, that coupling was called marriage because human offspring need both parents to develop in a well rounded manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage isn't necessary for reproduction. Its useful in societies, as it helps keep things organized. But marriage is no more 'intrinsic' than one's favorite color. Or Queen's English. Both are just inventions for our convenience. And they are what we say they are.
> 
> In the case of marriage, in 36 of 50 states we say marriage includes men and men. And women and women. And those marriage as just as valid as a man and woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In essence, humans named reproduction "marriage" to lead to a stable family unit and society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its certainly useful for society, as it keeps things organized. But there are millions upon millions of exceptions to the 'reproductive rule' that still work as building blocks of society. Marriage can serve as a building block of society based on the family. Or a building block of society, based on two adults. Either works just fine.
> 
> You make the same blunder regarding marriage that you do sex: *you fallaciously assume there can be one and only one valid purpose. *And all others are 'illogical and abnormal'. But there can be many valid purposes, each logical and rational in their own right. Your claims make no more sense than to insist that the only 'logical and normal' reason to eat is to fuel the body.
> 
> What if you're really in the mood for a hamburger? Wouldn't that be a logical reason to eat one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the standard does exist, and applies to everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 50 of 50 states say otherwise. That you disagree is gloriously irrelevant. As gays and lesbians get married anyway in 36 of 50 of those states.
Click to expand...


Having explained everything to you already, I understand doing it again would be fruitless. If you can't understand my answers, I cannot help you.

Mark


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

MaryL said:


> There is no proof that Homosexuality isn't a sexual dysfunction, none. And so far, I am not seeing how homosexuals are in need of constitutional protection like blacks or women or left-handed people or Handicapped persons. It's stretch to make sexual dysfunction something that should be protected under the Constitution. I still am not buying this whole "gay rights" propaganda.


Whether you 'buy' it or not is irrelevant.

As a fact of Constitutional jurisprudence gay Americans are entitled to due process and equal protection of the law, they have the right to express themselves as individuals absent interference by the state, and they constitute a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, guaranteeing them the right to self-determination and personal liberty, as is the case with all Americans.


----------



## JakeStarkey

MaryL said:


> There is no proof that Homosexuality isn't a sexual dysfunction, none. And so far, I am not seeing how homosexuals are in need of constitutional protection like blacks or women or left-handed people or Handicapped persons. It's stretch to make sexual dysfunction something that should be protected under the Constitution. I still am not buying this whole "gay rights" propaganda.



Fallacy of derivative analogy.  We are talking about marriage, not race, or sex, or handicaps or handedness.  If you fight it immoral, OK.  Not your business.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

MaryL said:


> There is no proof that Homosexuality isn't a sexual dysfunction, none. And so far, I am not seeing how homosexuals are in need of constitutional protection like blacks or women or left-handed people or Handicapped persons. It's stretch to make sexual dysfunction something that should be protected under the Constitution. I still am not buying this whole "gay rights" propaganda.



Homosexuality is a presentation of mental disorder, that it is sexual dysfunction is not even remotely debatable.  

The Sexually abnormal crave sexual gratification outside of the human physiological standard... which defines the function of human sexuality.  

There's nothing to protect, they're an insignificant minority which is driving hard for public policy in order to establish the means to increase their numbers into majority.  

Now, what happens to a culture with a majority of homosexuals?  

No one knows... because every culture that has ever accepted such, perished from the earth, shortly thereafter. 

Because of that... it becomes obvious to all but the most pitifully foolish that at BEST: It's a BAD IDEA!


----------



## MaryL

Homosexuality is a...not a human right. How is Homosexuality deferent from any other sexual malfunction... It doesn't need protection under the constitution any more than does  Female dryness, Erectile dysfunction or another sexual issue.  Homosexuality is a made up cause with phony rights. Not buying it.


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the record, two gays are not "having sex". Sex is when a penis goes into a vagina. Anything else is not sex.
> 
> 
> 
> Millions upon millions of teenage girls will be thrilled to hear this, their parents not so much.
> 
> It wasn't sex daddy, I was just blowing him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can call a blow job sex, it won't make it so.
> 
> I suppose you believe that sucking on someones toes is having sex as well..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When your teenage daughter has some kid's cock in her mouth, that's sex, dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I am new here, and it is taking me a little time to get a handle on the posters. You just love to be rude and crude. I suppose I can accept that, for a while at least.
> 
> As to your "point". That is called foreplay. And it can lead to sex. If you don't believe me, look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if you nut it isn't. That's unproductive sex. Just like say, masturbation. Or old people fucking.
> 
> With celebacy being just as 'illogical' and 'abnormal' per your own standards of 'nature's plan'.
Click to expand...


So, you really don't understand any of what I am saying? You are putting your words in my mouth. Maybe you shouldn't.

Mark


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof that Homosexuality isn't a sexual dysfunction, none. And so far, I am not seeing how homosexuals are in need of constitutional protection like blacks or women or left-handed people or Handicapped persons. It's stretch to make sexual dysfunction something that should be protected under the Constitution. I still am not buying this whole "gay rights" propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> Whether you 'buy' it or not is irrelevant.
> 
> As a fact of Constitutional jurisprudence gay Americans are entitled to due process and equal protection of the law, they have the right to express themselves as individuals absent interference by the state, and they constitute a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, guaranteeing them the right to self-determination and personal liberty, as is the case with all Americans.
Click to expand...


And as a fact of reality, Homosexuals presently enjoy the full measure of due process and equal protection before the law.

And this without regard to the weeping and gnashing of Leftist tooth which claims otherwise.


----------



## JakeStarkey

"Western Journalism" and the "Family Research Council"  are propaganda organizations lying on behalf an immoral and irrational interpretation of the universe in which we live.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

JakeStarkey said:


> "Western Journalism" and the "Family Research Council"  are propaganda organizations lying on behalf an immoral and irrational interpretation of the universe in which we live.


ROFLMNAO!

Imagine the potential depth of a hypocrisy, wherein Leftist lament PROPAGANDA!

ROFLMNAO!  

Now THAT is entertainment folks!


----------



## MaryL

A third grade sex education  tells me, or common human  sense tells us that people with perversions have   mental issues, not sociological ones. men that expose themselves, Peeping toms, people with sexual  fetishes don't get a special  prerequisite. People that abuse animals, or rape  don't get special rights, that's like  homosexuals.  Maybe they are, maybe they aren't hurting anyone, that is a matter of opinion. Excuse us, we just have a different opinion...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ridicule lands back on the user, Where_r_my_Keys,  for he knows he works for propaganda outfits motivated by confirmation bias that encourages their cognitive dissonance to lie as proven above.


----------



## JakeStarkey

False statement: "Homosexuality is a presentation of mental disorder, that it is sexual dysfunction is not even remotely debatable."  Of course it is.

MaryL, whether you buy it or not is immaterial, as are Where r my keys' silly arguments.


----------



## JakeStarkey

"
A third grade sex education tells me, or common human sense tells us that people with perversions have mental issues, not sociological ones. men that expose themselves, Peeping toms, people with sexual fetishes don't get a special prerequisite. People that abuse animals, or rape don't get special rights, that's like homosexuals. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't hurting anyone, that is a matter of opinion. Excuse us, we just have a different opinion."  Once again, false derivative analogy.

There is no homosexual dilemma except for the weak-headed.

:


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are WRONG. Nature "invented" marriage when it demanded that a man has to have sex with a women for procreation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obvious nonsense. Nature is about _reproduction_. How that is done is reproductively irrelevant. Rape passes genetic material. Sex with reproductively viable children passes genetic material. I wouldn't consider either to be particularly 'moral', nor the 'invention of nature'. But they serve your 'nature's plan', don't they?
> 
> As do polygamy, one night stands, harems, orgies, gang bangs, etc..
> 
> If marriage were intrinsic to nature, then anything that reproduces would be married. Yet only we are.....*because its our invention.*  A social construct we made up for our own convenience. And it is whatever we say it is.
> 
> Our construct isn't particularly connected to reproduction. The infertile can marry. The old can marry. The childless get all the same benefits of marriage as those with children. No one is required to have children or be able to have them in order to get married.
> 
> Why then would we exclude gays from marriage based on their inability to meet a standard that *doesn't exist *and* applies to no one? *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Understand what she is saying here folks.
> 
> It MUST be one way or the other... either nature's plan is to propagate at the expense of every other consideration or nature has no plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously, it doesn't. Your ability to type the word 'must' doesn't create an actual dichotomy. Merely a false one.
> 
> Nature doesn't have a 'plan'. It has fucking. And there are a litany of reasons for it that are perfectly logical. The simplest being that it feels good. Its perfectly logical to do something that feels good. Even if your sex is unproductive.
> 
> Your reasoning assumes that there can be one and only one valid purpose in sex. And there's nothing that mandates such exclusivity. There can be all sorts of reasons. If you have sex to work on your abs or have sex to consummate your marriage, the ova and sperm doesn't give a shit.
> 
> Likewise, most men don't care how they nut. If its an amazing blow job, or unprotected vaginial sex....its the sensation they chase. Not your Appeal to Authority. And that's a perfectly valid, reasonable, logical and rational purpose.
Click to expand...


You said:

Your reasoning assumes that there can be one and only one valid purpose in sex

In the natural scheme o things, you are correct. Why do you think nature made it so pleasurable to have sex? Why do you think nature gave us our urges?


Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are WRONG. Nature "invented" marriage when it demanded that a man has to have sex with a women for procreation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obvious nonsense. Nature is about _reproduction_. How that is done is reproductively irrelevant. Rape passes genetic material. Sex with reproductively viable children passes genetic material. I wouldn't consider either to be particularly 'moral', nor the 'invention of nature'. But they serve your 'nature's plan', don't they?
> 
> As do polygamy, one night stands, harems, orgies, gang bangs, etc..
> 
> If marriage were intrinsic to nature, then anything that reproduces would be married. Yet only we are.....*because its our invention.*  A social construct we made up for our own convenience. And it is whatever we say it is.
> 
> Our construct isn't particularly connected to reproduction. The infertile can marry. The old can marry. The childless get all the same benefits of marriage as those with children. No one is required to have children or be able to have them in order to get married.
> 
> Why then would we exclude gays from marriage based on their inability to meet a standard that *doesn't exist *and* applies to no one? *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Understand what she is saying here folks.
> 
> It MUST be one way or the other... either nature's plan is to propagate at the expense of every other consideration or nature has no plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously, it doesn't. Your ability to type the word 'must' doesn't create an actual dichotomy. Merely a false one.
> 
> Nature doesn't have a 'plan'. It has fucking. And there are a litany of reasons for it that are perfectly logical. The simplest being that it feels good. Its perfectly logical to do something that feels good. Even if your sex is unproductive.
> 
> Your reasoning assumes that there can be one and only one valid purpose in sex. And there's nothing that mandates such exclusivity. There can be all sorts of reasons. If you have sex to work on your abs or have sex to consummate your marriage, the ova and sperm doesn't give a shit.
> 
> Wrong. Nature does have a plan, just like it does for every other living creature on earth. Its called reproduction. And nature will make the sexual act so appealing that people will do it, every chance they get, in hopes of propagating the species. Nature "understands"  that if you make something pleasurable, you'll partake in it. Just like when you get hungry, you'll eat. Can you imagine how much of a chore it would be to eat if you didn't get hungry? Same thing with sex. If it didn't feel good, who'd do it?
> 
> If you don't understand that nature built in the "fun" of sex to aid reproduction, I don't know what to tell you. And while humans don't have intercourse just to have babies, the built in "nature" does not know that and persists in making it "fun", no matter the reason or age.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> Likewise, most men don't care how they nut. If its an amazing blow job, or unprotected vaginial sex....its the sensation they chase. Not your Appeal to Authority. And that's a perfectly valid, reasonable, logical and rational purpose.
Click to expand...


----------



## 80zephyr

JakeStarkey said:


> False statement: "Homosexuality is a presentation of mental disorder, that it is sexual dysfunction is not even remotely debatable."  Of course it is.
> 
> MaryL, whether you buy it or not is immaterial, as are Where r my keys' silly arguments.




In the world of nature, it most assuredly is a dysfunction. Homosexuality does not lead to reproduction, which leads  life to die out.

Of this, there can be no debate.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you the same Coyote I've come to know and love?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> umh....maybe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you'll remember I have some close gay friends who I highly respect. You and I discussed them at length on other forums.  It isn't gay people I have a problem with, it's the assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet here you are- in every thread- complaining about all homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Just the faggots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> F*ggot- N*gger- C*nt- K*ke
> 
> All words used by bigots in the same way for the same purpose.
> 
> And bigots always rationalize why its okay that they use any of these words.
> 
> But we all know why they use them- they use them to attempt to hurt others.
Click to expand...


Sorta like the way you use bigot?

Mark


----------



## JakeStarkey

And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation.  It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.


----------



## beagle9

WorldWatcher said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> People Are Not Born Gay Affirms Royal College of Psychiatrists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you link to the Royal College of Psychiatrists instead of an anti-gay site?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like this:
> 
> "The Royal College of Psychiatrists considers that sexual orientation is
> determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental
> factors.1–3  There is no evidence to go beyond this and impute any kind of
> choice into the origins of sexual orientation.  The College wishes to clarify
> that homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder. In 1973 the American
> Psychiatric Association (APA) concluded there was no scientific evidence
> that homosexuality was a disorder and removed it from its diagnostic
> glossary of mental disorders. The International Classification of Diseases
> of the World Health Organization followed suit in1992."  http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/PS02_2014.pdf​
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...




deltex1 said:


> Trotting out religion
> Trotting out morality
> Trotting out justice
> Trotting out social norms
> Trotting out customs and mores
> Trotting out tradition
> 
> Etc etc
> 
> So old fashioned.  We've thown most of it out, and look where we are now.


If you think trotting out something doesn't work, then how about all those who have trotted out the civil rights struggles along with every other kind of struggle or excuse they have used, and how they have applied all of these to their causes in life, but religious values, conservative thinking, integrity, decency and morals are not the same things when used ? I say it is open territory just like the special interest groups have attached themselves to a cause that doesn't really apply to them or their cause in life, but they saw a very tiny and/or slim opening in the wall, and they took it by annexing the house next door very quickly.  They figure if the get enough houses (minds) occupied (won over or brainwashed) then they win right ?

It has blindsided many this tactic they have used, but I think people have learned of the tactic now, and they are battling back with their own tactics as well. Hey it's all fair, but some don't want it no way but their way, yet that ain't the way fairness works now is it ? Hey all's fair in love and war right ?


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> God these assholes are dumb.  One thinks that if walks into his daughter's bedroom and finds her on her knees stripped to her panties, her boyfriend standing over her with his jeans and tighty whiteys at his ankles, and his cock in her mouth that he would react by saying, Oh good, I was worried that you two might be having sex but I can see it's just foreplay so have fun kids.  Morons here, total fucking morons.



Hey House, I don't make these definitions up. Society and nature does. It appears it is my job to educate those that don't know any better.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

JakeStarkey said:


> And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation.  It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.



And? In every species, natures way is reproduction. If a body does not reproduce, it kills off its lineage. That is why, in nature, homosexuality has to be considered abnormal.

Mark


----------



## beagle9

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are WRONG. Nature "invented" marriage when it demanded that a man has to have sex with a women for procreation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obvious nonsense. Nature is about _reproduction_. How that is done is reproductively irrelevant. Rape passes genetic material. Sex with reproductively viable children passes genetic material. I wouldn't consider either to be particularly 'moral', nor the 'invention of nature'. But they serve your 'nature's plan', don't they?
> 
> As do polygamy, one night stands, harems, orgies, gang bangs, etc..
> 
> If marriage were intrinsic to nature, then anything that reproduces would be married. Yet only we are.....*because its our invention.*  A social construct we made up for our own convenience. And it is whatever we say it is.
> 
> Our construct isn't particularly connected to reproduction. The infertile can marry. The old can marry. The childless get all the same benefits of marriage as those with children. No one is required to have children or be able to have them in order to get married.
> 
> Why then would we exclude gays from marriage based on their inability to meet a standard that *doesn't exist *and* applies to no one? *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Understand what she is saying here folks.
> 
> It MUST be one way or the other... either nature's plan is to propagate at the expense of every other consideration or nature has no plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously, it doesn't. Your ability to type the word 'must' doesn't create an actual dichotomy. Merely a false one.
> 
> Nature doesn't have a 'plan'. It has fucking. And there are a litany of reasons for it that are perfectly logical. The simplest being that it feels good. Its perfectly logical to do something that feels good. Even if your sex is unproductive.
> 
> Your reasoning assumes that there can be one and only one valid purpose in sex. And there's nothing that mandates such exclusivity. There can be all sorts of reasons. If you have sex to work on your abs or have sex to consummate your marriage, the ova and sperm doesn't give a shit.
> 
> Likewise, most men don't care how they nut. If its an amazing blow job, or unprotected vaginial sex....its the sensation they chase. Not your Appeal to Authority. And that's a perfectly valid, reasonable, logical and rational purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said:
> 
> Your reasoning assumes that there can be one and only one valid purpose in sex
> 
> In the natural scheme o things, you are correct. Why do you think nature made it so pleasurable to have sex? Why do you think nature gave us our urges?
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are WRONG. Nature "invented" marriage when it demanded that a man has to have sex with a women for procreation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obvious nonsense. Nature is about _reproduction_. How that is done is reproductively irrelevant. Rape passes genetic material. Sex with reproductively viable children passes genetic material. I wouldn't consider either to be particularly 'moral', nor the 'invention of nature'. But they serve your 'nature's plan', don't they?
> 
> As do polygamy, one night stands, harems, orgies, gang bangs, etc..
> 
> If marriage were intrinsic to nature, then anything that reproduces would be married. Yet only we are.....*because its our invention.*  A social construct we made up for our own convenience. And it is whatever we say it is.
> 
> Our construct isn't particularly connected to reproduction. The infertile can marry. The old can marry. The childless get all the same benefits of marriage as those with children. No one is required to have children or be able to have them in order to get married.
> 
> Why then would we exclude gays from marriage based on their inability to meet a standard that *doesn't exist *and* applies to no one? *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Understand what she is saying here folks.
> 
> It MUST be one way or the other... either nature's plan is to propagate at the expense of every other consideration or nature has no plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously, it doesn't. Your ability to type the word 'must' doesn't create an actual dichotomy. Merely a false one.
> 
> Nature doesn't have a 'plan'. It has fucking. And there are a litany of reasons for it that are perfectly logical. The simplest being that it feels good. Its perfectly logical to do something that feels good. Even if your sex is unproductive.
> 
> Your reasoning assumes that there can be one and only one valid purpose in sex. And there's nothing that mandates such exclusivity. There can be all sorts of reasons. If you have sex to work on your abs or have sex to consummate your marriage, the ova and sperm doesn't give a shit.
> 
> Wrong. Nature does have a plan, just like it does for every other living creature on earth. Its called reproduction. And nature will make the sexual act so appealing that people will do it, every chance they get, in hopes of propagating the species. Nature "understands"  that if you make something pleasurable, you'll partake in it. Just like when you get hungry, you'll eat. Can you imagine how much of a chore it would be to eat if you didn't get hungry? Same thing with sex. If it didn't feel good, who'd do it?
> 
> If you don't understand that nature built in the "fun" of sex to aid reproduction, I don't know what to tell you. And while humans don't have intercourse just to have babies, the built in "nature" does not know that and persists in making it "fun", no matter the reason or age.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> Likewise, most men don't care how they nut. If its an amazing blow job, or unprotected vaginial sex....its the sensation they chase. Not your Appeal to Authority. And that's a perfectly valid, reasonable, logical and rational purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

All things have been given unto humans with responsibilities also given unto them as well. Anything can be abused, and there is a lot of abuse out there.


----------



## MaryL

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof that Homosexuality isn't a sexual dysfunction, none. And so far, I am not seeing how homosexuals are in need of constitutional protection like blacks or women or left-handed people or Handicapped persons. It's stretch to make sexual dysfunction something that should be protected under the Constitution. I still am not buying this whole "gay rights" propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> Whether you 'buy' it or not is irrelevant.
> 
> As a fact of Constitutional jurisprudence gay Americans are entitled to due process and equal protection of the law, they have the right to express themselves as individuals absent interference by the state, and they constitute a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, guaranteeing them the right to self-determination and personal liberty, as is the case with all Americans.
Click to expand...

Abysmal logic here. What category does Homosexuality fit into under the Constitution? Nowhere is even Heterosexuality mentioned in the constitution, Sexual preference is never an issue. And, secondly, it hasn't been disproven that Homosexuality isn't just a garden variety sexual neurosis. Everybody  has a neurosis, not sure it merits coverage  under the constitution.


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get that from men either.  That's why I chose women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I certainly chose to have sex with women- I chose to marry a woman- but I never, ever chose to be attracted to women.
> 
> IF you can choose to be attracted to women- then you should be able to chose to be attracted to men.
> 
> If you find the idea of a stubbly male face kissing your lips repugnant- like I do- then your attraction is not a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I choose not to be attracted to men.
> 
> I find a lot of things repugnant.  Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are probably bisexual.
> 
> As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.
> 
> I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.
> 
> If you think you could chose to be turned on by a photo of Clooney in a bathing suit- then you  are probably bisexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could choose to be a criminal.  Does that make me one?
> 
> I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So with a mere choice you could find a man's hairy ass as sexually attractive as a woman's shapely backside?
> 
> Then Sy's right. You're probably bi already. For most of us, its not a choice. Its just an attribute.
Click to expand...


If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:

Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News

Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.

Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.

Mark


----------



## deltex1

beagle9 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> People Are Not Born Gay Affirms Royal College of Psychiatrists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you link to the Royal College of Psychiatrists instead of an anti-gay site?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like this:
> 
> "The Royal College of Psychiatrists considers that sexual orientation is
> determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental
> factors.1–3  There is no evidence to go beyond this and impute any kind of
> choice into the origins of sexual orientation.  The College wishes to clarify
> that homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder. In 1973 the American
> Psychiatric Association (APA) concluded there was no scientific evidence
> that homosexuality was a disorder and removed it from its diagnostic
> glossary of mental disorders. The International Classification of Diseases
> of the World Health Organization followed suit in1992."  http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/PS02_2014.pdf​
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trotting out religion
> Trotting out morality
> Trotting out justice
> Trotting out social norms
> Trotting out customs and mores
> Trotting out tradition
> 
> Etc etc
> 
> So old fashioned.  We've thown most of it out, and look where we are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think trotting out something doesn't work, then how about all those who have trotted out the civil rights struggles along with every other kind of struggle or excuse they have used, and how they have applied all of these to their causes in life, but religious values, conservative thinking, integrity, decency and morals are not the same things when used ? I say it is open territory just like the special interest groups have attached themselves to a cause that doesn't really apply to them or their cause in life, but they saw a very tiny and/or slim opening in the wall, and they took it by annexing the house next door very quickly.  They figure if the get enough houses (minds) occupied (won over or brainwashed) then they win right ?
> 
> It has blindsided many this tactic they have used, but I think people have learned of the tactic now, and they are battling back with their own tactics as well. Hey it's all fair, but some don't want it no way but their way, yet that ain't the way fairness works now is it ? Hey all's fair in love and war right ?
Click to expand...

Not sure we are on the same wave length...what i was inferring was that the phrase "trotting out religion" trivializes the concept of religion...just as using that phrase to modify other important concepts, trivializes them also.  We have been trivializing what made us great since the 60s.  Not the direction to go.


----------



## MaryL

Homosexuality isn't a choice. I have Epilepsy I didn't chose that either. It  brings on a lot of bad side affects. I am not asking  for sympathy. But I am not asking for special privileges, either. I didn't ask for this.  But there isn't anything in the Constitution that  gives me special protections, either. I am so offended by people with weird sexual neuroses that DEMAND special "rights" it is sickening. Really?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> God these assholes are dumb.  One thinks that if walks into his daughter's bedroom and finds her on her knees stripped to her panties, her boyfriend standing over her with his jeans and tighty whiteys at his ankles, and his cock in her mouth that he would react by saying, Oh good, I was worried that you two might be having sex but I can see it's just foreplay so have fun kids.  Morons here, total fucking morons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey House, I don't make these definitions up. Society and nature does. It appears it is my job to educate those that don't know any better.
Click to expand...

You "definition" is that only of horny teenage girls who are "technical virgins".  The rest of us know that a cock in your ass or your mouth means you are having sex.  We, unlike you, have common fucking sense, literally.


----------



## JakeStarkey

80zephyr said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> False statement: "Homosexuality is a presentation of mental disorder, that it is sexual dysfunction is not even remotely debatable."  Of course it is.
> 
> MaryL, whether you buy it or not is immaterial, as are Where r my keys' silly arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> In the world of nature, it most assuredly is a dysfunction. Homosexuality does not lead to reproduction, which leads  life to die out.  Of this, there can be no debate. Mark
Click to expand...

  Mark, same sex attracton occurs in every generation.  Homosexuals are the children of heterosexuals.  Reproduction has nothing to do with marriage equality.  Please, think clearly.


----------



## JakeStarkey

MaryL said:


> Homosexuality isn't a choice. I have Epilepsy I didn't chose that either. It  brings on a lot of bad side affects. I am not asking  for sympathy. But I am not asking for special privileges, either. I didn't ask for this.  But there isn't anything in the Constitution that  gives me special protections, either. I am so offended by people with weird sexual neuroses that DEMAND special "rights" it is sickening. Really?


Once again a false comparison.

Epilepsy has nothing to do with marriage equality.

Marriage equality is the elimination of special privilege for heterosexuals.


----------



## MaryL

I like that, please think clearly...Homosexuality isn't about thinking clearly, is it? It's a sexual neuroses, a dysfunction.  Lets think clearly about thinking  unclearly. George Carlin  and his female wife/cowriter would have a field day with this.


----------



## MaryL

Don't kid your self. Epileptics didn't chose their lives. I can't begin to tell you about  the auras epilepsy brings, the anxiety and the isolation, I am not sure even gays can relate. But life goes on, we are not asking for special rights. You are right, a  sexual neurosis doesn't compare to an actual physical handicap. Not in a million years. And Still,  we aren't asking  for special rights.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Your sense of sexuality, MaryL, is obviously a neuroses with you.

Your epilepsy (my sister and her daughter have it) is not an equivalent in this discussion.  They are not differences of kind but of degree.

You need to think clearly, and that will begin for you with a counselor.

Homosexuality is not a disorder.

Marriage equality ends hetero privilege.

Think clearly.


----------



## JakeStarkey

MaryL's confirmation bias leads to cognitive dissonance.


----------



## MaryL

It's weird about that, isn't it.  Homosexuality is on par with voyeurism or people that eat human excrement. Epilepsy?  Come on now. In theory, we all have the same rights. I respect that, I don't need  extra rights because of...fill in the bloody blank. Let's don't  let this debate get ridiculous. gays are sick sexually. They need help, not  special constitutional rights.


----------



## Katzndogz

MaryL said:


> It's weird about that, isn't it.  Homosexuality is on par with voyeurism or people that eat human excrement. Epilepsy?  Come on now. In theory, we all have the same rights. I respect that, I don't need  extra rights because of...fill in the bloody blank.


Homosexuality is a sexual compulsion just like voyeurism or eating excrement.  Those people don't have a choice either.  That's what makes it a compulsion.


----------



## JakeStarkey

But the experts don't agree with the far right on this Board.

Amazing.  The weirds start taking same sex attraction and these voyeurs start gabbling excitingly about bestiality, group sex, and other behavior that fascinates them.  No connection at all but they do get excited.


----------



## MaryL

Damn. I've  known plenty of gays. Not like I hold myself above folks, but all the lesbians and gays struck me as just messed up neurotic  people with weird sexual fetishes. Not like I was pure as the driven snow.   My mental problems were  driven by a physical issue proven by science to exist, epilepsy. Anxiety and even more anxiety.  Panic attacks, auras caused bright flashing lights. If I could, I would be normal like you hetros or gays. I  take medication for it. I think, 40 or 50 years from now, gays will find  hope in new  medication or psychiatric  help. My brother in law had a sex change, and it seems so weird to me this sexual identity crisis people are having now...it seems so artificial.


----------



## Katzndogz

JakeStarkey said:


> But the experts don't agree with the far right on this Board.
> 
> Amazing.  The weirds start taking same sex attraction and these voyeurs start gabbling excitingly about bestiality, group sex, and other behavior that fascinates them.  No connection at all but they do get excited.


Up until the homosexual activist lobby successfully achieved a political change to the definition of aberrational compulsion it was the same.   It's not like something new was discovered.  There was no psychological breakthrough.   The definition was just changed to be politically correct.


----------



## Coyote

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionary success is not that simplistic and evolutionary success does not necessarily mean the passing on of every individuals genes but can be the successful survival of the group, pack or clan as a whole.  Homosexuality has been showing up at about the same rate through out human history regardless of the level of social tolerance and persecution.  That would indicate that there could be some evolutionary benefit to it or family members.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it's adorable to conclude that there are sufficient records of instances of homosexuality to know anything meaningful about what rates have been at any particular place or time... because such is not the case.
> 
> There is little doubt that such serve a purpose and that the purpose is to discourage whatever defect is present in the relevant homosexual from being passed on, to the extent that is possible.
Click to expand...


If a supposed "defect" continously crops up then you need to entertain the thought that there might be some evolutionary benefit to some aspect of it.  Did you miss the part about how homosexuals do have children?



> Some theories hold that such homosexuality spikes during societal instability where competition for sexual mates is higher... others that it acts as a harbinger of population stress; which certainly serves reason.



Link?



> Of course, where such is the case, normalizing such would be as foolish as carrying dead canaries into the mine, so as to show support for the dead canaries that are already down there.
> 
> There literally is no potential justification to normalize abnormality of any kind.  As such is the personification of foolish.



We do it all the time (except for eugenicists).  Why make a special exception for homosexuality?


----------



## Coyote

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Different" does not equal "disordered" or even "abnormal" since a certain amount of deviation is normal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It literally does, when the subject is the standard of order.  Where such deviates or 'differs' from the standard, different equals disorder.
Click to expand...


"Standards" are subjective.  Deviations are can be evolutionary.  Sickle cell anemia is a "deviation" from the "normal" in countries where malaria doesn't exist.  In areas where malaria is endemic sickle cell in it's hetorozygous state offers survival benefits and could be the "normal".


----------



## Coyote

Tipsycatlover said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the experts don't agree with the far right on this Board.
> 
> Amazing.  The weirds start taking same sex attraction and these voyeurs start gabbling excitingly about bestiality, group sex, and other behavior that fascinates them.  No connection at all but they do get excited.
> 
> 
> 
> Up until the homosexual activist lobby successfully achieved a political change to the definition of aberrational compulsion it was the same.   It's not like something new was discovered.  There was no psychological breakthrough.   The definition was just changed to be politically correct.
Click to expand...


So equality is now percieved to be "political correctness".  That's rich


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Different" does not equal "disordered" or even "abnormal" since a certain amount of deviation is normal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It literally does, when the subject is the standard of order.  Where such deviates or 'differs' from the standard, different equals disorder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Standards" are subjective.
Click to expand...


Standards are objective.  In that they require everyone to rise to them.



> Deviations are can be evolutionary.



Nope... There's no such thing as human evolution.  I know you feel that there is, but in truth there hasn't been a single alteration to humanity since we got here.



> Sickle cell anemia is a "deviation" from the "normal" in countries where malaria doesn't exist.


  Sickle cell is a disease... All disease creates abnormality.  It's sorta the downside to disease... very few people advocate for normalizing them.


----------



## MaryL

Nobody dares going into this: Were in the Constitution is Sexuality made an issue? Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Rather vague. IF our founding fathers made sexual preference an issue, I would support homosexual/gay "rights". I am not buying this "equal rights for gays" stuff. It  isn't in the stars. Besides,  we all have the same rights, either way.


----------



## Conservative65

Howey said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  It's not the findings but what you want to make them say.  Just look at the global warming issue. Two distinct sides on the same thing based on research both claim to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't Global Warming we're talking about.  So far you have not refuted any of these studies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  How many have sued claiming they were fired because they were gay.  It's the automatica assumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't you answer a question or  provide examples?  We aren't talking about people being fired because they were gay (people have sued about being fired because they were black, Christian, female, disabled - so what?).  You said sued becaues people said something about them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  It shows you use something that happens once in how many thousands of cases as if it is a regular occurrence.
> 
> 4.  Tebow actually accomplished something before he Tebowed on the field.  The media made Michael Sam a hero without ever having stepped foot on an NFL field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Michael Sam had a good Highschool career, good enough to get multiple scholarships.  So he accomplished something.  But beyond that - he and Tebow are the same because the media made them heros NOT because of accomplishment.  Do you get it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  Difference is free exercise of religion is written in the Constitution where the word marriage doesn't.  Different even if you are too fucking stupid to realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal Protection IS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, those same ones you say argue equality are the first ones to deny equality to certain types of marriages they oppose.  Just suggest polygamy and theyll find all sorts of personal reasons for situations that don't affect them to say it shouldn't happen.  To them I respond, if you don't want to marry more than one person don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sure about that?
> 
> I don't care one way or the other about polygamy.  If consenting adults choose that - so be it.  It's their right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  It is about science and how different conlcusions can come from the same research.
> 
> People Are Not Born Gay Affirms Royal College of Psychiatrists
> 
> 2.  Gay West New York cop claims in lawsuit he was harassed intimidated by police director NJ.com
> 
> 4.   Tebow's action of praying got media attention.  However, had he not scored a toughdown, etc. there would have been no attention because he wouldn't have Tebowed.  For Sam, the attention came before ever stepping foot on an NFL field.  Tebow also had high school accomplishments.  You don't start at Florida and win the Heisman if you don't.
> 
> 5.  Define equal.  It doens't mean you get to do exactly the same things I do or vice versa.
> 
> Just ask them about polygamy or a sibling marriage.  They are quicker to say no to it coming up with why equality should be denied than they are about bending over and taking one in the ass for the homos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It's truly unlikely that anyone is born gay... if such were the case, it would have a genetic component and there despite massive efforts to find such; with such literally being responsible for a large percentage of all genetic research, there simply is no genetic component to Sexual Abnormality.*
> 
> Such is the result of early molestations, wherein adults of the same gender 'play' sex games with infants and toddlers, prematurely stimulating sexual response, thus imprinting, or 'training' he individual toward sexual arousal toward members of that initiating gender.
> 
> Which means that normalizing such can only result in a massive increase in the instances of such, which in terms of reason follows the historical reality that the cultural acceptance of homosexuality has never failed to precede, in short order, collapse of that culture.  As such cripples the human spirit, causing understandable shame, just recognition of individual inferiority and it's mighty hard to defend a nation with a group of catty, self loathing spiritual cripples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care to comment on the rest of the dribble you posted (wipe that cum off your mouth, mkay?) I'll just comment on the bolded part of the above.
> 
> Our level of knowledge of the human psyche is at best, at a stone-age level. We have only a miniscule knowlege of human physiology, DNA, and genomes. Right now we're comparable to two monkeys trying to start a fire.
> 
> You, I, nobody, has any idea what makes one homosexual.
Click to expand...

You're sucking dick.  That's why you can't reply freak.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the experts don't agree with the far right on this Board.
> 
> Amazing.  The weirds start taking same sex attraction and these voyeurs start gabbling excitingly about bestiality, group sex, and other behavior that fascinates them.  No connection at all but they do get excited.
> 
> 
> 
> Up until the homosexual activist lobby successfully achieved a political change to the definition of aberrational compulsion it was the same.   It's not like something new was discovered.  There was no psychological breakthrough.   The definition was just changed to be politically correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So equality is now percieved to be "political correctness".  That's rich
Click to expand...


Equality is only before God, OKA: The Law.  And there is nothing about Homosexuals which sets them inferior or superior to anyone, before the law.

What you're advocating, is for Homosexuals to be superior before the law. 

It's the typical Leftist advocacy and perfectly understandable, given that Left-think is an inferior species of reasoning, thus absent deceit and fraudulence, manifested in law as abuse of power... the Ideological Left does not exist.


----------



## Conservative65

g5000 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the point a person is attracted to the same gender, it's abnormal.
> 
> 
> 
> So?
Click to expand...


That's your reply?  Must be one of them.


----------



## Conservative65

g5000 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here.  I will link to the Royal College of Psychiatrists for you: http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/PS02_2014.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The College wishes to clarify that homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.  I wonder why the anti-gay site didn't mention that!  Hmmm...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Communism is responsible for the murder of 150 million innocent people in the mid-20th century."
> 
> This fact is found on any number of anti-communist sites... and that doesn't make it less than truth, thus something other than a fact.
> 
> But hey... there's no way for you to have known that.  Such requires one posses the means to reason... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was one of the worst red herrings I have ever seen!  BWA-HA-HA-HA!
> 
> The anti-gay site used the Royal College as their "evidence" of their claims.  The problem  you refuse to see is that they lied about the findings of the Royal College.  Simple fact.  They completely misrepresented what the psychiatrists found.  Simple fact.
> 
> And now you are attempting to defend a lying web site.
Click to expand...

Now you attempt to discount it because you don't like what it said.  Typical faggot or faggot lover.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you the same Coyote I've come to know and love?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> umh....maybe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you'll remember I have some close gay friends who I highly respect. You and I discussed them at length on other forums.  It isn't gay people I have a problem with, it's the assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet here you are- in every thread- complaining about all homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Just the faggots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> F*ggot- N*gger- C*nt- K*ke
> 
> All words used by bigots in the same way for the same purpose.
> 
> And bigots always rationalize why its okay that they use any of these words.
> 
> But we all know why they use them- they use them to attempt to hurt others.
Click to expand...

You make any interesting New Years resolutions?


----------



## Conservative65

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> God these assholes are dumb.  One thinks that if walks into his daughter's bedroom and finds her on her knees stripped to her panties, her boyfriend standing over her with his jeans and tighty whiteys at his ankles, and his cock in her mouth that he would react by saying, Oh good, I was worried that you two might be having sex but I can see it's just foreplay so have fun kids.  Morons here, total fucking morons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey House, I don't make these definitions up. Society and nature does. It appears it is my job to educate those that don't know any better.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

House, like most of his kind can't be educated.


----------



## Coyote

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Different" does not equal "disordered" or even "abnormal" since a certain amount of deviation is normal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It literally does, when the subject is the standard of order.  Where such deviates or 'differs' from the standard, different equals disorder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Standards" are subjective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Standards are objective.  In that they require everyone to rise to them.
Click to expand...


I have my standards dude.  Is that objective enough?




> Deviations are can be evolutionary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope... There's no such thing as human evolution.  I know you feel that there is, but in truth there hasn't been a single alteration to humanity since we got here.
Click to expand...


mmmh...pubes hon...yes...there has been.  Cycle cell is one example...an evolutionary adaptation to malaria.



> Sickle cell anemia is a "deviation" from the "normal" in countries where malaria doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Sickle cell is a disease... All disease creates abnormality.  It's sorta the downside to disease... very few people advocate for normalizing them.
Click to expand...

[/quote]

It's a genetic mutation.  It only becomes a "disease" when it ceases to be beneficial.  It's actually not a problem unless it's homozygous.  In areas where malaria is endemic, it offers a survival factor.  True story


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> umh....maybe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you'll remember I have some close gay friends who I highly respect. You and I discussed them at length on other forums.  It isn't gay people I have a problem with, it's the assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet here you are- in every thread- complaining about all homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Just the faggots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> F*ggot- N*gger- C*nt- K*ke
> 
> All words used by bigots in the same way for the same purpose.
> 
> And bigots always rationalize why its okay that they use any of these words.
> 
> But we all know why they use them- they use them to attempt to hurt others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make any interesting New Years resolutions?
Click to expand...


Yes, I am resolved to stop being nice to evil.


----------



## Conservative65

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> God these assholes are dumb.  One thinks that if walks into his daughter's bedroom and finds her on her knees stripped to her panties, her boyfriend standing over her with his jeans and tighty whiteys at his ankles, and his cock in her mouth that he would react by saying, Oh good, I was worried that you two might be having sex but I can see it's just foreplay so have fun kids.  Morons here, total fucking morons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey House, I don't make these definitions up. Society and nature does. It appears it is my job to educate those that don't know any better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You "definition" is that only of horny teenage girls who are "technical virgins".  The rest of us know that a cock in your ass or your mouth means you are having sex.  We, unlike you, have common fucking sense, literally.
Click to expand...

Not according to Bill Clinton.


----------



## Coyote

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the experts don't agree with the far right on this Board.
> 
> Amazing.  The weirds start taking same sex attraction and these voyeurs start gabbling excitingly about bestiality, group sex, and other behavior that fascinates them.  No connection at all but they do get excited.
> 
> 
> 
> Up until the homosexual activist lobby successfully achieved a political change to the definition of aberrational compulsion it was the same.   It's not like something new was discovered.  There was no psychological breakthrough.   The definition was just changed to be politically correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So equality is now percieved to be "political correctness".  That's rich
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equality is only before God, OKA: The Law.  And there is nothing about Homosexuals which sets them inferior or superior to anyone, before the law.
Click to expand...


Well cool - then same sex marriage isn't an issue.



> What you're advocating, is for Homosexuals to be superior before the law.



Not at all.



> It's the typical Leftist advocacy and perfectly understandable, given that Left-think is an inferior species of reasoning, thus absent deceit and fraudulence, manifested in law as abuse of power... the Ideological Left does not exist.



You've already indicated you don't know too much about species.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Different" does not equal "disordered" or even "abnormal" since a certain amount of deviation is normal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It literally does, when the subject is the standard of order.  Where such deviates or 'differs' from the standard, different equals disorder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Standards" are subjective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Standards are objective.  In that they require everyone to rise to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have my standards dude.  Is that objective enough?
Click to expand...

You have no standards... you're a relativist.  Thus we can rest assured that your life is one long string of rationalizations.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> Well cool - then same sex marriage isn't an issue.



Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.


----------



## Coyote

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you'll remember I have some close gay friends who I highly respect. You and I discussed them at length on other forums.  It isn't gay people I have a problem with, it's the assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet here you are- in every thread- complaining about all homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Just the faggots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> F*ggot- N*gger- C*nt- K*ke
> 
> All words used by bigots in the same way for the same purpose.
> 
> And bigots always rationalize why its okay that they use any of these words.
> 
> But we all know why they use them- they use them to attempt to hurt others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make any interesting New Years resolutions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I am resolved to stop being nice to evil.
Click to expand...


You've already failed.  I suggest a new resolution.  Resolution specialists recommend making them goal oriented and specific rather broad and general.  For example - you could resolve to stop giving twinkies to individuals who exhibit distinct evil characteristics like maniacal laughter, squinty eyes and dazzling (unatural) teeth that suggest a lot of money spent on dentistry.  That would be specific and achievable.


----------



## Coyote

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Different" does not equal "disordered" or even "abnormal" since a certain amount of deviation is normal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It literally does, when the subject is the standard of order.  Where such deviates or 'differs' from the standard, different equals disorder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Standards" are subjective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Standards are objective.  In that they require everyone to rise to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have my standards dude.  Is that objective enough?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no standards... you're a relativist.  Thus we can rest assured that your life is one long string of rationalizations.
Click to expand...


You think pubes?  Nah.  There are lines where right is right and wrong is wrong.  You haven't crossed them yet.


----------



## Coyote

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well cool - then same sex marriage isn't an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...


According to what?


----------



## MaryL

Anyone think posting  "link" is  proves anything? Get a life. The proof is experience. Living a full life and having  wide range of experiences. Gays are nice folks, in general. But I don't understand this push for rights for them, I really don't. Tell me why? This is about a general consensus, there isn't any right or wrong. I just don't understand  this rationalizing  irrational sexual behavior. They are never gonna have children, why this PUSH for marriage equality? Why? I just am not buying it. I don't understand it.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> You've already failed.



Well that's so sweet of ya.  

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.


----------



## Coyote

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've already failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's so sweet of ya.
> 
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
Click to expand...


No twinkies then?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well cool - then same sex marriage isn't an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to what?
Click to expand...


According nature, as demonstrated in the human physiological design.


----------



## Coyote

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well cool - then same sex marriage isn't an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According nature, as demonstrated in the human physiological design.
Click to expand...


Nature and the human physiological design can accomodate multiple partners in a relationship so the one woman/one man schtick is bunk.


----------



## guno

MaryL said:


> Damn. I've  known plenty of gays. Not like I hold myself above folks, but all the lesbians and gays struck me as just messed up neurotic  people with weird sexual fetishes. Not like I was pure as the driven snow.   My mental problems were  driven by a physical issue proven by science to exist, epilepsy. Anxiety and even more anxiety.  Panic attacks, auras caused bright flashing lights. If I could, I would be normal like you hetros or gays. I  take medication for it. I think, 40 or 50 years from now, gays will find  hope in new  medication or psychiatric  help. My brother in law had a sex change, and it seems so weird to me this sexual identity crisis people are having now...it seems so artificial.



speaking of real mental illness and a cure coming forth 

An Oxford University researcher and author specializing in neuroscience has suggested that one day religious fundamentalism may be treated as a curable mental illness.

*Kathleen Taylor, Neuroscientist, Says Religious Fundamentalism Could Be Treated As A Mental Illness



Kathleen Taylor Neuroscientist Says Religious Fundamentalism Could Be Treated As A Mental Illness*


----------



## MaryL

Convince me why gays NEED marriage equality. Anyone? You do that, I buy you a cup of coffee.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've already failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's so sweet of ya.
> 
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No twinkies then?
Click to expand...


That's your call. IF you change your mind, they go on the shelf... but at that point the clock starts tickin'...  and you've got to go sometime in the next thousand years.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet here you are- in every thread- complaining about all homosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Just the faggots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> F*ggot- N*gger- C*nt- K*ke
> 
> All words used by bigots in the same way for the same purpose.
> 
> And bigots always rationalize why its okay that they use any of these words.
> 
> But we all know why they use them- they use them to attempt to hurt others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make any interesting New Years resolutions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I am resolved to stop being nice to evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've already failed.  I suggest a new resolution.  Resolution specialists recommend making them goal oriented and specific rather broad and general.  For example - you could resolve to stop giving twinkies to individuals who exhibit distinct evil characteristics like maniacal laughter, squinty eyes and dazzling (unatural) teeth that suggest a lot of money spent on dentistry.  That would be specific and achievable.
Click to expand...

They also suggest not choosing something you failed at before. For me that would be weight loss. I could choose a no fail resolution like I resolve to stay away from Budapest or Bankok or anything else starting with a B but...oh damn, that would include Boise. I really suck at this.


----------



## Coyote

MaryL said:


> Convince me why gays NEED marriage equality. Anyone? You do that, I buy you a cup of coffee.


You married?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Doesn't matter what the anti-marriage equality crowd, believe, think, or pray for.  Their confirmation bias and associated group cognitive dissonance will not stave off the embedding of marriage equality nationally and locally in a short time, and it will not stave off their children from chiding them, "Quit being goobers.  If you are right about it, God will take care of it, because you have shown you can't."


----------



## Coyote

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've already failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's so sweet of ya.
> 
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No twinkies then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's your call. IF you change your mind, they go on the shelf... but at that point the clock starts tickin'...  and you've got to go sometime in the next thousand years.
Click to expand...


Twinkies never decay.  Just remember that.


----------



## Conservative65

JakeStarkey said:


> Doesn't matter what the anti-marriage equality crowd, believe, think, or pray for.  Their confirmation bias and associated group cognitive dissonance will not stave off the embedding of marriage equality nationally and locally in a short time, and it will not stave off their children from chiding them, "Quit being goobers.  If you are right about it, God will take care of it, because you have shown you can't."


My children applaude my stance that faggots are abnormal.


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Just the faggots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> F*ggot- N*gger- C*nt- K*ke
> 
> All words used by bigots in the same way for the same purpose.
> 
> And bigots always rationalize why its okay that they use any of these words.
> 
> But we all know why they use them- they use them to attempt to hurt others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make any interesting New Years resolutions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I am resolved to stop being nice to evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've already failed.  I suggest a new resolution.  Resolution specialists recommend making them goal oriented and specific rather broad and general.  For example - you could resolve to stop giving twinkies to individuals who exhibit distinct evil characteristics like maniacal laughter, squinty eyes and dazzling (unatural) teeth that suggest a lot of money spent on dentistry.  That would be specific and achievable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *They also suggest not choosing something you failed at before.* For me that would be weight loss. I could choose a no fail resolution like I resolve to stay away from Budapest or Bankok or anything else starting with a B but...oh damn, that would include Boise. I really suck at this.
Click to expand...

Well...that might explain a lot....

2010
1.  No chocolate

2011
1. No chocolate

2012
1. No chocolate

2013
1. No chocolate

2014
1. No chocolate

2015
1. No chocolate
1. Some chocolate


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> It literally does, when the subject is the standard of order.  Where such deviates or 'differs' from the standard, different equals disorder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Standards" are subjective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Standards are objective.  In that they require everyone to rise to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have my standards dude.  Is that objective enough?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no standards... you're a relativist.  Thus we can rest assured that your life is one long string of rationalizations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think pubes?  Nah.  There are lines where right is right and wrong is wrong.  You haven't crossed them yet.
Click to expand...


Pubes?  Not nice. Am I amiss for expecting more from a senior moderator, especially when keys asked you not to call him that? I know you can be better than that and I have faith in you to do the right thing.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> F*ggot- N*gger- C*nt- K*ke
> 
> All words used by bigots in the same way for the same purpose.
> 
> And bigots always rationalize why its okay that they use any of these words.
> 
> But we all know why they use them- they use them to attempt to hurt others.
> 
> 
> 
> You make any interesting New Years resolutions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I am resolved to stop being nice to evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've already failed.  I suggest a new resolution.  Resolution specialists recommend making them goal oriented and specific rather broad and general.  For example - you could resolve to stop giving twinkies to individuals who exhibit distinct evil characteristics like maniacal laughter, squinty eyes and dazzling (unatural) teeth that suggest a lot of money spent on dentistry.  That would be specific and achievable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *They also suggest not choosing something you failed at before.* For me that would be weight loss. I could choose a no fail resolution like I resolve to stay away from Budapest or Bankok or anything else starting with a B but...oh damn, that would include Boise. I really suck at this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well...that might explain a lot....
> 
> 2010
> 1.  No chocolate
> 
> 2011
> 1. No chocolate
> 
> 2012
> 1. No chocolate
> 
> 2013
> 1. No chocolate
> 
> 2014
> 1. No chocolate
> 
> 2015
> 1. No chocolate
> 1. Some chocolate
Click to expand...

LOLOL!!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well cool - then same sex marriage isn't an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According nature, as demonstrated in the human physiological design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nature and the human physiological design can accomodate multiple partners in a relationship so the one woman/one man schtick is bunk.
Click to expand...


Can it?  But part and parcel of that design is the means to reason soundly... which precludes multiple partners, due to the inherent instability... .

Ya see scamp the biological imperative requires human propagation... part and parcel of that is viability.  As nature is not served if propagation leads to the destruction of the species. 

Again this is all incredibly simple stuff, yet it seems to be well beyond your limited intellectual means.

Why do you suppose that is?

Now I know ya didn't ask... but I am going to suggest that it's because you have succumbed to the destruction species of reasoning known as Relativism. 

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.

It is through this deviation in reason that relativism axiomatically rejects the *objectivity* which is essential to truth.  

And THAT is why you're incapable of recognizing truth, and its why ya fail to serve justice and why, every human in human history which has ever been infected with such, fails... and why ever culture in human history that has accepted such people... failed.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Standards" are subjective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standards are objective.  In that they require everyone to rise to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have my standards dude.  Is that objective enough?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no standards... you're a relativist.  Thus we can rest assured that your life is one long string of rationalizations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think pubes?  Nah.  There are lines where right is right and wrong is wrong.  You haven't crossed them yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pubes?  Not nice. Am I amiss for expecting more from a senior moderator, especially when keys asked you not to call him that? I know you can be better than that and I have faith in you to do the right thing.
Click to expand...


Yes... this individual is intent on pressing these chronic sexual assaults. 


Relativists...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Bet they don't, bet they say, "what is it to you, silly git."


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've already failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's so sweet of ya.
> 
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No twinkies then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's your call. IF you change your mind, they go on the shelf... but at that point the clock starts tickin'...  and you've got to go sometime in the next thousand years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twinkies never decay.  Just remember that.
Click to expand...


Seems a little optimistic... I say you're good to go for a thousand years.  I'd be cautious after that.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

MaryL said:


> Anyone think posting  "link" is  proves anything? Get a life. The proof is experience. Living a full life and having  wide range of experiences. Gays are nice folks, in general. But I don't understand this push for rights for them, I really don't. Tell me why? This is about a general consensus, there isn't any right or wrong. I just don't understand  this rationalizing  irrational sexual behavior. They are never gonna have children, why this PUSH for marriage equality? Why? I just am not buying it. I don't understand it.


Suffice to say, there are some very decent gays who aren't pushy assholes. I know, two of them are dear friends of mine. It's a tragedy that the faggots have become the face of gay people, but that's how life is.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

The company that makes twinkies is out of business. Good riddance.


----------



## Coyote

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well cool - then same sex marriage isn't an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According nature, as demonstrated in the human physiological design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nature and the human physiological design can accomodate multiple partners in a relationship so the one woman/one man schtick is bunk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can it?  But part and parcel of that design is the means to reason soundly... which precludes multiple partners, due to the inherent instability... .
> 
> Ya see scamp the biological imperative requires human propagation... part and parcel of that is viability.  As nature is not served if propagation leads to the destruction of the species.
> 
> Again this is all incredibly simple stuff, yet it seems to be well beyond your limited intellectual means.
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well cool - then same sex marriage isn't an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According nature, as demonstrated in the human physiological design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nature and the human physiological design can accomodate multiple partners in a relationship so the one woman/one man schtick is bunk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can it?  But part and parcel of that design is the means to reason soundly... which precludes multiple partners, due to the inherent instability... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "inherent instability"?  It's a design that worked well for eons whether codified in marriage or tacitly accepted with mistresses.  One man/one woman as the only norm is a relatively recent phenomenum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya see scamp the *biological imperative requires human propagation*... part and parcel of that is viability.  As nature is not served if propagation leads to the destruction of the species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but dang it scooter - there's that pesky "reasoning" schtick that has allowed us to take relationships beyond mere propagation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again this is all incredibly simple stuff, yet it seems to be well beyond your limited intellectual means.
> 
> Why do you suppose that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want a guess?  Poor presentation of material indicating an inadequate grasp of human history.  Just a thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I know ya didn't ask... but I am going to suggest that it's because you have succumbed to the destruction species of reasoning known as Relativism.
> 
> *Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.*
> 
> It is through this deviation in reason that relativism axiomatically rejects the *objectivity* which is essential to truth.
> 
> And THAT is why you're incapable of recognizing truth, and its why ya fail to serve justice and why, every human in human history which has ever been infected with such, fails... and why ever culture in human history that has accepted such people... failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no "objectivity".  We all view "truth" through the lense of our own personal experiences.
> 
> You can have relativism and absolutes both.  Some truths are absolute and seem to span religions/cultures.  Others are relative.
Click to expand...


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> The company that makes twinkies is out of business. Good riddance.



no way.....


----------



## MaryL

Anyone here that that can prove that homosexuals NEED to get married, I will buy you a GOOD  cup coffee, you name it. Really.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> The company that makes twinkies is out of business. Good riddance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no way.....
Click to expand...

Hostess is gone....happened a couple of years ago.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> F*ggot- N*gger- C*nt- K*ke
> 
> All words used by bigots in the same way for the same purpose.
> 
> And bigots always rationalize why its okay that they use any of these words.
> 
> But we all know why they use them- they use them to attempt to hurt others.
> 
> 
> 
> You make any interesting New Years resolutions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I am resolved to stop being nice to evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've already failed.  I suggest a new resolution.  Resolution specialists recommend making them goal oriented and specific rather broad and general.  For example - you could resolve to stop giving twinkies to individuals who exhibit distinct evil characteristics like maniacal laughter, squinty eyes and dazzling (unatural) teeth that suggest a lot of money spent on dentistry.  That would be specific and achievable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *They also suggest not choosing something you failed at before.* For me that would be weight loss. I could choose a no fail resolution like I resolve to stay away from Budapest or Bankok or anything else starting with a B but...oh damn, that would include Boise. I really suck at this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well...that might explain a lot....
> 
> 2010
> 1.  No chocolate
> 
> 2011
> 1. No chocolate
> 
> 2012
> 1. No chocolate
> 
> 2013
> 1. No chocolate
> 
> 2014
> 1. No chocolate
> 
> 2015
> 1. No chocolate
> 1. Some chocolate
Click to expand...


LOL!  I too am defenseless in the presence of the Lots of Choco... .  In my house, there has never been anything which could fairly be called: Old Chocolate.

But ... alas, as the body begins its return to dust, one of the things that has come my way is a thing called 'The Gout'.  Sweets and Rare red meat are said to be instigators of attack and while over the last few years I suffered some attacks which I felt were 'serious'... 6 months ago I had one that lasted a month and it was among the most painful things I've ever come across.  I thought my toe was literally going to split open.

So I spent the last 6 months sans my old pal, chocolate.

Now... I got through Thanksgiving, no problem... but as Christmas came along, I've succumbed any number of times... the most recent being this very evening wherein I polished off the other half of the gooey brownies my wife is famous for. 

So I feel your chocolate pain... and struggle with the desire to not eat it all, NOW!

But let's be honest... its CHOCOLATE MAN!


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

High cacao content chocolate is health food. Indulge.


----------



## Coyote

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make any interesting New Years resolutions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I am resolved to stop being nice to evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've already failed.  I suggest a new resolution.  Resolution specialists recommend making them goal oriented and specific rather broad and general.  For example - you could resolve to stop giving twinkies to individuals who exhibit distinct evil characteristics like maniacal laughter, squinty eyes and dazzling (unatural) teeth that suggest a lot of money spent on dentistry.  That would be specific and achievable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *They also suggest not choosing something you failed at before.* For me that would be weight loss. I could choose a no fail resolution like I resolve to stay away from Budapest or Bankok or anything else starting with a B but...oh damn, that would include Boise. I really suck at this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well...that might explain a lot....
> 
> 2010
> 1.  No chocolate
> 
> 2011
> 1. No chocolate
> 
> 2012
> 1. No chocolate
> 
> 2013
> 1. No chocolate
> 
> 2014
> 1. No chocolate
> 
> 2015
> 1. No chocolate
> 1. Some chocolate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  I too am defenseless in the presence of the Lots of Choco... .  In my house, there has never been anything which could fairly be called: Old Chocolate.
> 
> But ... alas, as the body begins to return to dust, one of the things that has come my way is a thing called 'The Gout'.  Sweets and Rare red meat are said to be instigators of attack and while over the last few years I suffered some attacks which I felt were 'serious'... 6 months ago I had one that lasted a month and it was among the most painful things I've ever come across.  I thought my toe was literally going to split open.
> 
> So I spent the last 6 months sans my old pal, chocolate.
> 
> Now... I got through Thanksgiving, no problem... but as Christmas came along, I've succumbed any number of times... the most recent being this very evening wherein I polished off the other half of the gooey brownies my wife is famous for.
> 
> So I feel your chocolate pain... and struggle with the desire to not eat it all, NOW!
> 
> But let's be honest... its CHOCOLATE MAN!
Click to expand...


I feel for you heartfelt...I've consumed the last Cadbury chocolate from Christmas...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

MaryL said:


> Anyone here that that can prove that homosexuals NEED to get married, I will buy you a GOOD  cup coffee, you name it. Really.



Don't hold your breath... 

The purpose of the demand for marriage is that with marriage come legitimacy... what they don't understand is that legitimacy comes as a result of the standard that defines it.  Therefore, they're chasing something that can't be had until THEY turn from that which renders them illegitimate. 

It's some fairly sad stuff... but insanity has always been sad.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I am resolved to stop being nice to evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've already failed.  I suggest a new resolution.  Resolution specialists recommend making them goal oriented and specific rather broad and general.  For example - you could resolve to stop giving twinkies to individuals who exhibit distinct evil characteristics like maniacal laughter, squinty eyes and dazzling (unatural) teeth that suggest a lot of money spent on dentistry.  That would be specific and achievable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *They also suggest not choosing something you failed at before.* For me that would be weight loss. I could choose a no fail resolution like I resolve to stay away from Budapest or Bankok or anything else starting with a B but...oh damn, that would include Boise. I really suck at this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well...that might explain a lot....
> 
> 2010
> 1.  No chocolate
> 
> 2011
> 1. No chocolate
> 
> 2012
> 1. No chocolate
> 
> 2013
> 1. No chocolate
> 
> 2014
> 1. No chocolate
> 
> 2015
> 1. No chocolate
> 1. Some chocolate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  I too am defenseless in the presence of the Lots of Choco... .  In my house, there has never been anything which could fairly be called: Old Chocolate.
> 
> But ... alas, as the body begins to return to dust, one of the things that has come my way is a thing called 'The Gout'.  Sweets and Rare red meat are said to be instigators of attack and while over the last few years I suffered some attacks which I felt were 'serious'... 6 months ago I had one that lasted a month and it was among the most painful things I've ever come across.  I thought my toe was literally going to split open.
> 
> So I spent the last 6 months sans my old pal, chocolate.
> 
> Now... I got through Thanksgiving, no problem... but as Christmas came along, I've succumbed any number of times... the most recent being this very evening wherein I polished off the other half of the gooey brownies my wife is famous for.
> 
> So I feel your chocolate pain... and struggle with the desire to not eat it all, NOW!
> 
> But let's be honest... its CHOCOLATE MAN!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I feel for you heartfelt...I've consumed the last Cadbury chocolate from Christmas...
Click to expand...


OH GOD!  I LOVE CADBURY... I've eaten myself sick on their dam' eggs MANY TIMES.  They're so good its wicked.

Sadly... I'm out of the cadbury game.  I hope it doesn't upset their holdings... but, it might.  I was HUGE in Cadbury.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone here that that can prove that homosexuals NEED to get married, I will buy you a GOOD  cup coffee, you name it. Really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't hold your breath...
> 
> The purpose of the demand for marriage is that with marriage come legitimacy... what they don't understand is that legitimacy comes as a result of the standard that defines it.  Therefore, they're chasing something that can't be had until THEY turn from that which renders them illegitimate.
> 
> It's some fairly sad stuff... but insanity has always been sad.
Click to expand...

And they're willing to settle for appearances, because real marriage cannot be redefined. Gay couple can play house and delude themselves, but they can never marry for real. The Bible refers to this as "strong delusions". They forget that marriage is ordained by God and is not up for personal interpretation.


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Suffice to say, there are some very decent gays who aren't pushy assholes. I know, two of them are dear friends of mine. It's a tragedy that the faggots have become the face of gay people, but that's how life is.



Your standard for a 'pushy asshole' is any gay or lesbian who doesn't 'sit down and shut the fuck up'. Which isn't a particularly compelling standard.

You're a far greater threat to the rights of gays, then gays are a threat to your rights.


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone here that that can prove that homosexuals NEED to get married, I will buy you a GOOD  cup coffee, you name it. Really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't hold your breath...
> 
> The purpose of the demand for marriage is that with marriage come legitimacy... what they don't understand is that legitimacy comes as a result of the standard that defines it.  Therefore, they're chasing something that can't be had until THEY turn from that which renders them illegitimate.
> 
> It's some fairly sad stuff... but insanity has always been sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they're willing to settle for appearances, because real marriage cannot be redefined. Gay couple can play house and delude themselves, but they can never marry for real. The Bible refers to this as "strong delusions". They forget that marriage is ordained by God and is not up for personal interpretation.
Click to expand...


Unless we don't accept your personal religious beliefs as defining marriage. Once again, your argument only works if we already agree with you. If we don't, you've got no rational, logical, or evidentiary basis for your argument. And our law doesn't use your religious beliefs as its basis.

Meanwhile, gays and lesbians will continue to marry every day. And the number of states in which gay marriage is recognized continues to rise. 

Get used to the idea.


----------



## Skylar

MaryL said:


> Anyone think posting  "link" is  proves anything? Get a life. The proof is experience. Living a full life and having  wide range of experiences. Gays are nice folks, in general. But I don't understand this push for rights for them, I really don't. Tell me why?



Because marriage brings with it a variety of tangible benefits, rights, priveledges and immunities. Gays and lesbians want access to that package of benefits. 

A better question would be, why would we deny them their rights? There's certainly no rational reason to exclude them from marriage. There's no state interest served. Marriage benefits gays and the children of gays. And it costs society nothing.

So.....why wouldn't we?


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Different" does not equal "disordered" or even "abnormal" since a certain amount of deviation is normal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It literally does, when the subject is the standard of order.  Where such deviates or 'differs' from the standard, different equals disorder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Standards" are subjective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Standards are objective.  In that they require everyone to rise to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have my standards dude.  Is that objective enough?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no standards... you're a relativist.  Thus we can rest assured that your life is one long string of rationalizations.
Click to expand...


The obvious problem with your reasoning being......your a relativist too. You summarily ignore any portion of the bible you don't like, interpret around anything you don't want to do based on your own moral reasoning. When you can tell God to go fuck himself on any commandment you don't want to follow via the magic of subjective interpretation, you can hardly claim to have an objective belief system.

Religion is subject to personal context, history, society, culture, and opinion. And faith is intimately and inescapably subjective.


----------



## Unkotare

MaryL said:


> Anyone think posting  "link" is  proves anything? Get a life. The proof is experience. Living a full life and having  wide range of experiences. ...




Here we go again...Princess Illogic showing her ass again...


----------



## 80zephyr

JakeStarkey said:


> And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation.  It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.



Now that depends. Every other generation didn't celebrate it.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> God these assholes are dumb.  One thinks that if walks into his daughter's bedroom and finds her on her knees stripped to her panties, her boyfriend standing over her with his jeans and tighty whiteys at his ankles, and his cock in her mouth that he would react by saying, Oh good, I was worried that you two might be having sex but I can see it's just foreplay so have fun kids.  Morons here, total fucking morons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey House, I don't make these definitions up. Society and nature does. It appears it is my job to educate those that don't know any better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You "definition" is that only of horny teenage girls who are "technical virgins".  The rest of us know that a cock in your ass or your mouth means you are having sex.  We, unlike you, have common fucking sense, literally.
Click to expand...


Well, your "common sense" is not sex. Sorry if that upsets you.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

JakeStarkey said:


> But the experts don't agree with the far right on this Board.
> 
> Amazing.  The weirds start taking same sex attraction and these voyeurs start gabbling excitingly about bestiality, group sex, and other behavior that fascinates them.  No connection at all but they do get excited.



Bullshit. The APA is discussing classifying pedophilia in the same way they do homosexuality. If you all were truthful, you would understand that any sexual proclivity can(and should be if applied fairly) be classified exactly as homosexuality is. One sexual deviancy is really no different than another.

Mark


----------



## Agit8r

The OP doth protest too much, methinks.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> God these assholes are dumb.  One thinks that if walks into his daughter's bedroom and finds her on her knees stripped to her panties, her boyfriend standing over her with his jeans and tighty whiteys at his ankles, and his cock in her mouth that he would react by saying, Oh good, I was worried that you two might be having sex but I can see it's just foreplay so have fun kids.  Morons here, total fucking morons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey House, I don't make these definitions up. Society and nature does. It appears it is my job to educate those that don't know any better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You "definition" is that only of horny teenage girls who are "technical virgins".  The rest of us know that a cock in your ass or your mouth means you are having sex.  We, unlike you, have common fucking sense, literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, your "common sense" is not sex. Sorry if that upsets you.
Click to expand...

It doesn't upset me at all, because you're a fucking idiot who doesn't understand sex, gender, or sexual orientation any more than you understand that a post on the Internet isn't a letter to your fucking mommy, so you don't have to write your name at the end of it you fucking infant.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

MaryL said:


> Homosexuality is a...not a human right. How is Homosexuality deferent from any other sexual malfunction... It doesn't need protection under the constitution any more than does  Female dryness, Erectile dysfunction or another sexual issue.  Homosexuality is a made up cause with phony rights. Not buying it.


Your posts and the posts of those who agree with you are proof gay Americans are in need of Constitutional protections.

Indeed, Constitutional protections apply not only to race, gender, or religion but also to the right of individuals to make life choices absent unwarranted interference by the state:

“It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. _*The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.” 
*_
LAWRENCE V. TEXAS


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter what the anti-marriage equality crowd, believe, think, or pray for.  Their confirmation bias and associated group cognitive dissonance will not stave off the embedding of marriage equality nationally and locally in a short time, and it will not stave off their children from chiding them, "Quit being goobers.  If you are right about it, God will take care of it, because you have shown you can't."
> 
> 
> 
> My children applaude my stance that faggots are abnormal.
Click to expand...


F*ggots, C*nts, N*ggers, K*kes.....

Bigots use these words for the same purpose.


----------



## Syriusly

MaryL said:


> Convince me why gays NEED marriage equality. Anyone? You do that, I buy you a cup of coffee.



I have met racists that I could not convince why African Americans deserve equal treatment either.

Some people are impervious to any argument that people deserve equal treatment.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well cool - then same sex marriage isn't an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...


And in 35 states- and in multiple countries- marriage is also the joining of two men or of two women.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> God these assholes are dumb.  One thinks that if walks into his daughter's bedroom and finds her on her knees stripped to her panties, her boyfriend standing over her with his jeans and tighty whiteys at his ankles, and his cock in her mouth that he would react by saying, Oh good, I was worried that you two might be having sex but I can see it's just foreplay so have fun kids.  Morons here, total fucking morons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey House, I don't make these definitions up. Society and nature does. It appears it is my job to educate those that don't know any better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You "definition" is that only of horny teenage girls who are "technical virgins".  The rest of us know that a cock in your ass or your mouth means you are having sex.  We, unlike you, have common fucking sense, literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not according to Bill Clinton.
Click to expand...


And you agree with Bill Clinton?


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone think posting  "link" is  proves anything? Get a life. The proof is experience. Living a full life and having  wide range of experiences. Gays are nice folks, in general. But I don't understand this push for rights for them, I really don't. Tell me why? This is about a general consensus, there isn't any right or wrong. I just don't understand  this rationalizing  irrational sexual behavior. They are never gonna have children, why this PUSH for marriage equality? Why? I just am not buying it. I don't understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> Suffice to say, there are some very decent gays who aren't pushy assholes. I know, two of them are dear friends of mine. It's a tragedy that the faggots have become the face of gay people, but that's how life is.
Click to expand...


Yeah- I have known racists who claim that there are some very decent negroes too- the ones that aren't uppity like the n*ggers.

They always have a story of dear friends who were colored, the shoe shine man....the guy who pumped their gas- the ones who 'knew their place'.

Bigots always have rationalizations like that.


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the experts don't agree with the far right on this Board.
> 
> Amazing.  The weirds start taking same sex attraction and these voyeurs start gabbling excitingly about bestiality, group sex, and other behavior that fascinates them.  No connection at all but they do get excited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. The APA is discussing classifying pedophilia in the same way they do homosexuality. If you all were truthful, you would understand that any sexual proclivity can(and should be if applied fairly) be classified exactly as homosexuality is. One sexual deviancy is really no different than another.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


So you think anything other than male female penis in vagina is sexual deviancy- and that they are all the same as pedophilia?


----------



## Syriusly

MaryL said:


> Anyone here that that can prove that homosexuals NEED to get married, I will buy you a GOOD  cup coffee, you name it. Really.



As a man who has been married to my wife for over 20 years- I can say that no one can prove to me that heterosexuals need to get married. 

But we deserve to be able to have that choice- just like a homosexual couple does.


----------



## Seawytch

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you could choose to be attracted to men?
> 
> I have always been attracted to women- not my choice- I just love everything about them- the curves, the walk- wow- sorry- don't get that from men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get that from men either.  That's why I chose women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I certainly chose to have sex with women- I chose to marry a woman- but I never, ever chose to be attracted to women.
> 
> IF you can choose to be attracted to women- then you should be able to chose to be attracted to men.
> 
> If you find the idea of a stubbly male face kissing your lips repugnant- like I do- then your attraction is not a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I choose not to be attracted to men.
> 
> I find a lot of things repugnant.  Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are probably bisexual.
> 
> As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.
> 
> I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.
> 
> If you think you could chose to be turned on by a photo of Clooney in a bathing suit- then you  are probably bisexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could choose to be a criminal.  Does that make me one?
> 
> I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.
Click to expand...



You can't choose your attraction, only whether to act on them or not. If you are not attracted to men, you can't make yourself attracted to men, trust me on this. (It's why reparative "therapy" has such a high failure rate)


----------



## Seawytch

Conservative65 said:


> 1.  It is about science and how different conlcusions can come from the same research.
> 
> People Are Not Born Gay Affirms Royal College of Psychiatrists



Except that's not what happened. What happened was an anti gay group misinterpreted the study. 

UK ‘gay cure’ group red-faced as psychiatrists point out they are wrong

_Speaking to Gay Star News, a Royal College of Psychiatrists spokeswoman said it was a clear ‘misinterpretation’ of their actual statement.

‘Homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder,’ it reads. ‘The College believes strongly in evidence-based treatment. There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.

‘The College would not support a therapy for converting people from homosexuality any more than we would do so from heterosexuality.

‘Psychiatrists should be committed to reducing inequalities, not supporting practices that are explicitly based on pathologizing homosexuality. As such, the College remains in favor of legislative efforts to ban such conversion therapies.’_​


> 2.  Gay West New York cop claims in lawsuit he was harassed intimidated by police director NJ.com



There was a lot more than just "saying something" in that case. Also, you can't "say anything" at work, you know that right? Your "free speech" goes only as far as your employer allows. 



> Tebow's action of praying got media attention.  However, had he not scored a toughdown, etc. there would have been no attention because he wouldn't have Tebowed.  For Sam, the attention came before ever stepping foot on an NFL field.  Tebow also had high school accomplishments.  You don't start at Florida and win the Heisman if you don't.



You can't pretend Michael Sam didn't have accomplishments prior to coming out. He was SEC defensive player of the year and I think would be on a roster right now if he hadn't come out as gay. 

Do you think role models are important? You obviously see Tebow as a role model for Christians and have no problem with that. Why can't Michael Sam be a role model for gay athletes? You may not realize it, but it is important for the gay High School football player in Iowa to see that there are others like him and it's okay to be athletic and gay. 



> 5.  Define equal.  It doens't mean you get to do exactly the same things I do or vice versa.
> 
> Just ask them about polygamy or a sibling marriage.  They are quicker to say no to it coming up with why equality should be denied than they are about bending over and taking one in the ass for the homos.



Polygamy and incest are both illegal so bringing them up is what is referred to in polite circles as a "slippery slope fallacy". They are completely unrelated to gays having equal access to civil marriage, and would either have a valid argument for legalization or they would not regardless of gays civilly marrying.

Quite a few countries have been marrying the gays for a while now. Even more countries perform legal polygamist marriages. None do both. There is no slippery slope.


----------



## Antares

I think it's funny that a bunch of folks who AREN'T gay are trying to explain they do not understand to folks who ARE gay.


----------



## Conservative65

Seawytch said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  It is about science and how different conlcusions can come from the same research.
> 
> People Are Not Born Gay Affirms Royal College of Psychiatrists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that's not what happened. What happened was an anti gay group misinterpreted the study.
> 
> UK ‘gay cure’ group red-faced as psychiatrists point out they are wrong
> 
> _Speaking to Gay Star News, a Royal College of Psychiatrists spokeswoman said it was a clear ‘misinterpretation’ of their actual statement.
> 
> ‘Homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder,’ it reads. ‘The College believes strongly in evidence-based treatment. There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.
> 
> ‘The College would not support a therapy for converting people from homosexuality any more than we would do so from heterosexuality.
> 
> ‘Psychiatrists should be committed to reducing inequalities, not supporting practices that are explicitly based on pathologizing homosexuality. As such, the College remains in favor of legislative efforts to ban such conversion therapies.’_​
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  Gay West New York cop claims in lawsuit he was harassed intimidated by police director NJ.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a lot more than just "saying something" in that case. Also, you can't "say anything" at work, you know that right? Your "free speech" goes only as far as your employer allows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tebow's action of praying got media attention.  However, had he not scored a toughdown, etc. there would have been no attention because he wouldn't have Tebowed.  For Sam, the attention came before ever stepping foot on an NFL field.  Tebow also had high school accomplishments.  You don't start at Florida and win the Heisman if you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't pretend Michael Sam didn't have accomplishments prior to coming out. He was SEC defensive player of the year and I think would be on a roster right now if he hadn't come out as gay.
> 
> Do you think role models are important? You obviously see Tebow as a role model for Christians and have no problem with that. Why can't Michael Sam be a role model for gay athletes? You may not realize it, but it is important for the gay High School football player in Iowa to see that there are others like him and it's okay to be athletic and gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  Define equal.  It doens't mean you get to do exactly the same things I do or vice versa.
> 
> Just ask them about polygamy or a sibling marriage.  They are quicker to say no to it coming up with why equality should be denied than they are about bending over and taking one in the ass for the homos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Polygamy and incest are both illegal so bringing them up is what is referred to in polite circles as a "slippery slope fallacy". They are completely unrelated to gays having equal access to civil marriage, and would either have a valid argument for legalization or they would not regardless of gays civilly marrying.
> 
> Quite a few countries have been marrying the gays for a while now. Even more countries perform legal polygamist marriages. None do both. There is no slippery slope.
Click to expand...

1.   Perhaps you can explain why homosexuality isn't considered a disorder but pedophelia is?  I don't equate that homos are pedos  but how can one be and not the other?

2.  My free speech extends until some little thin skinned, pussified homo gets his panties in a wad and gets his feelings hurt because someone doesn't like that he sucks dicks.  

3.  I don't discount Michael Sam's accomplishments.  I have clearly stated that far, far more was made of his sexual orientation than of his accomplishments when he was drafted.  All you have to do is Google his name and see how many stories related to his sexual orientation vs. his accomplishment come up.  

In typical fashion, this happens: Michael Sam -- I m Not in the NFL ... Because I m Gay TMZ.com

Have you heard Tebow say he wasn't in the NFL because he was a Christian.  Sounds like the gay boy can't face the fact that he couldn't cut it in the NFL just like Tebow.  Guess that means he sucked in more ways than one.  

By the way, you don't know who I see as a role model.  Where I played college football showing off after your scored would have gotten you benched.  Scoring alone got you the attention you deserved.  Also, I don't hold professional athletes as role models.  I view them as overpaid men playing a kid's game.  

5.  That's the point.  The equality of marriage crowd should be fighting to make them legal just like they did for the faggots.  If they don't and fight against it, they are doing exactly the same thing they claimed those of us opposed to same sex marriage were doing only they say they are OK doing it.  

If the argument is EQUALITY and you deny it to marriages you don't like, you're the typical fucking piece of shit hypocrite on the left.


----------



## Antares

Conservative65 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  It is about science and how different conlcusions can come from the same research.
> 
> People Are Not Born Gay Affirms Royal College of Psychiatrists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that's not what happened. What happened was an anti gay group misinterpreted the study.
> 
> UK ‘gay cure’ group red-faced as psychiatrists point out they are wrong
> 
> _Speaking to Gay Star News, a Royal College of Psychiatrists spokeswoman said it was a clear ‘misinterpretation’ of their actual statement.
> 
> ‘Homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder,’ it reads. ‘The College believes strongly in evidence-based treatment. There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.
> 
> ‘The College would not support a therapy for converting people from homosexuality any more than we would do so from heterosexuality.
> 
> ‘Psychiatrists should be committed to reducing inequalities, not supporting practices that are explicitly based on pathologizing homosexuality. As such, the College remains in favor of legislative efforts to ban such conversion therapies.’_​
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  Gay West New York cop claims in lawsuit he was harassed intimidated by police director NJ.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a lot more than just "saying something" in that case. Also, you can't "say anything" at work, you know that right? Your "free speech" goes only as far as your employer allows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tebow's action of praying got media attention.  However, had he not scored a toughdown, etc. there would have been no attention because he wouldn't have Tebowed.  For Sam, the attention came before ever stepping foot on an NFL field.  Tebow also had high school accomplishments.  You don't start at Florida and win the Heisman if you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't pretend Michael Sam didn't have accomplishments prior to coming out. He was SEC defensive player of the year and I think would be on a roster right now if he hadn't come out as gay.
> 
> Do you think role models are important? You obviously see Tebow as a role model for Christians and have no problem with that. Why can't Michael Sam be a role model for gay athletes? You may not realize it, but it is important for the gay High School football player in Iowa to see that there are others like him and it's okay to be athletic and gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  Define equal.  It doens't mean you get to do exactly the same things I do or vice versa.
> 
> Just ask them about polygamy or a sibling marriage.  They are quicker to say no to it coming up with why equality should be denied than they are about bending over and taking one in the ass for the homos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Polygamy and incest are both illegal so bringing them up is what is referred to in polite circles as a "slippery slope fallacy". They are completely unrelated to gays having equal access to civil marriage, and would either have a valid argument for legalization or they would not regardless of gays civilly marrying.
> 
> Quite a few countries have been marrying the gays for a while now. Even more countries perform legal polygamist marriages. None do both. There is no slippery slope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.   Perhaps you can explain why homosexuality isn't considered a disorder but pedophelia is?  I don't equate that homos are pedos  but how can one be and not the other?
> 
> 2.  My free speech extends until some little thin skinned, pussified homo gets his panties in a wad and gets his feelings hurt because someone doesn't like that he sucks dicks.
> 
> 3.  I don't discount Michael Sam's accomplishments.  I have clearly stated that far, far more was made of his sexual orientation than of his accomplishments when he was drafted.  All you have to do is Google his name and see how many stories related to his sexual orientation vs. his accomplishment come up.
> 
> In typical fashion, this happens: Michael Sam -- I m Not in the NFL ... Because I m Gay TMZ.com
> 
> Have you heard Tebow say he wasn't in the NFL because he was a Christian.  Sounds like the gay boy can't face the fact that he couldn't cut it in the NFL just like Tebow.  Guess that means he sucked in more ways than one.
> 
> By the way, you don't know who I see as a role model.  Where I played college football showing off after your scored would have gotten you benched.  Scoring alone got you the attention you deserved.  Also, I don't hold professional athletes as role models.  I view them as overpaid men playing a kid's game.
> 
> 5.  That's the point.  The equality of marriage crowd should be fighting to make them legal just like they did for the faggots.  If they don't and fight against it, they are doing exactly the same thing they claimed those of us opposed to same sex marriage were doing only they say they are OK doing it.
> 
> If the argument is EQUALITY and you deny it to marriages you don't like, you're the typical fucking piece of shit hypocrite on the left.
Click to expand...


Generally speaking people with your passion concerning this topic have some latent feelings that frighen them.


----------



## Seawytch

80zephyr said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation.  It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? In every species, natures way is reproduction. If a body does not reproduce, it kills off its lineage. That is why, in nature, homosexuality has to be considered abnormal.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Nature is a complex and wondrous thing. Did you know that some species are a-sexual? Did you know some could change their gender? How about when animals intentionally sterilize themselves due to over population? 

Since Homosexuality exists in over a thousand animals species and has existed in the human animal since the beginning of recorded history, it's pretty safe to assume that we're supposed to be here. Rest easy, scientists have some theories. 

*The evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality

The genes that code for homosexuality do other things too*
The allele - or group of genes - that sometimes codes for homosexual orientation may at other times have a strong reproductive benefit. This would compensate for gay people's lack of reproduction and ensure the continuation of the trait, as non-gay carriers of the gene pass it down.

*Gay people were 'helpers in the nest'*
Paul Vasey's research in Samoa has focused on a theory called kin selection or the "helper in the nest" hypothesis. The idea is that gay people compensate for their lack of children by promoting the reproductive fitness of brothers or sisters, contributing money or performing other uncle-like activities such as babysitting or tutoring. Some of the gay person's genetic code is shared with nieces and nephews and so, the theory goes, the genes which code for sexual orientation still get passed down.[...]

*Gay people do have children*
In the US, around 37% of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people have a child, about 60% of which are biological. According to the Williams Institute, gay couples that have children have an average of two.

These figures may not be high enough to sustain genetic traits specific to this group, but the evolutionary biologist Jeremy Yoder points out in a blog post that for much of modern history gay people haven't been living openly gay lives. Compelled by society to enter marriages and have children, their reproduction rates may have been higher than they are now.

*It's not all in the DNA*
Qazi Rahman says that alleles coding for same sex attraction only explain some of the variety in human sexuality. Other, naturally varying biological factors come into play, with about one in seven gay men, he says, owing their sexuality to the "big brother effect".

This has nothing to do with George Orwell, but describes the observation that boys with older brothers are significantly more likely to become gay - with every older brother the chance of homosexuality increases by about a third. No-one knows why this is, but one theory is that with each male pregnancy, a woman's body forms an immune reaction to proteins that have a role in the development of the male brain. Since this only comes into play after several siblings have been born - most of whom are heterosexual and go on to have children - this pre-natal quirk hasn't been selected away by evolution.


----------



## JakeStarkey

MaryL is simply wailing "I don't wanna beeelieeeeve" and Where r my keys continues to act like far right social con silly.  He simply blathers.

Neither can demonstrates how marriage equality harms them or society.


----------



## Seawytch

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I certainly chose to have sex with women- I chose to marry a woman- but I never, ever chose to be attracted to women.
> 
> IF you can choose to be attracted to women- then you should be able to chose to be attracted to men.
> 
> If you find the idea of a stubbly male face kissing your lips repugnant- like I do- then your attraction is not a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I choose not to be attracted to men.
> 
> I find a lot of things repugnant.  Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are probably bisexual.
> 
> As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.
> 
> I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.
> 
> If you think you could chose to be turned on by a photo of Clooney in a bathing suit- then you  are probably bisexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could choose to be a criminal.  Does that make me one?
> 
> I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So with a mere choice you could find a man's hairy ass as sexually attractive as a woman's shapely backside?
> 
> Then Sy's right. You're probably bi already. For most of us, its not a choice. Its just an attribute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:
> 
> Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News
> 
> Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.
> 
> Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


You really should have researched further...

*Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'

*


----------



## Seawytch

MaryL said:


> Homosexuality isn't a choice. I have Epilepsy I didn't chose that either. It  brings on a lot of bad side affects. I am not asking  for sympathy. But I am not asking for special privileges, either. I didn't ask for this.  But there isn't anything in the Constitution that  gives me special protections, either. I am so offended by people with weird sexual neuroses that DEMAND special "rights" it is sickening. Really?



Name these "special rights". Give us a list of what you believe is as special right. Do you think if you were denied a marriage license because of your epilepsy that fighting for it would be a "special right"?


----------



## Redfish

Seawytch said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality isn't a choice. I have Epilepsy I didn't chose that either. It  brings on a lot of bad side affects. I am not asking  for sympathy. But I am not asking for special privileges, either. I didn't ask for this.  But there isn't anything in the Constitution that  gives me special protections, either. I am so offended by people with weird sexual neuroses that DEMAND special "rights" it is sickening. Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name these "special rights". Give us a list of what you believe is as special right. Do you think if you were denied a marriage license because of your epilepsy that fighting for it would be a "special right"?
Click to expand...

 

poor wytchey,  so confused, so conflicted, so angry,  I really do feel sorry for you.


----------



## Conservative65

Seawytch said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality isn't a choice. I have Epilepsy I didn't chose that either. It  brings on a lot of bad side affects. I am not asking  for sympathy. But I am not asking for special privileges, either. I didn't ask for this.  But there isn't anything in the Constitution that  gives me special protections, either. I am so offended by people with weird sexual neuroses that DEMAND special "rights" it is sickening. Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name these "special rights". Give us a list of what you believe is as special right. Do you think if you were denied a marriage license because of your epilepsy that fighting for it would be a "special right"?
Click to expand...


Supreme Court Declares Gays a Protected Class

When a group is given a special consideration, it puts them in a special rights category.


----------



## Katzndogz

Those who are attracted to children can't make a different choice either.  Compulsive hoarding isn't a choice.  No compulsive disorder leaves the sufferer with a choice.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> God these assholes are dumb.  One thinks that if walks into his daughter's bedroom and finds her on her knees stripped to her panties, her boyfriend standing over her with his jeans and tighty whiteys at his ankles, and his cock in her mouth that he would react by saying, Oh good, I was worried that you two might be having sex but I can see it's just foreplay so have fun kids.  Morons here, total fucking morons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey House, I don't make these definitions up. Society and nature does. It appears it is my job to educate those that don't know any better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You "definition" is that only of horny teenage girls who are "technical virgins".  The rest of us know that a cock in your ass or your mouth means you are having sex.  We, unlike you, have common fucking sense, literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not according to Bill Clinton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you agree with Bill Clinton?
Click to expand...


It's not a matter of agreement.  However, if one is going to apply a definition a certain way and it be accepted by his supporters, those supporters should apply the definition the same way in other situations.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The fact of the matter remains that Where R My Keys can neither recognize nor comprehend "truth".  He fails to serve the good because he willfully and arrogantly supplants common sense with his own half-baked beliefs.  He demeans critical thinking and replaces it with his own relative and unstable belief system that he wants accepted as infallible.  He is here only for our amusement.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter what the anti-marriage equality crowd, believe, think, or pray for.  Their confirmation bias and associated group cognitive dissonance will not stave off the embedding of marriage equality nationally and locally in a short time, and it will not stave off their children from chiding them, "Quit being goobers.  If you are right about it, God will take care of it, because you have shown you can't."
> 
> 
> 
> My children applaude my stance that faggots are abnormal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> F*ggots, C*nts, N*ggers, K*kes.....
> 
> Bigots use these words for the same purpose.
Click to expand...


Calling someone what they are isn't bigotry.


----------



## JakeStarkey

"However, if one is going to apply a definition a certain way and it be accepted by his supporters, those supporters should apply the definition the same way in other situations."

I certainly wish the far right social Christian conservatives would follow what they preach.


----------



## JakeStarkey

MaryL said:


> Anyone here that that can prove that homosexuals NEED to get married, I will buy you a GOOD  cup coffee, you name it. Really.


  Do heroes NEED to get married?


----------



## JakeStarkey

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> The company that makes twinkies is out of business. Good riddance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no way.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hostess is gone....happened a couple of years ago.
Click to expand...


You understand the products of Hostess are being sold in your markets . . . today?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Second silly statement of the day: "Therefore, they're chasing something that can't be had until THEY turn from that which renders them illegitimate."

You can't prove the path is illegitimate, only alternate.


----------



## Seawytch

Conservative65 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  It is about science and how different conlcusions can come from the same research.
> 
> People Are Not Born Gay Affirms Royal College of Psychiatrists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that's not what happened. What happened was an anti gay group misinterpreted the study.
> 
> UK ‘gay cure’ group red-faced as psychiatrists point out they are wrong
> 
> _Speaking to Gay Star News, a Royal College of Psychiatrists spokeswoman said it was a clear ‘misinterpretation’ of their actual statement.
> 
> ‘Homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder,’ it reads. ‘The College believes strongly in evidence-based treatment. There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.
> 
> ‘The College would not support a therapy for converting people from homosexuality any more than we would do so from heterosexuality.
> 
> ‘Psychiatrists should be committed to reducing inequalities, not supporting practices that are explicitly based on pathologizing homosexuality. As such, the College remains in favor of legislative efforts to ban such conversion therapies.’_​
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  Gay West New York cop claims in lawsuit he was harassed intimidated by police director NJ.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a lot more than just "saying something" in that case. Also, you can't "say anything" at work, you know that right? Your "free speech" goes only as far as your employer allows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tebow's action of praying got media attention.  However, had he not scored a toughdown, etc. there would have been no attention because he wouldn't have Tebowed.  For Sam, the attention came before ever stepping foot on an NFL field.  Tebow also had high school accomplishments.  You don't start at Florida and win the Heisman if you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't pretend Michael Sam didn't have accomplishments prior to coming out. He was SEC defensive player of the year and I think would be on a roster right now if he hadn't come out as gay.
> 
> Do you think role models are important? You obviously see Tebow as a role model for Christians and have no problem with that. Why can't Michael Sam be a role model for gay athletes? You may not realize it, but it is important for the gay High School football player in Iowa to see that there are others like him and it's okay to be athletic and gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  Define equal.  It doens't mean you get to do exactly the same things I do or vice versa.
> 
> Just ask them about polygamy or a sibling marriage.  They are quicker to say no to it coming up with why equality should be denied than they are about bending over and taking one in the ass for the homos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Polygamy and incest are both illegal so bringing them up is what is referred to in polite circles as a "slippery slope fallacy". They are completely unrelated to gays having equal access to civil marriage, and would either have a valid argument for legalization or they would not regardless of gays civilly marrying.
> 
> Quite a few countries have been marrying the gays for a while now. Even more countries perform legal polygamist marriages. None do both. There is no slippery slope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.   Perhaps you can explain why homosexuality isn't considered a disorder but pedophelia is?  I don't equate that homos are pedos  but how can one be and not the other?
Click to expand...


Perhaps you should catch up with the scientific community.

*Not All Pedophiles Have Mental Disorder, American Psychiatric Association Says In New DSM*



> 2.  My free speech extends until some little thin skinned, pussified homo gets his panties in a wad and gets his feelings hurt because someone doesn't like that he sucks dicks.



Your "free speech" extends until *anyone *is offended by it in the workplace. I don't think you understand the concept of free speech. You not being able to be a bigoted asshole in the workplace is not an infringement on your free speech. The government throwing you in jail for it is. 

And the case you cited wasn't just about "saying something". The man was harassed and discriminated against in the workplace because of his sexual orientation. 



> 3.  I don't discount Michael Sam's accomplishments.  I have clearly stated that far, far more was made of his sexual orientation than of his accomplishments when he was drafted.  All you have to do is Google his name and see how many stories related to his sexual orientation vs. his accomplishment come up.
> 
> In typical fashion, this happens: Michael Sam -- I m Not in the NFL ... Because I m Gay TMZ.com



So what? He is still an accomplished athlete and his reasoning for coming out was sound. He was already out and he wanted to get ahead of it. Better for him to announce it than for TMZ to do it in typical rag fashion. 

The exact same thing can be said of Tebow. He was made "a star" because of his outside involvements not his on field accomplishments. 



> Have you heard Tebow say he wasn't in the NFL because he was a Christian.  Sounds like the gay boy can't face the fact that he couldn't cut it in the NFL just like Tebow.  Guess that means he sucked in more ways than one.



How many SEC Defensive players of the year didn't get drafted historically? I do think a lot of teams did not pick him up because they didn't want to deal with the controversy. Tebow got his chance and he whoofed it. He did not perform up to the hype. How about letting Michael Sam have the chance? 



> By the way, you don't know who I see as a role model.  Where I played college football showing off after your scored would have gotten you benched.  Scoring alone got you the attention you deserved.  Also, I don't hold professional athletes as role models.  I view them as overpaid men playing a kid's game.



Okay, fine, but some people do see professional athletes as role models and it's especially important for gay kids. It's not as bad now as it was when I was growing up, but when television only depicted the stereotypical effeminate gay person, it was really hard for the young gay athlete to know where they fit in. It is important for  gay kids to see someone successful and famous and openly gay, especially if they don't live in tolerant states or go to tolerant schools. 



> 5.  That's the point.  The equality of marriage crowd should be fighting to make them legal just like they did for the faggots.  If they don't and fight against it, they are doing exactly the same thing they claimed those of us opposed to same sex marriage were doing only they say they are OK doing it.



If they do, their argument would be separate from gays seeking marriage equality. Either you believe they have a valid argument for marriage equality or they don't. If they do, they do with or without gay marriage equality. 

Let's see if I can make the fallacy of your argument easier for you to understand. If we don't lock up first time drug offenders, does that mean we are going to release all murderers on death row? 

Please name all the countries that have been civilly marrying gays that also civilly marry polygamists. How about vice versa? Which polygamist countries also allow gays to civilly marry? 



> If the argument is EQUALITY and you deny it to marriages you don't like, you're the typical fucking piece of shit hypocrite on the left.



I'm not. I say if those people believe that they have a fundamental right to civilly marry, they can petition the courts and let them decide. I have no skin in the game and don't care. I will even wish them luck in their fight. Are there a lot of them? 1st cousins can already civilly marry in a few states...as long as they cannot procreate. Did you know that?


----------



## Seawytch

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality isn't a choice. I have Epilepsy I didn't chose that either. It  brings on a lot of bad side affects. I am not asking  for sympathy. But I am not asking for special privileges, either. I didn't ask for this.  But there isn't anything in the Constitution that  gives me special protections, either. I am so offended by people with weird sexual neuroses that DEMAND special "rights" it is sickening. Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name these "special rights". Give us a list of what you believe is as special right. Do you think if you were denied a marriage license because of your epilepsy that fighting for it would be a "special right"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> poor wytchey,  so confused, so conflicted, so angry,  I really do feel sorry for you.
Click to expand...


What do you think I'm confused and conflicted about, Fishy? Angry? Not in the least. I'm sorry that you're wasting your pity 'cause I'm doing great. Okay, I am a little pissed that my coffee maker took a shit this morning and I'm having to boil water and use an old trip thingy on top of my cup each time...but I'll load DAI and kill some Darkspawn and Red Templars to make it all better again. 

Can you name these "special rights" Mary is claiming?


----------



## Seawytch

Conservative65 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality isn't a choice. I have Epilepsy I didn't chose that either. It  brings on a lot of bad side affects. I am not asking  for sympathy. But I am not asking for special privileges, either. I didn't ask for this.  But there isn't anything in the Constitution that  gives me special protections, either. I am so offended by people with weird sexual neuroses that DEMAND special "rights" it is sickening. Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name these "special rights". Give us a list of what you believe is as special right. Do you think if you were denied a marriage license because of your epilepsy that fighting for it would be a "special right"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Declares Gays a Protected Class
> 
> When a group is given a special consideration, it puts them in a special rights category.
Click to expand...


Oh, you mean protected from discrimination based on animus...like race, religion, country of origin, gender, veterans status, disability, etc. Tell you what, don't discriminate against us based on animus and we won't need to be a protected class.


----------



## Seawytch

Tipsycatlover said:


> Those who are attracted to children can't make a different choice either.  Compulsive hoarding isn't a choice.  No compulsive disorder leaves the sufferer with a choice.



There is a choice in acting. For me, as a gay woman, the only choice is in acting upon my natural or god given inclinations. As long as I am acting upon those natural inclinations with another consenting adult, whose fucking business is it and why should I be denied the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage because my life partner of choice happens to be the same gender I am?


----------



## kaz

JakeStarkey said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A family-run business went under because they chose not to bake a fucking cake for a gay wedding?
> 
> That's not only the Gay agenda at work, but the twisted brains of the Liberals who will not stand for dissent or disagreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Choose to disobey the law at your own risk.
Click to expand...


Recognizing our authoritarian State for what it is doesn't justify it.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Seawytch said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could choose to be a criminal.  Does that make me one?
> 
> I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So with a mere choice you could find a man's hairy ass as sexually attractive as a woman's shapely backside?
> 
> Then Sy's right. You're probably bi already. For most of us, its not a choice. Its just an attribute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:
> 
> Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News
> 
> Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.
> 
> Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should really stop sucking dicks.  It's not normal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, it's not normal for me since I'm a lesbian and only lick pussy. I've never sucked a dick in my life nor do I ever intend to.
Click to expand...

Well, no one is perfect.


----------



## Skylar

kaz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A family-run business went under because they chose not to bake a fucking cake for a gay wedding?
> 
> That's not only the Gay agenda at work, but the twisted brains of the Liberals who will not stand for dissent or disagreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Choose to disobey the law at your own risk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Recognizing our authoritarian State for what it is doesn't justify it.
Click to expand...


Dear God.....you're like a born again Christian, where no matter the topic - be it World Politics or Captain Crunch, its 'all about Jay-Sus". This conversation isn't about libertarianism. It isn't about your anarchism. Its about some rather amusing misconceptions of gay people.


----------



## Skylar

JakeStarkey said:


> The fact of the matter remains that Where R My Keys can neither recognize nor comprehend "truth".  He fails to serve the good because he willfully and arrogantly supplants common sense with his own half-baked beliefs.  He demeans critical thinking and replaces it with his own relative and unstable belief system that he wants accepted as infallible.  He is here only for our amusement.




Keyes is a hoot. And your best friend in a debate in favor of gay marriage. As he so conveniently demonstrates all the classic mistakes, misconceptions and fallacies of gay marriage opponents. From 'Appeal to Authority' fallacies to thuggish threats of a war against gays if they don't 'sit down and shut the fuck up'. 

You couldn't ask for a better participant in this thread.


----------



## Skylar

Antares said:


> I think it's funny that a bunch of folks who AREN'T gay are trying to explain they do not understand to folks who ARE gay.



That's one of my favorite parts. Listening to anti-gay hysterics try to dictate to someone else their own sexuality. As if our hysterics have the slightest clue what they're talking about.


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A family-run business went under because they chose not to bake a fucking cake for a gay wedding?
> 
> That's not only the Gay agenda at work, but the twisted brains of the Liberals who will not stand for dissent or disagreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Choose to disobey the law at your own risk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Recognizing our authoritarian State for what it is doesn't justify it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear God.....you're like a born again Christian, where no matter the topic - be it World Politics or Captain Crunch, its 'all about Jay-Sus". This conversation isn't about libertarianism. It isn't about your anarchism. Its about some rather amusing misconceptions of gay people.
Click to expand...


I'm not a Christian, retard.

In your overt stupidity, you cannot get past the idea that anyone can make their own choices.  Either we want government to use force to compel one citizen to do business with another, in this case because they are gay, or we oppose gays.  The idea that it's just not government's job to make that choice isn't part of your dim witted world.

Personally as a business owner, I want my competition to discriminate.  More work for me.  You seriously need to expand your world though.


----------



## Seawytch

Skylar said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should really stop sucking dicks.  It's not normal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, it's not normal for me since I'm a lesbian and only lick pussy. I've never sucked a dick in my life nor do I ever intend to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, no one is perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wanna know what the ultimate irony is? I have no gag reflex. I can deep throat a banana no problem. I used to love to fuck with the guys in the Chief's Mess by doing just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just fucked up, Sw.
Click to expand...



You weren't there, man...you don't know!!!

I had to make those guys swear, on Thanksgiving, that I did not have to hear ANYTHING about ANY of their bodily functions for one whole day. I didn't want to hear about their bowel movements, their "underway socks", their peeing in the shower, none of it on that one freaking day. I had my reasons for revenge


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation.  It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that depends. Every other generation didn't celebrate it.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


And yet here it is. Now the question you have to ask yourself is.....so what?

There are certain things that are wrong because they cause genuine harm (rape, murder, theft) and certain things that are wrong because someone believes the are (pork, gays, cheeseburgers, working on sunday). We're rational enough in this day and age to glean that homosexuality is clearly in that latter camp.

Which begs the question, why should we give a fuck? They're just people. Treat them like people and be done with it. Generally speaking, how a person gets their nut is about the least interesting thing about them.


----------



## Skylar

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A family-run business went under because they chose not to bake a fucking cake for a gay wedding?
> 
> That's not only the Gay agenda at work, but the twisted brains of the Liberals who will not stand for dissent or disagreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Choose to disobey the law at your own risk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Recognizing our authoritarian State for what it is doesn't justify it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear God.....you're like a born again Christian, where no matter the topic - be it World Politics or Captain Crunch, its 'all about Jay-Sus". This conversation isn't about libertarianism. It isn't about your anarchism. Its about some rather amusing misconceptions of gay people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian, retard
Click to expand...


Nor did I say you were. I said you were LIKE a born again Christian....where no matter the topic you turn the conversation to your personal obsession.

This isn't a thread about your personal obsession: your hatred of government. We don't give a shit about your anarchism. We don't give a fiddler's fuck about your libertarian ideals. Not here. 



> You seriously need to expand your world though.



Try telling me that once you figure out what a simile is.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A family-run business went under because they chose not to bake a fucking cake for a gay wedding?
> 
> That's not only the Gay agenda at work, but the twisted brains of the Liberals who will not stand for dissent or disagreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Choose to disobey the law at your own risk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Recognizing our authoritarian State for what it is doesn't justify it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear God.....you're like a born again Christian, where no matter the topic - be it World Politics or Captain Crunch, its 'all about Jay-Sus". This conversation isn't about libertarianism. It isn't about your anarchism. Its about some rather amusing misconceptions of gay people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian, retard.
> 
> In your overt stupidity, you cannot get past the idea that anyone can make their own choices.  Either we want government to use force to compel one citizen to do business with another, in this case because they are gay, or we oppose gays.  The idea that it's just not government's job to make that choice isn't part of your dim witted world.
> 
> Personally as a business owner, I want my competition to discriminate.  More work for me.  You seriously need to expand your world though.
Click to expand...


He didn't say you were, he said you were _*like *_a born again Christian...a Born Again Libertarian. 

A business owner should think getting rid of ALL public accommodation laws is a great idea....but nobody is even trying to do that. That's not happening anywhere. Instead, anti gay bigots want a special carve out just for them that says only they get to discriminate. 

In _some _places gays are _also _protected. Either get rid of them all or quitcherbitchin.


----------



## Skylar

Seawytch said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should really stop sucking dicks.  It's not normal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, it's not normal for me since I'm a lesbian and only lick pussy. I've never sucked a dick in my life nor do I ever intend to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, no one is perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wanna know what the ultimate irony is? I have no gag reflex. I can deep throat a banana no problem. I used to love to fuck with the guys in the Chief's Mess by doing just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just fucked up, Sw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You weren't there, man...you don't know!!!
> 
> I had to make those guys swear, on Thanksgiving, that I did not have to hear ANYTHING about ANY of their bodily functions for one whole day. I didn't want to hear about their bowel movements, their "underway socks", their peeing in the shower, none of it on that one freaking day. I had my reasons for revenge
Click to expand...


As a man I can testify that's just cruel and unusual punishment.


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A family-run business went under because they chose not to bake a fucking cake for a gay wedding?
> 
> That's not only the Gay agenda at work, but the twisted brains of the Liberals who will not stand for dissent or disagreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Choose to disobey the law at your own risk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Recognizing our authoritarian State for what it is doesn't justify it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear God.....you're like a born again Christian, where no matter the topic - be it World Politics or Captain Crunch, its 'all about Jay-Sus". This conversation isn't about libertarianism. It isn't about your anarchism. Its about some rather amusing misconceptions of gay people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian, retard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor did I say you were. I said you were LIKE a born again Christian....where no matter the topic you turn the conversation to your personal obsession.
> 
> This isn't a thread about your personal obsession: your hatred of government. We don't give a shit about your anarchism. We don't give a fiddler's fuck about your libertarian ideals. Not here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seriously need to expand your world though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try telling me that once you figure out what a simile is.
Click to expand...


Ah, so you were saying that thinking people should make their own choices about who to do business with is "like" being a born again christian.

Why am I talking about politics on a political message board in the politics session.

Small government libertarians are "anarchists."

And saying that gay should be a private matter, not government policy has nothing to do with a thread on gays and government polices.

LOL, you're all over this one, Homey.  That's too funny.


----------



## Skylar

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality isn't a choice. I have Epilepsy I didn't chose that either. It  brings on a lot of bad side affects. I am not asking  for sympathy. But I am not asking for special privileges, either. I didn't ask for this.  But there isn't anything in the Constitution that  gives me special protections, either. I am so offended by people with weird sexual neuroses that DEMAND special "rights" it is sickening. Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name these "special rights". Give us a list of what you believe is as special right. Do you think if you were denied a marriage license because of your epilepsy that fighting for it would be a "special right"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> poor wytchey,  so confused, so conflicted, so angry,  I really do feel sorry for you.
Click to expand...


And while you're feeling sorry, SW and those like her will continue to get married, raise families and enjoy the full rights and benefits of equal protection under the law.

Sounds like a win-win to me.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> He didn't say you were, he said you were _*like *_a born again Christian...a Born Again Libertarian.



From the ultimate one trick pony, every thread turns into a gay thread.  Thanks for that clarification.  It's not like you two geniuses consistently advocate liberalism, what a great point.  LOL.


----------



## Skylar

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Choose to disobey the law at your own risk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recognizing our authoritarian State for what it is doesn't justify it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear God.....you're like a born again Christian, where no matter the topic - be it World Politics or Captain Crunch, its 'all about Jay-Sus". This conversation isn't about libertarianism. It isn't about your anarchism. Its about some rather amusing misconceptions of gay people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian, retard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor did I say you were. I said you were LIKE a born again Christian....where no matter the topic you turn the conversation to your personal obsession.
> 
> This isn't a thread about your personal obsession: your hatred of government. We don't give a shit about your anarchism. We don't give a fiddler's fuck about your libertarian ideals. Not here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seriously need to expand your world though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try telling me that once you figure out what a simile is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, so you were saying that thinking people should make their own choices about who to do business with is "like" being a born again christian.
Click to expand...


You trying to turn the conversations into another one of your hysteric anti-government screeds is what makes you like a born against Christian. 

We get it. You don't like government. Start yet another thread on the topic. This one isn't it.


----------



## Skylar

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't say you were, he said you were _*like *_a born again Christian...a Born Again Libertarian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the ultimate one trick pony, every thread turns into a gay thread.  Thanks for that clarification.  It's not like you two geniuses consistently advocate liberalism, what a great point.  LOL.
Click to expand...


Save this thread actually is about gays. 

Do try and keep up.


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Recognizing our authoritarian State for what it is doesn't justify it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear God.....you're like a born again Christian, where no matter the topic - be it World Politics or Captain Crunch, its 'all about Jay-Sus". This conversation isn't about libertarianism. It isn't about your anarchism. Its about some rather amusing misconceptions of gay people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian, retard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor did I say you were. I said you were LIKE a born again Christian....where no matter the topic you turn the conversation to your personal obsession.
> 
> This isn't a thread about your personal obsession: your hatred of government. We don't give a shit about your anarchism. We don't give a fiddler's fuck about your libertarian ideals. Not here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seriously need to expand your world though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try telling me that once you figure out what a simile is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, so you were saying that thinking people should make their own choices about who to do business with is "like" being a born again christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You trying to turn the conversations into another one of your hysteric anti-government screeds is what makes you like a born against Christian.
> 
> We get it. You don't like government. Start yet another thread on the topic. This one isn't it.
Click to expand...


And you say that while you try to turn the thread into another of your hysteric OMG we need government to solve all our problems for us thread.  What a dumb ass.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear God.....you're like a born again Christian, where no matter the topic - be it World Politics or Captain Crunch, its 'all about Jay-Sus". This conversation isn't about libertarianism. It isn't about your anarchism. Its about some rather amusing misconceptions of gay people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian, retard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor did I say you were. I said you were LIKE a born again Christian....where no matter the topic you turn the conversation to your personal obsession.
> 
> This isn't a thread about your personal obsession: your hatred of government. We don't give a shit about your anarchism. We don't give a fiddler's fuck about your libertarian ideals. Not here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seriously need to expand your world though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try telling me that once you figure out what a simile is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, so you were saying that thinking people should make their own choices about who to do business with is "like" being a born again christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You trying to turn the conversations into another one of your hysteric anti-government screeds is what makes you like a born against Christian.
> 
> We get it. You don't like government. Start yet another thread on the topic. This one isn't it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you say that while you try to turn the thread into another of your hysteric OMG we need government to solve all our problems for us thread.  What a dumb ass.
Click to expand...

What a still wet behind the ears useless little piece of shit the kid is, and cocky.  So typical of that mindless mentality.  The government is evil, I must run to Mommy Rand and tell her to fix it.


----------



## Skylar

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear God.....you're like a born again Christian, where no matter the topic - be it World Politics or Captain Crunch, its 'all about Jay-Sus". This conversation isn't about libertarianism. It isn't about your anarchism. Its about some rather amusing misconceptions of gay people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian, retard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor did I say you were. I said you were LIKE a born again Christian....where no matter the topic you turn the conversation to your personal obsession.
> 
> This isn't a thread about your personal obsession: your hatred of government. We don't give a shit about your anarchism. We don't give a fiddler's fuck about your libertarian ideals. Not here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seriously need to expand your world though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try telling me that once you figure out what a simile is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, so you were saying that thinking people should make their own choices about who to do business with is "like" being a born again christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You trying to turn the conversations into another one of your hysteric anti-government screeds is what makes you like a born against Christian.
> 
> We get it. You don't like government. Start yet another thread on the topic. This one isn't it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you say that while you try to turn the thread into another of your hysteric OMG we need government to solve all our problems for us thread.  What a dumb ass.
Click to expand...


I'm discussing gay rights. You're the one talking about 'government fixing everything'. 

This isn't the thread for your typical, monotonous anti-governmnent hysterics. No one gives a fuck that you're a libertarian. Not here.


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> I'm discussing gay rights. You're the one talking about 'government fixing everything'.





You don't even realize what you just said, do you?  OMG, that's classic.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Skylar said:


> There are certain things that are wrong because they cause genuine harm (rape, murder, theft) and certain things that are wrong because someone believes the are (pork, gays, cheeseburgers, working on sunday). We're rational enough in this day and age to glean that homosexuality is clearly in that latter camp.
> 
> Which begs the question, why should we give fuck? They're just people. Treat them like people and be done with it. Generally speaking, how a person gets their nut is about the least interesting thing about them.




 Many people seem incapable of distinguishing between morality and social mores, and so accept the arbitrary social mores as representing morality even when they don't.

Morality is a product of reason,  established from a baseline akin to the golden rule, whereas social mores are simply customs that have been passed down through the generations and accepted with no analysis. 

 I would refer people to Kohlberg's work in regards to moral reasoning here, as arbitrary taboos represent what he calls a "preconventional" morality, which is the most unevolved moral state.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't say you were, he said you were _*like *_a born again Christian...a Born Again Libertarian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the ultimate one trick pony, every thread turns into a gay thread.  Thanks for that clarification.  It's not like you two geniuses consistently advocate liberalism, what a great point.  LOL.
Click to expand...



Really? Naturally you can cite instances of that occurring, right? I comment in quite a few threads, I'm sure you can find instances of MY turning the thread "gay", right? 

This thread is about marriage equality. We know you claim that you are against all people getting a "gubmit" marriage. I'm sure you go down to the courthouse on your days off and protest all those "gubmit" weddings that take place day in and day out. I'm sure you're protesting, signing petitions, calling your congressman and talking to all your friends and neighbors about how evil the government marriage license is...all the while enjoying the benefits of your government marriage license. 

How's that fight to abolish Public Accommodation laws going?...or are we just hoping "activist judges" take care of it for ya'll?


----------



## Skylar

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian, retard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor did I say you were. I said you were LIKE a born again Christian....where no matter the topic you turn the conversation to your personal obsession.
> 
> This isn't a thread about your personal obsession: your hatred of government. We don't give a shit about your anarchism. We don't give a fiddler's fuck about your libertarian ideals. Not here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seriously need to expand your world though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try telling me that once you figure out what a simile is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, so you were saying that thinking people should make their own choices about who to do business with is "like" being a born again christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You trying to turn the conversations into another one of your hysteric anti-government screeds is what makes you like a born against Christian.
> 
> We get it. You don't like government. Start yet another thread on the topic. This one isn't it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you say that while you try to turn the thread into another of your hysteric OMG we need government to solve all our problems for us thread.  What a dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a still wet behind the ears useless little piece of shit the kid is, and cocky.  So typical of that mindless mentality.
Click to expand...


I've debated Kaz. Even on his topic of choice, he's not terribly well informed nor willing to do the research to become so. Most of his own threads become little more than Kaz reduced cursing at anyone who doesn't agree with him. 

I'd prefer to just skip the entire schtick, and stick with the topic of gay rights and the imaginary 'homosexual dillema'.


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't say you were, he said you were _*like *_a born again Christian...a Born Again Libertarian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the ultimate one trick pony, every thread turns into a gay thread.  Thanks for that clarification.  It's not like you two geniuses consistently advocate liberalism, what a great point.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save this thread actually is about gays.
> 
> Do try and keep up.
Click to expand...


Right, and my answer, simpleton, is to give gays the greatest protection, the protection of the marketplace.  Let the odd screwball who limits who they do business with harm themselves.  Only government can enforce discrimination.  A free market rewards those who don't discriminate.


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> I'd prefer to just skip the entire schtick, and stick with the topic of gay rights and the imaginary 'homosexual dillema'.



So why don't you address my point if that's what you keep saying you want?  Free markets are the best protection for gay rights.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> This thread is about marriage equality. We know you claim that you are against all people getting a "gubmit" marriage



So if your standard is that if one's view is known then they should STFU, why don't you go first?


----------



## Skylar

Dogmaphobe said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are certain things that are wrong because they cause genuine harm (rape, murder, theft) and certain things that are wrong because someone believes the are (pork, gays, cheeseburgers, working on sunday). We're rational enough in this day and age to glean that homosexuality is clearly in that latter camp.
> 
> Which begs the question, why should we give fuck? They're just people. Treat them like people and be done with it. Generally speaking, how a person gets their nut is about the least interesting thing about them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many people seem incapable of distinguishing between morality and social mores, and so accept the arbitrary social mores as representing morality even when they don't.
> 
> Morality is a product of reason,  established from a baseline akin to the golden rule, whereas social mores are simply customs that have been passed down through the generations and accepted with no analysis.
Click to expand...


It depends on who you talk to. There are many who will argue that the only basis of morality is god. And if you use your reason, you're a relativist who is evil and believes in nothing. And that their faith is objective truth, as it comes directly from god. I'm not joking or inaccurately paraphrasing here. I can show you virtually exact quotes that say as much.

*They're literally arguing that whatever they feel is objective truth.* Which kinda fucks the concept of 'objective' and 'truth' right in the ass. And they will flat out ignore you if you don't accept their personal beliefs as axiomatic.

There's really not much you can do with people like that save pat them on the head and put them on a display to demonstrate various fallacies of logic on command.



> I would refer people to Kohlberg's work in regards to moral reasoning here, as arbitrary taboos represent what he calls a "preconventional" morality, which is the most unevolved moral state.



I agree. Generally speaking those who follow such 'preconventional' moralities don't really examine them or ask questions about them.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd prefer to just skip the entire schtick, and stick with the topic of gay rights and the imaginary 'homosexual dillema'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why don't you address my point if that's what you keep saying you want?  Free markets are the best protection for gay rights.
Click to expand...



In some places they might be...in others not so much. For people living in large metropolitan areas with lots of choices, absolutely...in rural areas with often only one choice in services, not so much. 

And if that were truly the case, ALL PA laws should be abolished, not just the gay ones...but there is no move to end them all is there, Kaz? Okay...one guy, Rand Paul, said something once on Rachel Maddow and has been walking it back ever since.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't say you were, he said you were _*like *_a born again Christian...a Born Again Libertarian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the ultimate one trick pony, every thread turns into a gay thread.  Thanks for that clarification.  It's not like you two geniuses consistently advocate liberalism, what a great point.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save this thread actually is about gays.
> 
> Do try and keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, and my answer, simpleton, is to give gays the greatest protection, the protection of the marketplace.  Let the odd screwball who limits who they do business with harm themselves.  Only government can enforce discrimination.  A free market rewards those who don't discriminate.
Click to expand...

The fact that no country in the entire world, not a single fucking one, uses his solutions never seems to cross his tiny mind, nor does he wonder why that might be so. Color me shocked.


----------



## Skylar

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd prefer to just skip the entire schtick, and stick with the topic of gay rights and the imaginary 'homosexual dillema'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why don't you address my point if that's what you keep saying you want?  Free markets are the best protection for gay rights.
Click to expand...


Save that they aren't. Protecting and preserving rights are the best protection for gay rights. 

Rights aren't a matter of sale. They aren't a commodity to be purchased, or traded. Which renders them unquantifiable to someone who looks at the world in terms of economics. Which is why we don't use economic measures as the metric of rights.


----------



## JakeStarkey

This is one of the most uninformed comments we will read today, " is to give gays the greatest protection, the protection of the marketplace."

The solid statement of the day, "Protecting and preserving rights are the best protection for gay rights."


----------



## Skylar

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is about marriage equality. We know you claim that you are against all people getting a "gubmit" marriage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if your standard is that if one's view is known then they should STFU, why don't you go first?
Click to expand...


The view is....this isn't about your hysteric obsession with government. This is about gay rights. Everything isn't everything. This thread isn't about every topic. Its about gay, their role in society, their rights, and the imaginary 'homosexual dillema'.

If you want to discuss gay rights, well bob's your uncle. If you don't, there are other threads.


----------



## Skylar

JakeStarkey said:


> This is one of the most uninformed comments we will read today, " is to give gays the greatest protection, the protection of the marketplace."



Some people don't get that rights aren't a commodity.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd prefer to just skip the entire schtick, and stick with the topic of gay rights and the imaginary 'homosexual dillema'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why don't you address my point if that's what you keep saying you want?  Free markets are the best protection for gay rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In some places they might be...in others not so much. For people living in large metropolitan areas with lots of choices, absolutely...in rural areas with often only one choice in services, not so much.
> 
> And if that were truly the case, ALL PA laws should be abolished, not just the gay ones...but there is no move to end them all is there, Kaz? Okay...one guy, Rand Paul, said something once on Rachel Maddow and has been walking it back ever since.
Click to expand...


Of course all PA laws should be abolished, but expanding them is not a step to accomplishing that.  They are all beyond worthless, they enable government power.


----------



## kaz

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't say you were, he said you were _*like *_a born again Christian...a Born Again Libertarian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the ultimate one trick pony, every thread turns into a gay thread.  Thanks for that clarification.  It's not like you two geniuses consistently advocate liberalism, what a great point.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save this thread actually is about gays.
> 
> Do try and keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, and my answer, simpleton, is to give gays the greatest protection, the protection of the marketplace.  Let the odd screwball who limits who they do business with harm themselves.  Only government can enforce discrimination.  A free market rewards those who don't discriminate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that no country in the entire world, not a single fucking one, uses his solutions never seems to cross his tiny mind, nor does he wonder why that might be so. Color me shocked.
Click to expand...


I don't wonder why it's so at all.  That's clear.   Politicians control small minded, cowardly simpletons with fear.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd prefer to just skip the entire schtick, and stick with the topic of gay rights and the imaginary 'homosexual dillema'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why don't you address my point if that's what you keep saying you want?  Free markets are the best protection for gay rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In some places they might be...in others not so much. For people living in large metropolitan areas with lots of choices, absolutely...in rural areas with often only one choice in services, not so much.
> 
> And if that were truly the case, ALL PA laws should be abolished, not just the gay ones...but there is no move to end them all is there, Kaz? Okay...one guy, Rand Paul, said something once on Rachel Maddow and has been walking it back ever since.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course all PA laws should be abolished, but expanding them is not a step to accomplishing that.  They are all beyond worthless, they enable government power.
Click to expand...

I hate Ayn Rand kids.  Such worthless little fuckers, and cocky to boot.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't say you were, he said you were _*like *_a born again Christian...a Born Again Libertarian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the ultimate one trick pony, every thread turns into a gay thread.  Thanks for that clarification.  It's not like you two geniuses consistently advocate liberalism, what a great point.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save this thread actually is about gays.
> 
> Do try and keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, and my answer, simpleton, is to give gays the greatest protection, the protection of the marketplace.  Let the odd screwball who limits who they do business with harm themselves.  Only government can enforce discrimination.  A free market rewards those who don't discriminate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that no country in the entire world, not a single fucking one, uses his solutions never seems to cross his tiny mind, nor does he wonder why that might be so. Color me shocked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't wonder why it's so at all.  That's clear.   Politicians control small minded, cowardly simpletons with fear.
Click to expand...

So not a single country in the world does what you believe they should and they're the ones who are stupid?  Got it.


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd prefer to just skip the entire schtick, and stick with the topic of gay rights and the imaginary 'homosexual dillema'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why don't you address my point if that's what you keep saying you want?  Free markets are the best protection for gay rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save that they aren't. Protecting and preserving rights are the best protection for gay rights.
> 
> Rights aren't a matter of sale. They aren't a commodity to be purchased, or traded. Which renders them unquantifiable to someone who looks at the world in terms of economics. Which is why we don't use economic measures as the metric of rights.
Click to expand...


And you will protect rights with your socialist ideology no matter how many rights you have to crush to do it.  Instead of walking across to the competitor of a discriminator and solving the problem, you run to government to get them to use their guns to do it.  And then they use their guns to force endless innocent businesses to prove they aren't discriminating.  

Government has no legitimate authority to use force to compel any of it's citizens to do business with another citizen.


----------



## kaz

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the ultimate one trick pony, every thread turns into a gay thread.  Thanks for that clarification.  It's not like you two geniuses consistently advocate liberalism, what a great point.  LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Save this thread actually is about gays.
> 
> Do try and keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, and my answer, simpleton, is to give gays the greatest protection, the protection of the marketplace.  Let the odd screwball who limits who they do business with harm themselves.  Only government can enforce discrimination.  A free market rewards those who don't discriminate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that no country in the entire world, not a single fucking one, uses his solutions never seems to cross his tiny mind, nor does he wonder why that might be so. Color me shocked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't wonder why it's so at all.  That's clear.   Politicians control small minded, cowardly simpletons with fear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So not a single country in the world does what you believe they should and they're the ones who are stupid?  Got it.
Click to expand...


The United States


----------



## PaintMyHouse

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd prefer to just skip the entire schtick, and stick with the topic of gay rights and the imaginary 'homosexual dillema'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why don't you address my point if that's what you keep saying you want?  Free markets are the best protection for gay rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save that they aren't. Protecting and preserving rights are the best protection for gay rights.
> 
> Rights aren't a matter of sale. They aren't a commodity to be purchased, or traded. Which renders them unquantifiable to someone who looks at the world in terms of economics. Which is why we don't use economic measures as the metric of rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you will protect rights with your socialist ideology no matter how many rights you have to crush to do it.  Instead of walking across to the competitor of a discriminator and solving the problem, you run to government to get them to use their guns to do it.  And then they use their guns to force endless innocent businesses to prove they aren't discriminating.
> 
> Government has no legitimate authority to use force to compel any of it's citizens to do business with another citizen.
Click to expand...

No one is using their guns you little drama queen.  Fuck you kids are dumb.


----------



## kaz

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd prefer to just skip the entire schtick, and stick with the topic of gay rights and the imaginary 'homosexual dillema'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why don't you address my point if that's what you keep saying you want?  Free markets are the best protection for gay rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In some places they might be...in others not so much. For people living in large metropolitan areas with lots of choices, absolutely...in rural areas with often only one choice in services, not so much.
> 
> And if that were truly the case, ALL PA laws should be abolished, not just the gay ones...but there is no move to end them all is there, Kaz? Okay...one guy, Rand Paul, said something once on Rachel Maddow and has been walking it back ever since.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course all PA laws should be abolished, but expanding them is not a step to accomplishing that.  They are all beyond worthless, they enable government power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hate Ayn Rand kids.  Such worthless little fuckers, and cocky to boot.
Click to expand...


If I have my way, you can still make your own choices.  If you have your way, my right to make my choices is removed.

And you call me cocky?  LOL, you're the cock.


----------



## kaz

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd prefer to just skip the entire schtick, and stick with the topic of gay rights and the imaginary 'homosexual dillema'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why don't you address my point if that's what you keep saying you want?  Free markets are the best protection for gay rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save that they aren't. Protecting and preserving rights are the best protection for gay rights.
> 
> Rights aren't a matter of sale. They aren't a commodity to be purchased, or traded. Which renders them unquantifiable to someone who looks at the world in terms of economics. Which is why we don't use economic measures as the metric of rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you will protect rights with your socialist ideology no matter how many rights you have to crush to do it.  Instead of walking across to the competitor of a discriminator and solving the problem, you run to government to get them to use their guns to do it.  And then they use their guns to force endless innocent businesses to prove they aren't discriminating.
> 
> Government has no legitimate authority to use force to compel any of it's citizens to do business with another citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is using their guns you little drama queen.  Fuck you kids are dumb.
Click to expand...


Try not doing what they want, then you will see the guns.  Fuck you leftists are dumb.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Save this thread actually is about gays.
> 
> Do try and keep up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, and my answer, simpleton, is to give gays the greatest protection, the protection of the marketplace.  Let the odd screwball who limits who they do business with harm themselves.  Only government can enforce discrimination.  A free market rewards those who don't discriminate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that no country in the entire world, not a single fucking one, uses his solutions never seems to cross his tiny mind, nor does he wonder why that might be so. Color me shocked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't wonder why it's so at all.  That's clear.   Politicians control small minded, cowardly simpletons with fear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So not a single country in the world does what you believe they should and they're the ones who are stupid?  Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States
Click to expand...

It's nothing like what you believe it should be, obviously, so get the fuck out and go live in AynRandLand.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd prefer to just skip the entire schtick, and stick with the topic of gay rights and the imaginary 'homosexual dillema'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why don't you address my point if that's what you keep saying you want?  Free markets are the best protection for gay rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In some places they might be...in others not so much. For people living in large metropolitan areas with lots of choices, absolutely...in rural areas with often only one choice in services, not so much.
> 
> And if that were truly the case, ALL PA laws should be abolished, not just the gay ones...but there is no move to end them all is there, Kaz? Okay...one guy, Rand Paul, said something once on Rachel Maddow and has been walking it back ever since.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course all PA laws should be abolished, but expanding them is not a step to accomplishing that.  They are all beyond worthless, they enable government power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hate Ayn Rand kids.  Such worthless little fuckers, and cocky to boot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I have my way, you can still make your own choices.  If you have your way, my right to make my choices is removed.
> 
> And you call me cocky?  LOL, you're the cock.
Click to expand...

Your choices are limited, for the benefit of others.  Welcome to adulthood my little fucking infant. Whoever raised you should be spanked good and hard for giving the world such a selfish little moron.


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is about marriage equality. We know you claim that you are against all people getting a "gubmit" marriage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if your standard is that if one's view is known then they should STFU, why don't you go first?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The view is....this isn't about your hysteric obsession with government. This is about gay rights. Everything isn't everything. This thread isn't about every topic. Its about gay, their role in society, their rights, and the imaginary 'homosexual dillema'.
> 
> If you want to discuss gay rights, well bob's your uncle. If you don't, there are other threads.
Click to expand...


Right, my hysteric obsession with less government is nuts, but your hysteric obsession with more government is perfectly fine.

There don't need to be any gay laws.  Just like there didn't need to be an Equal Rights Amendment for women.  We are all people.  And our interests are all best served by a free marketplace.

You may now return to your normally scheduled program, hysterical obsession with government as the solution to all our problems.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd prefer to just skip the entire schtick, and stick with the topic of gay rights and the imaginary 'homosexual dillema'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why don't you address my point if that's what you keep saying you want?  Free markets are the best protection for gay rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save that they aren't. Protecting and preserving rights are the best protection for gay rights.
> 
> Rights aren't a matter of sale. They aren't a commodity to be purchased, or traded. Which renders them unquantifiable to someone who looks at the world in terms of economics. Which is why we don't use economic measures as the metric of rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you will protect rights with your socialist ideology no matter how many rights you have to crush to do it.  Instead of walking across to the competitor of a discriminator and solving the problem, you run to government to get them to use their guns to do it.  And then they use their guns to force endless innocent businesses to prove they aren't discriminating.
> 
> Government has no legitimate authority to use force to compel any of it's citizens to do business with another citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is using their guns you little drama queen.  Fuck you kids are dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try not doing what they want, then you will see the guns.  Fuck you leftists are dumb.
Click to expand...

We don't use guns that way asswipe.  Grow up.


----------



## kaz

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why don't you address my point if that's what you keep saying you want?  Free markets are the best protection for gay rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In some places they might be...in others not so much. For people living in large metropolitan areas with lots of choices, absolutely...in rural areas with often only one choice in services, not so much.
> 
> And if that were truly the case, ALL PA laws should be abolished, not just the gay ones...but there is no move to end them all is there, Kaz? Okay...one guy, Rand Paul, said something once on Rachel Maddow and has been walking it back ever since.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course all PA laws should be abolished, but expanding them is not a step to accomplishing that.  They are all beyond worthless, they enable government power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hate Ayn Rand kids.  Such worthless little fuckers, and cocky to boot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I have my way, you can still make your own choices.  If you have your way, my right to make my choices is removed.
> 
> And you call me cocky?  LOL, you're the cock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your choices are limited, for the benefit of others.  Welcome to adulthood my little fucking infant. Whoever raised you should be spanked good and hard for giving the world such a selfish little moron.
Click to expand...


With your endless stream of angry, ranting vulgarity and insults without any content to back it up, I wouldn't be calling anyone an "infant" if I were you.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Hey, No *******, Faggots, or Jews gas station kid, it ain't happening again so it's time to fucking grow up and deal with reality little man.


----------



## kaz

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why don't you address my point if that's what you keep saying you want?  Free markets are the best protection for gay rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Save that they aren't. Protecting and preserving rights are the best protection for gay rights.
> 
> Rights aren't a matter of sale. They aren't a commodity to be purchased, or traded. Which renders them unquantifiable to someone who looks at the world in terms of economics. Which is why we don't use economic measures as the metric of rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you will protect rights with your socialist ideology no matter how many rights you have to crush to do it.  Instead of walking across to the competitor of a discriminator and solving the problem, you run to government to get them to use their guns to do it.  And then they use their guns to force endless innocent businesses to prove they aren't discriminating.
> 
> Government has no legitimate authority to use force to compel any of it's citizens to do business with another citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is using their guns you little drama queen.  Fuck you kids are dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try not doing what they want, then you will see the guns.  Fuck you leftists are dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't use guns that way asswipe.  Grow up.
Click to expand...


So if I don't serve gays and ignore whatever government does to force me to, then they won't come with guns?  Seriously?  You are an infant.  You're the one who has to grow up.

So if the mafia sends you an invitation to buy insurance for your home, they aren't threatening you with guns because you didn't see the gun?  You're the one who has to grow up.  Also, I keep saying "the force of guns,"not "guns."  We do what they say becasue we know what happens if we don't.  You're not smart enough to recognize the difference, are you?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> In some places they might be...in others not so much. For people living in large metropolitan areas with lots of choices, absolutely...in rural areas with often only one choice in services, not so much.
> 
> And if that were truly the case, ALL PA laws should be abolished, not just the gay ones...but there is no move to end them all is there, Kaz? Okay...one guy, Rand Paul, said something once on Rachel Maddow and has been walking it back ever since.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course all PA laws should be abolished, but expanding them is not a step to accomplishing that.  They are all beyond worthless, they enable government power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hate Ayn Rand kids.  Such worthless little fuckers, and cocky to boot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I have my way, you can still make your own choices.  If you have your way, my right to make my choices is removed.
> 
> And you call me cocky?  LOL, you're the cock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your choices are limited, for the benefit of others.  Welcome to adulthood my little fucking infant. Whoever raised you should be spanked good and hard for giving the world such a selfish little moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With your endless stream of angry, ranting vulgarity and insults without any content to back it up, I wouldn't be calling anyone an "infant" if I were you.
Click to expand...

You don't know how to call the sky blue you little dumbshit.  You're a fucking child, and you sound just like one.  Life is so unfair Mommy, and I can't do exactly what I want when I want to, fix it Mommy!


----------



## PaintMyHouse

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Save that they aren't. Protecting and preserving rights are the best protection for gay rights.
> 
> Rights aren't a matter of sale. They aren't a commodity to be purchased, or traded. Which renders them unquantifiable to someone who looks at the world in terms of economics. Which is why we don't use economic measures as the metric of rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you will protect rights with your socialist ideology no matter how many rights you have to crush to do it.  Instead of walking across to the competitor of a discriminator and solving the problem, you run to government to get them to use their guns to do it.  And then they use their guns to force endless innocent businesses to prove they aren't discriminating.
> 
> Government has no legitimate authority to use force to compel any of it's citizens to do business with another citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is using their guns you little drama queen.  Fuck you kids are dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try not doing what they want, then you will see the guns.  Fuck you leftists are dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't use guns that way asswipe.  Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if I don't serve gays and ignore whatever government does to force me to, then they won't come with guns?  Seriously?  You are an infant.  You're the one who has to grow up.
> 
> So if the mafia sends you an invitation to buy insurance for your home, they aren't threatening you with guns because you didn't see the gun?  You're the one who has to grow up.  Also, I keep saying "the force of guns,"not "guns."  We do what they say becasue we know what happens if we don't.  You're not smart enough to recognize the difference, are you?
Click to expand...

No, they won't come with guns you goddamned stupid infant.

Where do you little total morons get this utterly stupid shit from?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Government remains a necessary component of society, and that Kaz does not like it means. . . nothing to the universe.

Kaz's world would very likely revert to the mad men like Where R My Keys taking over and killing all homosexuals.


----------



## peach174

Gays would not have to complain about their rights if it wasn't for big government that is taking their rights away in the first place.
The smaller the government the more rights all of us have.
Gays have been unfairly taxed with inheritance laws because of bigger government.
They can't see their loved ones because of hospital rules of only relatives.
That is not only for Gays rights but for all of us, just recently a littler girl who survived a plane crash wanted the man who helped her when she knocked on his door, to go to the hospital with her, but he couldn't because he was not a relative. Hospitals had to make that rule because of bid government.
That little girl had just lost her parents and all she wanted was a kind grownup with her for comfort.
If it wasn't for the stupid rules of big government for marriage licenses, gays could get married how ever they wished.
The bigger the government the more of all of our rights are being taken away.
The smaller the government the more rights we have for all of us as Americans.


----------



## Skylar

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd prefer to just skip the entire schtick, and stick with the topic of gay rights and the imaginary 'homosexual dillema'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why don't you address my point if that's what you keep saying you want?  Free markets are the best protection for gay rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save that they aren't. Protecting and preserving rights are the best protection for gay rights.
> 
> Rights aren't a matter of sale. They aren't a commodity to be purchased, or traded. Which renders them unquantifiable to someone who looks at the world in terms of economics. Which is why we don't use economic measures as the metric of rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you will protect rights with your socialist ideology no matter how many rights you have to crush to do it.
Click to expand...


And you're back to your libertarian schtick. No one gives a fuck about your little obsession with 'socialists'. This is a thread about gays, homoseuxality, gay rights, gays in society, etc.



> Government has no legitimate authority to use force to compel any of it's citizens to do business with another citizen.



States have jurisdiction over intra state commerce. Its completely within their authority to regulate commerce. And completely reasonable for the States to set basic minimum standards for conducting business: that you treat your customers fairly and equally.

Legally and ethically, the States are on firm footing. 

And since rights aren't commodities, the entire concept of allowing the 'free market' to decide it is just ludicrous. And certainly not a belief expressed or practiced by the founders. What you're describing is the tyranny of the majority. And the founders despised the concept. As would any rational person.


----------



## bodecea

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't say you were, he said you were _*like *_a born again Christian...a Born Again Libertarian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the ultimate one trick pony, every thread turns into a gay thread.  Thanks for that clarification.  It's not like you two geniuses consistently advocate liberalism, what a great point.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save this thread actually is about gays.
> 
> Do try and keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, and my answer, simpleton, is to give gays the greatest protection, the protection of the marketplace.  Let the odd screwball who limits who they do business with harm themselves.  Only government can enforce discrimination.  A free market rewards those who don't discriminate.
Click to expand...

How exactly does the marketplace provide protection?


----------



## Skylar

kaz said:


> So if I don't serve gays and ignore whatever government does to force me to, then they won't come with guns?  Seriously?  You are an infant.  You're the one who has to grow up.



Nope. The government will fine you. As you've violated the civil law and are subject to financial penalties. And since the States have exclusive jurisdiction over intra state commerce, they have every authority to establish minimum standards of conduct when doing business. Such as....treating your customers fairly and equally.


----------



## JakeStarkey

peach174 said:


> Gays would not have to complain about their rights if it wasn't for big government that is taking their rights away in the first place.
> The smaller the government the more rights all of us have.
> Gays have been unfairly taxed with inheritance laws because of bigger government.
> They can't see their loved ones because of hospital rules of only relatives.
> That is not only for Gays rights but for all of us, just recently a littler girl who survived a plane crash wanted the man who helped her when she knocked on his door, to go to the hospital with her, but he couldn't because he was not a relative. Hospitals had to make that rule because of bid government.
> That little girl had just lost her parents and all she wanted was a kind grownup with her for comfort.
> If it wasn't for the stupid rules of big government for marriage licenses, gays could get married how ever they wished.
> The bigger the government the more of all of our rights are being taken away.
> The smaller the government the more rights we have for all of us as Americans.



Your conclusion is false, and the material above it does not lead to your conclusion.

Only through bigger government were the slaves freed, women enfranchised, segregation ended, older teens empowered, and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

bodecea said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't say you were, he said you were _*like *_a born again Christian...a Born Again Libertarian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the ultimate one trick pony, every thread turns into a gay thread.  Thanks for that clarification.  It's not like you two geniuses consistently advocate liberalism, what a great point.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save this thread actually is about gays.
> 
> Do try and keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, and my answer, simpleton, is to give gays the greatest protection, the protection of the marketplace.  Let the odd screwball who limits who they do business with harm themselves.  Only government can enforce discrimination.  A free market rewards those who don't discriminate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How exactly does the marketplace provide protection?
Click to expand...

He thinks the No Faggots bakery, the only one in town, will either go out of business or someone will open up a Faggots Welcome bakery, when there isn't enough business even for the first one.  The fact that the first one has a customer base of 97% and other 3% never crosses his tiny mind.


----------



## kaz

JakeStarkey said:


> Government remains a necessary component of society, and that Kaz does not like it means. . . nothing to the universe.
> 
> Kaz's world would very likely revert to the mad men like Where R My Keys taking over and killing all homosexuals.



Yes, moron, I'm anarchist.  Got it.


----------



## kaz

PaintMyHouse said:


> You don't know how to call the sky blue you little dumbshit.  You're a fucking child, and you sound just like one.  Life is so unfair Mommy, and I can't do exactly what I want when I want to, fix it Mommy!



I sound like the child?  LOL, read your posts.


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd prefer to just skip the entire schtick, and stick with the topic of gay rights and the imaginary 'homosexual dillema'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why don't you address my point if that's what you keep saying you want?  Free markets are the best protection for gay rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save that they aren't. Protecting and preserving rights are the best protection for gay rights.
> 
> Rights aren't a matter of sale. They aren't a commodity to be purchased, or traded. Which renders them unquantifiable to someone who looks at the world in terms of economics. Which is why we don't use economic measures as the metric of rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you will protect rights with your socialist ideology no matter how many rights you have to crush to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you're back to your libertarian schtick. No one gives a fuck about your little obsession with 'socialists'. This is a thread about gays, homoseuxality, gay rights, gays in society, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government has no legitimate authority to use force to compel any of it's citizens to do business with another citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> States have jurisdiction over intra state commerce. Its completely within their authority to regulate commerce. And completely reasonable for the States to set basic minimum standards for conducting business: that you treat your customers fairly and equally.
> 
> Legally and ethically, the States are on firm footing.
> 
> And since rights aren't commodities, the entire concept of allowing the 'free market' to decide it is just ludicrous. And certainly not a belief expressed or practiced by the founders. What you're describing is the tyranny of the majority. And the founders despised the concept. As would any rational person.
Click to expand...


Again with the socialism obsession.  You say "rights" aren't commodities.  You have negative rights, the right to be left alone to live your own life.  The positive rights you assert, the right to force someone to do business with you is an entirely socialist construct and yes, it's completely morally and ethically wrong.  If someone doesn't want to do business with me for being a blond haired blue eyed white guy, that's their choice.  My money is greed.  Your money is green. Gay's money is green.  Green is the only color most of us in business care about.  As for legally, yes, in our system the States do have that power though.  The Federal government does not by the 10th amendment.


----------



## kaz

bodecea said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't say you were, he said you were _*like *_a born again Christian...a Born Again Libertarian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the ultimate one trick pony, every thread turns into a gay thread.  Thanks for that clarification.  It's not like you two geniuses consistently advocate liberalism, what a great point.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save this thread actually is about gays.
> 
> Do try and keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, and my answer, simpleton, is to give gays the greatest protection, the protection of the marketplace.  Let the odd screwball who limits who they do business with harm themselves.  Only government can enforce discrimination.  A free market rewards those who don't discriminate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How exactly does the marketplace provide protection?
Click to expand...


Choice


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if I don't serve gays and ignore whatever government does to force me to, then they won't come with guns?  Seriously?  You are an infant.  You're the one who has to grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. The government will fine you. As you've violated the civil law and are subject to financial penalties. And since the States have exclusive jurisdiction over intra state commerce, they have every authority to establish minimum standards of conduct when doing business. Such as....treating your customers fairly and equally.
Click to expand...


And I don't go to court and I don't pay the fine, now what?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if I don't serve gays and ignore whatever government does to force me to, then they won't come with guns?  Seriously?  You are an infant.  You're the one who has to grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. The government will fine you. As you've violated the civil law and are subject to financial penalties. And since the States have exclusive jurisdiction over intra state commerce, they have every authority to establish minimum standards of conduct when doing business. Such as....treating your customers fairly and equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I don't go to court and I don't pay the fine, now what?
Click to expand...

You get arrested dumbass, and your business closed down.  Follow the fucking laws.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know how to call the sky blue you little dumbshit.  You're a fucking child, and you sound just like one.  Life is so unfair Mommy, and I can't do exactly what I want when I want to, fix it Mommy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I sound like the child?  LOL, read your posts.
Click to expand...

I not only read them, I write them you goddamned infant.  Go play, no one cares about your bullshit AynRandLand.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Skylar said:


> It depends on who you talk to. There are many who will argue that the only basis of morality is god. And if you use your reason, you're a relativist who is evil and believes in nothing. And that their faith is objective truth, as it comes directly from god. I'm not joking or inaccurately paraphrasing here. I can show you virtually exact quotes that say as much.
> 
> .



  My observation is that for ever person who deals in arbitrary moral absolutes on the right, there is, in fact, a practitioner of moral relativism on the left.  Just looking at the large number of leftists who defend Islamism, rationalize acts of terror, or defend grossly misogynistic practices as long as they arise in any part of the world other than what we consider our own, I would say that there are plenty of people who do embody these charges.  Just as the right can have a tendency to argue from a position of moral absolutes, the left can get so caught up in trying to distance themselves from morality that they take on positions that are nearly nihilistic. Instead of articulating a superior morality that IS based upon reason, far too many avoid the very notion altogether.

Instead of arguing from the position "does this action cause harm?",  "Is it oppressive?" or "does it involve one person denying the rights of another", far too many on BOTH sides of an issue merely respond in terms of "what am I expected to say?", "what do all those who share my chosen ideology say?" or "what is the politically correct response?".


----------



## bodecea

kaz said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't say you were, he said you were _*like *_a born again Christian...a Born Again Libertarian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the ultimate one trick pony, every thread turns into a gay thread.  Thanks for that clarification.  It's not like you two geniuses consistently advocate liberalism, what a great point.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save this thread actually is about gays.
> 
> Do try and keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, and my answer, simpleton, is to give gays the greatest protection, the protection of the marketplace.  Let the odd screwball who limits who they do business with harm themselves.  Only government can enforce discrimination.  A free market rewards those who don't discriminate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How exactly does the marketplace provide protection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Choice
Click to expand...

Explain more than that, please.  Because a weakness I see is tyranny of the majority based on that is there the most money is to be made, with the minorities pretty much ignored.


----------



## bodecea

Dogmaphobe said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on who you talk to. There are many who will argue that the only basis of morality is god. And if you use your reason, you're a relativist who is evil and believes in nothing. And that their faith is objective truth, as it comes directly from god. I'm not joking or inaccurately paraphrasing here. I can show you virtually exact quotes that say as much.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My observation is that for ever person who deals in arbitrary moral absolutes on the right, there is, in fact, a practitioner of moral relativism on the left.  Just *looking at the large number of leftists who defend Islamism,* rationalize acts of terror, or defend grossly misogynistic practices as long as they arise in any part of the world other than what we consider our own, I would say that there are plenty of people who do embody these charges.  Just as the right can have a tendency to argue from a position of moral absolutes, the left can get so caught up in trying to distance themselves from morality that they take on positions that are nearly nihilistic. Instead of articulating a superior morality that IS based upon reason, far too many avoid the very notion altogether.
> 
> Instead of arguing from the position "does this action cause harm?",  "Is it oppressive?" or "does it involve one person denying the rights of another", far too many on BOTH sides of an issue merely respond in terms of "what am I expected to say?", "what do all those who share my chosen ideology say?" or "what is the politically correct response?".
Click to expand...

Oh?   where are you looking?


----------



## Skylar

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if I don't serve gays and ignore whatever government does to force me to, then they won't come with guns?  Seriously?  You are an infant.  You're the one who has to grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. The government will fine you. As you've violated the civil law and are subject to financial penalties. And since the States have exclusive jurisdiction over intra state commerce, they have every authority to establish minimum standards of conduct when doing business. Such as....treating your customers fairly and equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I don't go to court and I don't pay the fine, now what?
Click to expand...


Then they'll be collected as levies and liens. Bank accounts will be ceased. Wages garnished. Titles to property forfeit. Like any tax.

As you well know.


----------



## Skylar

kaz said:


> Again with the socialism obsession.  You say "rights" aren't commodities.  You have negative rights, the right to be left alone to live your own life.  The positive rights you assert, the right to force someone to do business with you is an entirely socialist construct and yes, it's completely morally and ethically wrong.



These are a product of the State's power to regulate intra-state commerce. *A*_* power*_* you recognize. *And within that authority its perfectly reasonable to set minimum standards of business conduct, where customers are treated fairly and equally.

You're confusing powers with rights. They aren't the same thing.



> As for legally, yes, in our system the States do have that power though.  The Federal government does not by the 10th amendment.



And the bakers being subject to violation of public accommodation laws because they refuse to serve gays are being held to *are being held to State law. *

Rendering the standard of conduct required by those doing business legal even by your standard. And as its reasonable to require that anyone doing business with the public treat the public fairly and equally, ethical as well.

Rights on the other hand are freedoms. And they are not commodities. They are not for sale. They are not traded. Nor does anyone have the right to vote them away. Rendering your claim that gay rights should be decided by the market a profound misunderstanding of the nature of rights.


----------



## Skylar

Dogmaphobe said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on who you talk to. There are many who will argue that the only basis of morality is god. And if you use your reason, you're a relativist who is evil and believes in nothing. And that their faith is objective truth, as it comes directly from god. I'm not joking or inaccurately paraphrasing here. I can show you virtually exact quotes that say as much.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My observation is that for ever person who deals in arbitrary moral absolutes on the right, there is, in fact, a practitioner of moral relativism on the left.
Click to expand...


I don't know about a one for one, but the practice is pretty common on both sides. Labelling a series of subjective beliefs 'Social Justice' doesn't magically make it any more absolute then insisting 'God did it!'. But in my experience those on the left are far more prone to examine, weigh and question their moral beliefs than those on the right. As the Left's basis of morality is more diverse, and consequently more complex. While the right's conception of morality is pretty singular, and thus simpler.

And you have to think harder about more complex, nuanced issues than you do simple, monopolar ideas.

These being broad generalizations of course. There are still sheeple among the left and thinkers among the right. But I'm speaking in terms of trends within ideological groups.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

JakeStarkey said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> The company that makes twinkies is out of business. Good riddance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no way.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hostess is gone....happened a couple of years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You understand the products of Hostess are being sold in your markets . . . today?
Click to expand...

You mean other companies with similar products? Yeah, I knew that.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who are attracted to children can't make a different choice either.  Compulsive hoarding isn't a choice.  No compulsive disorder leaves the sufferer with a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a choice in acting. For me, as a gay woman, the only choice is in acting upon my natural or god given inclinations. As long as I am acting upon those natural inclinations with another consenting adult, whose fucking business is it and why should I be denied the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage because my life partner of choice happens to be the same gender I am?
Click to expand...

Notice how they no longer say, "What business is it of yours what we do in our own bedroom. This is because they know they've taken in out of the bedroom and shoved it in our faces. They hilariously push their lifestyle into the public while at the same time in this post saying it's none of our business. Just another daffy quirk of the faggoty Left.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could choose to be a criminal.  Does that make me one?
> 
> I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So with a mere choice you could find a man's hairy ass as sexually attractive as a woman's shapely backside?
> 
> Then Sy's right. You're probably bi already. For most of us, its not a choice. Its just an attribute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:
> 
> Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News
> 
> Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.
> 
> Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should really stop sucking dicks.  It's not normal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, it's not normal for me since I'm a lesbian and only lick pussy. I've never sucked a dick in my life nor do I ever intend to.
Click to expand...

Neither do I. Nor do I ask my wife to do that with the mouth she kisses our kids with. I consider oral sex to be an abomination so normalized nobody ever considers how wrong and unnatural it is anymore.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone think posting  "link" is  proves anything? Get a life. The proof is experience. Living a full life and having  wide range of experiences. Gays are nice folks, in general. But I don't understand this push for rights for them, I really don't. Tell me why? This is about a general consensus, there isn't any right or wrong. I just don't understand  this rationalizing  irrational sexual behavior. They are never gonna have children, why this PUSH for marriage equality? Why? I just am not buying it. I don't understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> Suffice to say, there are some very decent gays who aren't pushy assholes. I know, two of them are dear friends of mine. It's a tragedy that the faggots have become the face of gay people, but that's how life is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah- I have known racists who claim that there are some very decent negroes too- the ones that aren't uppity like the n*ggers.
> 
> They always have a story of dear friends who were colored, the shoe shine man....the guy who pumped their gas- the ones who 'knew their place'.
> 
> Bigots always have rationalizations like that.
Click to expand...

Do you know that race and lifestyle choice are two different things? Yes you can be judged by how you CHOOSE to live and that doesn't make me a bigot. 90% of blacks oppose homosexuality and resent the hell out of having your fake "cause" lumped in with their genuine plight.


----------



## JakeStarkey

kaz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government remains a necessary component of society, and that Kaz does not like it means. . . nothing to the universe.
> 
> Kaz's world would very likely revert to the mad men like Where R My Keys taking over and killing all homosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, moron, I'm anarchist.  Got it.
Click to expand...


Let's hope not.  Your philosophic content does not prevent the opportunity for local elites taking over and punishing those they don't like.


----------



## JakeStarkey

There are some loonies loose in this thread: philosophically, economically, religiously.

The more I read protectionist, kaz, where r my keys, bripat, I am so grateful for our Constitution.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

JakeStarkey said:


> There are some loonies loose in this thread: philosophically, economically, religiously.
> 
> The more I read protectionist, kaz, where r my keys, bripat, I am so grateful for our Constitution.


Yes, a wonderful document you can find "rights" in to the limits of your imagination. Right now I'm trying to find me a "right" to your home, bank accounts, and possessions. I'm sure I'll find it somewhere.


----------



## JakeStarkey

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are some loonies loose in this thread: philosophically, economically, religiously.
> 
> The more I read protectionist, kaz, where r my keys, bripat, I am so grateful for our Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, a wonderful document you can find "rights" in to the limits of your imagination. Right now I'm trying to find me a "right" to your home, bank accounts, and possessions. I'm sure I'll find it somewhere.
Click to expand...

  Look all you want.  And in the meantime you will follow the law or pay the consequences if caught.


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> God these assholes are dumb.  One thinks that if walks into his daughter's bedroom and finds her on her knees stripped to her panties, her boyfriend standing over her with his jeans and tighty whiteys at his ankles, and his cock in her mouth that he would react by saying, Oh good, I was worried that you two might be having sex but I can see it's just foreplay so have fun kids.  Morons here, total fucking morons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey House, I don't make these definitions up. Society and nature does. It appears it is my job to educate those that don't know any better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You "definition" is that only of horny teenage girls who are "technical virgins".  The rest of us know that a cock in your ass or your mouth means you are having sex.  We, unlike you, have common fucking sense, literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, your "common sense" is not sex. Sorry if that upsets you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't upset me at all, because you're a fucking idiot who doesn't understand sex, gender, or sexual orientation any more than you understand that a post on the Internet isn't a letter to your fucking mommy, so you don't have to write your name at the end of it you fucking infant.
Click to expand...


I don't understand? Sorry House, I don't create the definition to these words. The dictionary does. Why don't you crack one open once in a while?

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is a...not a human right. How is Homosexuality deferent from any other sexual malfunction... It doesn't need protection under the constitution any more than does  Female dryness, Erectile dysfunction or another sexual issue.  Homosexuality is a made up cause with phony rights. Not buying it.
> 
> 
> 
> Your posts and the posts of those who agree with you are proof gay Americans are in need of Constitutional protections.
> 
> Indeed, Constitutional protections apply not only to race, gender, or religion but also to the right of individuals to make life choices absent unwarranted interference by the state:
> 
> “It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. _*The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”
> *_
> LAWRENCE V. TEXAS
Click to expand...



Using that "logic" people should be able to do anything they want. Sorry, life doesn't work that way.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter what the anti-marriage equality crowd, believe, think, or pray for.  Their confirmation bias and associated group cognitive dissonance will not stave off the embedding of marriage equality nationally and locally in a short time, and it will not stave off their children from chiding them, "Quit being goobers.  If you are right about it, God will take care of it, because you have shown you can't."
> 
> 
> 
> My children applaude my stance that faggots are abnormal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> F*ggots, C*nts, N*ggers, K*kes.....
> 
> Bigots use these words for the same purpose.
Click to expand...


Lol. If you don't like derogatory terms, why do you use them yourself? Let me guess? Your "moral authority".

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Convince me why gays NEED marriage equality. Anyone? You do that, I buy you a cup of coffee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have met racists that I could not convince why African Americans deserve equal treatment either.
> 
> Some people are impervious to any argument that people deserve equal treatment.
Click to expand...



Not the same thing. Even the blacks get pissed when the comparison is made. Apples and oranges.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the experts don't agree with the far right on this Board.
> 
> Amazing.  The weirds start taking same sex attraction and these voyeurs start gabbling excitingly about bestiality, group sex, and other behavior that fascinates them.  No connection at all but they do get excited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. The APA is discussing classifying pedophilia in the same way they do homosexuality. If you all were truthful, you would understand that any sexual proclivity can(and should be if applied fairly) be classified exactly as homosexuality is. One sexual deviancy is really no different than another.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think anything other than male female penis in vagina is sexual deviancy- and that they are all the same as pedophilia?
Click to expand...


Foreplay and masturbation are integral parts of sex. It is what makes it "fun", and that leads to pro creation.

So, let me turn your question around. Is there anything you consider a deviancy?

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone here that that can prove that homosexuals NEED to get married, I will buy you a GOOD  cup coffee, you name it. Really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a man who has been married to my wife for over 20 years- I can say that no one can prove to me that heterosexuals need to get married.
> 
> But we deserve to be able to have that choice- just like a homosexual couple does.
Click to expand...


That's where you are wrong. Nature devised the "marriage" plan by forcing a male and a female to interact to reproduce.

Nature "understands" that two people are needed to raise a human child.

Now, you can deny nature if you want to, but it won't change anything.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Seawytch said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get that from men either.  That's why I chose women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I certainly chose to have sex with women- I chose to marry a woman- but I never, ever chose to be attracted to women.
> 
> IF you can choose to be attracted to women- then you should be able to chose to be attracted to men.
> 
> If you find the idea of a stubbly male face kissing your lips repugnant- like I do- then your attraction is not a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I choose not to be attracted to men.
> 
> I find a lot of things repugnant.  Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are probably bisexual.
> 
> As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.
> 
> I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.
> 
> If you think you could chose to be turned on by a photo of Clooney in a bathing suit- then you  are probably bisexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could choose to be a criminal.  Does that make me one?
> 
> I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't choose your attraction, only whether to act on them or not. If you are not attracted to men, you can't make yourself attracted to men, trust me on this. (It's why reparative "therapy" has such a high failure rate)
Click to expand...


It would be interesting to know what other psychiatric problems have a "high failure rate" and if we simply gave up because of it.

Did you ever stop to think that this "high failure rate" is because we haven't been been trying reparative therapy that long?

I mean fuck, we have been trying to cure cancer, diabetes, and heart disease forever.

Maybe you think we should stop trying?

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Seawytch said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  It is about science and how different conlcusions can come from the same research.
> 
> People Are Not Born Gay Affirms Royal College of Psychiatrists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that's not what happened. What happened was an anti gay group misinterpreted the study.
> 
> UK ‘gay cure’ group red-faced as psychiatrists point out they are wrong
> 
> _Speaking to Gay Star News, a Royal College of Psychiatrists spokeswoman said it was a clear ‘misinterpretation’ of their actual statement.
> 
> ‘Homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder,’ it reads. ‘The College believes strongly in evidence-based treatment. There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.
> 
> ‘The College would not support a therapy for converting people from homosexuality any more than we would do so from heterosexuality.
> 
> ‘Psychiatrists should be committed to reducing inequalities, not supporting practices that are explicitly based on pathologizing homosexuality. As such, the College remains in favor of legislative efforts to ban such conversion therapies.’_​
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  Gay West New York cop claims in lawsuit he was harassed intimidated by police director NJ.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a lot more than just "saying something" in that case. Also, you can't "say anything" at work, you know that right? Your "free speech" goes only as far as your employer allows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tebow's action of praying got media attention.  However, had he not scored a toughdown, etc. there would have been no attention because he wouldn't have Tebowed.  For Sam, the attention came before ever stepping foot on an NFL field.  Tebow also had high school accomplishments.  You don't start at Florida and win the Heisman if you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't pretend Michael Sam didn't have accomplishments prior to coming out. He was SEC defensive player of the year and I think would be on a roster right now if he hadn't come out as gay.
> 
> Do you think role models are important? You obviously see Tebow as a role model for Christians and have no problem with that. Why can't Michael Sam be a role model for gay athletes? You may not realize it, but it is important for the gay High School football player in Iowa to see that there are others like him and it's okay to be athletic and gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  Define equal.  It doens't mean you get to do exactly the same things I do or vice versa.
> 
> Just ask them about polygamy or a sibling marriage.  They are quicker to say no to it coming up with why equality should be denied than they are about bending over and taking one in the ass for the homos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Polygamy and incest are both illegal so bringing them up is what is referred to in polite circles as a "slippery slope fallacy". They are completely unrelated to gays having equal access to civil marriage, and would either have a valid argument for legalization or they would not regardless of gays civilly marrying.
> 
> Quite a few countries have been marrying the gays for a while now. Even more countries perform legal polygamist marriages. None do both. There is no slippery slope.
Click to expand...


There is a slippery slope. It started with the leftists instituting welfare, easy divorce, and single motherhood to destroy families.

Gay marriage is simply the latest step in that direction.

Mark


----------



## JakeStarkey

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the experts don't agree with the far right on this Board.
> 
> Amazing.  The weirds start taking same sex attraction and these voyeurs start gabbling excitingly about bestiality, group sex, and other behavior that fascinates them.  No connection at all but they do get excited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. The APA is discussing classifying pedophilia in the same way they do homosexuality. If you all were truthful, you would understand that any sexual proclivity can(and should be if applied fairly) be classified exactly as homosexuality is. One sexual deviancy is really no different than another.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think anything other than male female penis in vagina is sexual deviancy- and that they are all the same as pedophilia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foreplay and masturbation are integral parts of sex. It is what makes it "fun", and that leads to pro creation.
> 
> So, let me turn your question around. Is there anything you consider a deviancy?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

  Your behavior here is deviant, Mark: it is cruel, dark, and unnecessary.


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the experts don't agree with the far right on this Board.
> 
> Amazing.  The weirds start taking same sex attraction and these voyeurs start gabbling excitingly about bestiality, group sex, and other behavior that fascinates them.  No connection at all but they do get excited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. The APA is discussing classifying pedophilia in the same way they do homosexuality. If you all were truthful, you would understand that any sexual proclivity can(and should be if applied fairly) be classified exactly as homosexuality is. One sexual deviancy is really no different than another.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think anything other than male female penis in vagina is sexual deviancy- and that they are all the same as pedophilia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foreplay and masturbation are integral parts of sex. It is what makes it "fun", and that leads to pro creation.
> 
> So, let me turn your question around. Is there anything you consider a deviancy?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Unless you come. And I know plenty of guys that like them blowjobs to completion. So....abnormal and illogical?

How about masterbation? Old people having sex? The celibate? All 'abnormal and illogical' too?


----------



## JakeStarkey

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone here that that can prove that homosexuals NEED to get married, I will buy you a GOOD  cup coffee, you name it. Really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a man who has been married to my wife for over 20 years- I can say that no one can prove to me that heterosexuals need to get married.
> 
> But we deserve to be able to have that choice- just like a homosexual couple does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's where you are wrong. Nature devised the "marriage" plan by forcing a male and a female to interact to reproduce.
> 
> Nature "understands" that two people are needed to raise a human child.
> 
> Now, you can deny nature if you want to, but it won't change anything.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

  Oh?  Do you have a copy of this 'plan'?


----------



## 80zephyr

Antares said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  It is about science and how different conlcusions can come from the same research.
> 
> People Are Not Born Gay Affirms Royal College of Psychiatrists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that's not what happened. What happened was an anti gay group misinterpreted the study.
> 
> UK ‘gay cure’ group red-faced as psychiatrists point out they are wrong
> 
> _Speaking to Gay Star News, a Royal College of Psychiatrists spokeswoman said it was a clear ‘misinterpretation’ of their actual statement.
> 
> ‘Homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder,’ it reads. ‘The College believes strongly in evidence-based treatment. There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.
> 
> ‘The College would not support a therapy for converting people from homosexuality any more than we would do so from heterosexuality.
> 
> ‘Psychiatrists should be committed to reducing inequalities, not supporting practices that are explicitly based on pathologizing homosexuality. As such, the College remains in favor of legislative efforts to ban such conversion therapies.’_​
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  Gay West New York cop claims in lawsuit he was harassed intimidated by police director NJ.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a lot more than just "saying something" in that case. Also, you can't "say anything" at work, you know that right? Your "free speech" goes only as far as your employer allows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tebow's action of praying got media attention.  However, had he not scored a toughdown, etc. there would have been no attention because he wouldn't have Tebowed.  For Sam, the attention came before ever stepping foot on an NFL field.  Tebow also had high school accomplishments.  You don't start at Florida and win the Heisman if you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't pretend Michael Sam didn't have accomplishments prior to coming out. He was SEC defensive player of the year and I think would be on a roster right now if he hadn't come out as gay.
> 
> Do you think role models are important? You obviously see Tebow as a role model for Christians and have no problem with that. Why can't Michael Sam be a role model for gay athletes? You may not realize it, but it is important for the gay High School football player in Iowa to see that there are others like him and it's okay to be athletic and gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  Define equal.  It doens't mean you get to do exactly the same things I do or vice versa.
> 
> Just ask them about polygamy or a sibling marriage.  They are quicker to say no to it coming up with why equality should be denied than they are about bending over and taking one in the ass for the homos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Polygamy and incest are both illegal so bringing them up is what is referred to in polite circles as a "slippery slope fallacy". They are completely unrelated to gays having equal access to civil marriage, and would either have a valid argument for legalization or they would not regardless of gays civilly marrying.
> 
> Quite a few countries have been marrying the gays for a while now. Even more countries perform legal polygamist marriages. None do both. There is no slippery slope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.   Perhaps you can explain why homosexuality isn't considered a disorder but pedophelia is?  I don't equate that homos are pedos  but how can one be and not the other?
> 
> 2.  My free speech extends until some little thin skinned, pussified homo gets his panties in a wad and gets his feelings hurt because someone doesn't like that he sucks dicks.
> 
> 3.  I don't discount Michael Sam's accomplishments.  I have clearly stated that far, far more was made of his sexual orientation than of his accomplishments when he was drafted.  All you have to do is Google his name and see how many stories related to his sexual orientation vs. his accomplishment come up.
> 
> In typical fashion, this happens: Michael Sam -- I m Not in the NFL ... Because I m Gay TMZ.com
> 
> Have you heard Tebow say he wasn't in the NFL because he was a Christian.  Sounds like the gay boy can't face the fact that he couldn't cut it in the NFL just like Tebow.  Guess that means he sucked in more ways than one.
> 
> By the way, you don't know who I see as a role model.  Where I played college football showing off after your scored would have gotten you benched.  Scoring alone got you the attention you deserved.  Also, I don't hold professional athletes as role models.  I view them as overpaid men playing a kid's game.
> 
> 5.  That's the point.  The equality of marriage crowd should be fighting to make them legal just like they did for the faggots.  If they don't and fight against it, they are doing exactly the same thing they claimed those of us opposed to same sex marriage were doing only they say they are OK doing it.
> 
> If the argument is EQUALITY and you deny it to marriages you don't like, you're the typical fucking piece of shit hypocrite on the left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Generally speaking people with your passion concerning this topic have some latent feelings that frighen them.
Click to expand...


Yeah. I noticed that as well. Anti gun folks REALLY want a gun. Anti war folks actually crave global conflict.

The list is endless.

Lol.

Mark


----------



## JakeStarkey

80zephyr said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I certainly chose to have sex with women- I chose to marry a woman- but I never, ever chose to be attracted to women.
> 
> IF you can choose to be attracted to women- then you should be able to chose to be attracted to men.
> 
> If you find the idea of a stubbly male face kissing your lips repugnant- like I do- then your attraction is not a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I choose not to be attracted to men.
> 
> I find a lot of things repugnant.  Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are probably bisexual.
> 
> As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.
> 
> I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.
> 
> If you think you could chose to be turned on by a photo of Clooney in a bathing suit- then you  are probably bisexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could choose to be a criminal.  Does that make me one?
> 
> I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't choose your attraction, only whether to act on them or not. If you are not attracted to men, you can't make yourself attracted to men, trust me on this. (It's why reparative "therapy" has such a high failure rate)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be interesting to know what other psychiatric problems have a "high failure rate" and if we simply gave up because of it.
> 
> Did you ever stop to think that this "high failure rate" is because we haven't been been trying reparative therapy that long?
> 
> I mean fuck, we have been trying to cure cancer, diabetes, and heart disease forever.
> 
> Maybe you think we should stop trying?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Reparative therapy has a high failure rate, Mark.  Your suggestion from that fact is useless, meaningless.


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone here that that can prove that homosexuals NEED to get married, I will buy you a GOOD  cup coffee, you name it. Really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a man who has been married to my wife for over 20 years- I can say that no one can prove to me that heterosexuals need to get married.
> 
> But we deserve to be able to have that choice- just like a homosexual couple does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's where you are wrong. Nature devised the "marriage" plan by forcing a male and a female to interact to reproduce.
> 
> Nature "understands" that two people are needed to raise a human child.
> 
> Now, you can deny nature if you want to, but it won't change anything.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


There's no marriage in nature. There's fucking in nature. The passing of genetic material. 

*We invented marriage. *And it is whatever we say it is. Our conception of marriage has little to nothing to do with children......as there's no requirement you have kids or be able to have them in order to get married. Infertile people get married all the time. The old are allowed to marry or stay married. And the childless receive all the benefits of marriage of those with kids.

So why would we exclude gays from marriage based on a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?


----------



## JakeStarkey

You of understand, Mark, the Family Research Council and those who are associated with it are deviants?  America is for everybody, not just you.


----------



## 80zephyr

Seawytch said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation.  It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? In every species, natures way is reproduction. If a body does not reproduce, it kills off its lineage. That is why, in nature, homosexuality has to be considered abnormal.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nature is a complex and wondrous thing. Did you know that some species are a-sexual? Did you know some could change their gender? How about when animals intentionally sterilize themselves due to over population?
> 
> Since Homosexuality exists in over a thousand animals species and has existed in the human animal since the beginning of recorded history, it's pretty safe to assume that we're supposed to be here. Rest easy, scientists have some theories.
> 
> *The evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality
> 
> The genes that code for homosexuality do other things too*
> The allele - or group of genes - that sometimes codes for homosexual orientation may at other times have a strong reproductive benefit. This would compensate for gay people's lack of reproduction and ensure the continuation of the trait, as non-gay carriers of the gene pass it down.
> 
> *Gay people were 'helpers in the nest'*
> Paul Vasey's research in Samoa has focused on a theory called kin selection or the "helper in the nest" hypothesis. The idea is that gay people compensate for their lack of children by promoting the reproductive fitness of brothers or sisters, contributing money or performing other uncle-like activities such as babysitting or tutoring. Some of the gay person's genetic code is shared with nieces and nephews and so, the theory goes, the genes which code for sexual orientation still get passed down.[...]
> 
> *Gay people do have children*
> In the US, around 37% of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people have a child, about 60% of which are biological. According to the Williams Institute, gay couples that have children have an average of two.
> 
> These figures may not be high enough to sustain genetic traits specific to this group, but the evolutionary biologist Jeremy Yoder points out in a blog post that for much of modern history gay people haven't been living openly gay lives. Compelled by society to enter marriages and have children, their reproduction rates may have been higher than they are now.
> 
> *It's not all in the DNA*
> Qazi Rahman says that alleles coding for same sex attraction only explain some of the variety in human sexuality. Other, naturally varying biological factors come into play, with about one in seven gay men, he says, owing their sexuality to the "big brother effect".
> 
> This has nothing to do with George Orwell, but describes the observation that boys with older brothers are significantly more likely to become gay - with every older brother the chance of homosexuality increases by about a third. No-one knows why this is, but one theory is that with each male pregnancy, a woman's body forms an immune reaction to proteins that have a role in the development of the male brain. Since this only comes into play after several siblings have been born - most of whom are heterosexual and go on to have children - this pre-natal quirk hasn't been selected away by evolution.
Click to expand...


And, after all of this, my statement still stands:

*In every species, natures way is reproduction. If a body does not reproduce, it kills off its lineage. That is why, in nature, homosexuality has to be considered abnormal.*

Humans are born with many types of problems. While these conditions are natural, they most assuredly are abnormal.

Mark


----------



## Dogmaphobe

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Notice how they no longer say, "What business is it of yours what we do in our own bedroom. This is because they know they've taken in out of the bedroom and shoved it in our faces. They hilariously push their lifestyle into the public while at the same time in this post saying it's none of our business. Just another daffy quirk of the faggoty Left.




 Your imagery is so telltale.

The shoving it in your face is just a prelude to cramming it down your throat, and that should get you so worked up you then respond with a slippery slope.


----------



## 80zephyr

Seawytch said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I choose not to be attracted to men.
> 
> I find a lot of things repugnant.  Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are probably bisexual.
> 
> As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.
> 
> I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.
> 
> If you think you could chose to be turned on by a photo of Clooney in a bathing suit- then you  are probably bisexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could choose to be a criminal.  Does that make me one?
> 
> I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So with a mere choice you could find a man's hairy ass as sexually attractive as a woman's shapely backside?
> 
> Then Sy's right. You're probably bi already. For most of us, its not a choice. Its just an attribute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:
> 
> Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News
> 
> Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.
> 
> Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
Click to expand...


And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.

Homosexuality is not "special".

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the experts don't agree with the far right on this Board.
> 
> Amazing.  The weirds start taking same sex attraction and these voyeurs start gabbling excitingly about bestiality, group sex, and other behavior that fascinates them.  No connection at all but they do get excited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. The APA is discussing classifying pedophilia in the same way they do homosexuality. If you all were truthful, you would understand that any sexual proclivity can(and should be if applied fairly) be classified exactly as homosexuality is. One sexual deviancy is really no different than another.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think anything other than male female penis in vagina is sexual deviancy- and that they are all the same as pedophilia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foreplay and masturbation are integral parts of sex. It is what makes it "fun", and that leads to pro creation.
> 
> So, let me turn your question around. Is there anything you consider a deviancy?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you come. And I know plenty of guys that like them blowjobs to completion. So....abnormal and illogical?
> 
> How about masterbation? Old people having sex? The celibate? All 'abnormal and illogical' too?
Click to expand...


Do you read what I write? Why do I have to answer this yet again?

Mark


----------



## Conservative65

80zephyr said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are probably bisexual.
> 
> As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.
> 
> I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.
> 
> If you think you could chose to be turned on by a photo of Clooney in a bathing suit- then you  are probably bisexual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could choose to be a criminal.  Does that make me one?
> 
> I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So with a mere choice you could find a man's hairy ass as sexually attractive as a woman's shapely backside?
> 
> Then Sy's right. You're probably bi already. For most of us, its not a choice. Its just an attribute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:
> 
> Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News
> 
> Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.
> 
> Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


If only one changes, the argument that someone is born that way is invalid.


----------



## kaz

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if I don't serve gays and ignore whatever government does to force me to, then they won't come with guns?  Seriously?  You are an infant.  You're the one who has to grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. The government will fine you. As you've violated the civil law and are subject to financial penalties. And since the States have exclusive jurisdiction over intra state commerce, they have every authority to establish minimum standards of conduct when doing business. Such as....treating your customers fairly and equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I don't go to court and I don't pay the fine, now what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You get arrested dumbass, and your business closed down.  Follow the fucking laws.
Click to expand...


So did I see the guns yet?  You really are stupid, aren't you?  You don't just play one on message boards.


----------



## 80zephyr

JakeStarkey said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone here that that can prove that homosexuals NEED to get married, I will buy you a GOOD  cup coffee, you name it. Really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a man who has been married to my wife for over 20 years- I can say that no one can prove to me that heterosexuals need to get married.
> 
> But we deserve to be able to have that choice- just like a homosexual couple does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's where you are wrong. Nature devised the "marriage" plan by forcing a male and a female to interact to reproduce.
> 
> Nature "understands" that two people are needed to raise a human child.
> 
> Now, you can deny nature if you want to, but it won't change anything.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh?  Do you have a copy of this 'plan'?
Click to expand...


Well, I do believe in evolution. Do you?

Mark


----------



## kaz

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know how to call the sky blue you little dumbshit.  You're a fucking child, and you sound just like one.  Life is so unfair Mommy, and I can't do exactly what I want when I want to, fix it Mommy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I sound like the child?  LOL, read your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I not only read them, I write them you goddamned infant.  Go play, no one cares about your bullshit AynRandLand.
Click to expand...


And go play in your sandbox


----------



## 80zephyr

JakeStarkey said:


> You of understand, Mark, the Family Research Council and those who are associated with it are deviants?  America is for everybody, not just you.




Really? Then if America is for everybody, you really won't mind if pedophilia is legalized.  After all, they are also part of everybody.

Mark


----------



## GreenBean

JakeStarkey said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A family-run business went under because they chose not to bake a fucking cake for a gay wedding?
> 
> That's not only the Gay agenda at work, but the twisted brains of the Liberals who will not stand for dissent or disagreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Choose to disobey the law at your own risk.
Click to expand...



JakeStarkey "Choose to disobey the law at your own risk."

You mean like Rosa Parks





Or Dr. King





Or Alexander Solzhenitsyn





Or all these people





Yes -I think we get your point Jake


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should really stop sucking dicks.  It's not normal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, it's not normal for me since I'm a lesbian and only lick pussy. I've never sucked a dick in my life nor do I ever intend to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's not normal either.
> Well, no one is perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wanna know what the ultimate irony is? I have no gag reflex. I can deep throat a banana no problem. I used to love to fuck with the guys in the Chief's Mess by doing just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just fucked up, Sw.
Click to expand...


That's probably not all he's deep throated.


----------



## 80zephyr

Conservative65 said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could choose to be a criminal.  Does that make me one?
> 
> I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So with a mere choice you could find a man's hairy ass as sexually attractive as a woman's shapely backside?
> 
> Then Sy's right. You're probably bi already. For most of us, its not a choice. Its just an attribute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:
> 
> Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News
> 
> Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.
> 
> Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If only one changes, the argument that someone is born that way is invalid.
Click to expand...


Heh. I know a woman who was straight, then gay, then straight again.

Lesbians especially have a high rate of "recovery".

Mark


----------



## kaz

bodecea said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the ultimate one trick pony, every thread turns into a gay thread.  Thanks for that clarification.  It's not like you two geniuses consistently advocate liberalism, what a great point.  LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Save this thread actually is about gays.
> 
> Do try and keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, and my answer, simpleton, is to give gays the greatest protection, the protection of the marketplace.  Let the odd screwball who limits who they do business with harm themselves.  Only government can enforce discrimination.  A free market rewards those who don't discriminate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How exactly does the marketplace provide protection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Choice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain more than that, please.  Because a weakness I see is tyranny of the majority based on that is there the most money is to be made, with the minorities pretty much ignored.
Click to expand...

LOL, liberals go to such gyrations to try to repeat back to us what you hear.  Free markets are tyrrany of the majority, the majority voting to force everyone to do their will is not.  Gotcha.

Obviously you have no business experience at all.  It's hard to get customers.  Only idiots turn them away for stupid reasons like that they are gay.  There's a good reason Jim Crow laws were enacted, businesses weren't interested in turning away customers, so government had to force them to do it.  Read this last paragraph about 10 times and see if you can figure out how clearly it shows how free markets cure tyranny of the majority using government force.  It's obvious, you won't get it.


----------



## GreenBean

80zephyr said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You of understand, Mark, the Family Research Council and those who are associated with it are deviants?  America is for everybody, not just you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Then if America is for everybody, you really won't mind if pedophilia is legalized.  After all, they are also part of everybody.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


And what kind of friggin Homophobic bastard would refuse his kid to a poor oppressed Pedophile - I mean kids should have a balanced view of life - it should be a law that all children must experience "Inter generational Intimacy"   before they reach puberty and its too late - what are we raising a bunch of Homophobes !!!


----------



## GreenBean

80zephyr said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So with a mere choice you could find a man's hairy ass as sexually attractive as a woman's shapely backside?
> 
> Then Sy's right. You're probably bi already. For most of us, its not a choice. Its just an attribute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:
> 
> Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News
> 
> Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.
> 
> Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If only one changes, the argument that someone is born that way is invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh. I know a woman who was straight, then gay, then straight again.
> 
> Lesbians especially have a high rate of "recovery".
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Sounds like a pretty screwed up in the head chick to me - her name didn't happen to be "SeaWytch" did it ?


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You of understand, Mark, the Family Research Council and those who are associated with it are deviants?  America is for everybody, not just you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Then if America is for everybody, you really won't mind if pedophilia is legalized.  After all, they are also part of everybody.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what kind of friggin Homophobic bastard would refuse his kid to a poor oppressed Pedophile!
Click to expand...


Conservatives- once again showing that they cannot tell the difference between consensual sex and rape. 

Homophobes- once again showing that they only pretend to care about child molestation when they are talking about homosexuals.


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if I don't serve gays and ignore whatever government does to force me to, then they won't come with guns?  Seriously?  You are an infant.  You're the one who has to grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. The government will fine you. As you've violated the civil law and are subject to financial penalties. And since the States have exclusive jurisdiction over intra state commerce, they have every authority to establish minimum standards of conduct when doing business. Such as....treating your customers fairly and equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I don't go to court and I don't pay the fine, now what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then they'll be collected as levies and liens. Bank accounts will be ceased. Wages garnished. Titles to property forfeit. Like any tax.
> 
> As you well know.
Click to expand...


And what if I ignore those and continue to operate?  Will I see guns?


----------



## Conservative65

GreenBean said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:
> 
> Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News
> 
> Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.
> 
> Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If only one changes, the argument that someone is born that way is invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh. I know a woman who was straight, then gay, then straight again.
> 
> Lesbians especially have a high rate of "recovery".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like a pretty screwed up in the head chick to me - her name didn't happen to be "SeaWytch" did it ?
Click to expand...

But Seawytch will tell you that someone is born gay.


----------



## GreenBean

JoeB131 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism. Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the legalization of abortion had probably less public support than the legalization of gay marriage.  Besides the fact that marriage equality is supported by 50% of the population now, most people just realize this issue has no effect on their lives.
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no, not really.  Frankly, most gay folks I work with, the issue really doesn't come up.  I had a boss I worked with for a year and a half and didn't know she was gay.  It wasn't anyone's business.  She was probably the only boss I've had who wasn't a total asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably most teenage girls find sharing a bathroom with a trannie less gross than sharing one with her Dad and teenage brothers.
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out". Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since when is being a bible thumping idiot whose mother didn't have an abortion an accomplishment? BUt you guys kept pushing Tebow down our throats.
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life. Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to tell me that there aren't a bunch of Christians and Jews in the media, right now?
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma. Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia. They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement. When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private. But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think a lot of you guys would hate even if gays weren't asking for the same things you enjoy.  Of course, you homophobes are becoming an ever shrinking minority, only being able to mutter your hate in your own house because you'll get the stink-eye anywhere else.
Click to expand...




> Actually, the legalization of abortion had probably less public support than the legalization of gay marriage.



Possibly - *LINK PLEASE* - as i know you like to talk through your ass



> Probably most teenage girls find sharing a bathroom with a trannie less gross than sharing one with her Dad and teenage brothers.



Possibly - *LINK PLEASE* - as i know you like to talk through your ass


----------



## Skylar

kaz said:


> LOL, liberals go to such gyrations to try to repeat back to us what you hear.  Free markets are tyrrany of the majority, the majority voting to force everyone to do their will is not.  Gotcha.
> 
> Obviously you have no business experience at all.  It's hard to get customers.  Only idiots turn them away for stupid reasons like that they are gay.  There's a good reason Jim Crow laws were enacted, businesses weren't interested in turning away customers, so government had to force them to do it.  Read this last paragraph about 10 times and see if you can figure out how clearly it shows how free markets cure tyranny of the majority using government force.  It's obvious, you won't get it.



Laughing...and not a single mention of gays, but your cookie cutter anti-goverment screed. Gee, how did I know that was coming. 

First off, the majority already supports gay marriage:



> Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%
> 
> Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55



So why would the public oppose recognition of gay marriage?

And second, look at interracial marriage. When the USSC overturned interracial marriage bans in 1967, the public overwhelmingly supported such bans. And what happened in response? 

*Nothing. *You clearly don't know what you're talking about. 

Rights are not a commodity. They aren't bought and sold. They aren't traded. And they aren't subject to a vote. You don't understand what rights are, nor can you possibly explain how rights are best protected through the 'free market'.  You're literally arguing for the tyranny of the majority. Where the rights of any person are subject to a 50% plus 1 vote. 

And that's not our system. Nor was it ever meant to be.


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are probably bisexual.
> 
> As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.
> 
> I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.
> 
> If you think you could chose to be turned on by a photo of Clooney in a bathing suit- then you  are probably bisexual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could choose to be a criminal.  Does that make me one?
> 
> I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So with a mere choice you could find a man's hairy ass as sexually attractive as a woman's shapely backside?
> 
> Then Sy's right. You're probably bi already. For most of us, its not a choice. Its just an attribute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:
> 
> Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News
> 
> Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.
> 
> Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...



People can choose who to have sex with. 

There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to. 

Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender. 

No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If only one changes, the argument that someone is born that way is invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh. I know a woman who was straight, then gay, then straight again.
> 
> Lesbians especially have a high rate of "recovery".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like a pretty screwed up in the head chick to me - her name didn't happen to be "SeaWytch" did it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But Seawytch will tell you that someone is born gay.
Click to expand...


And who would know better on how SeaWitch was born? You....or her? 

I take it you don't understand the rise of laughter when some anonymous conservative starts dictating to individuals their own sexuality. And I doubt you ever will.


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the experts don't agree with the far right on this Board.
> 
> Amazing.  The weirds start taking same sex attraction and these voyeurs start gabbling excitingly about bestiality, group sex, and other behavior that fascinates them.  No connection at all but they do get excited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. The APA is discussing classifying pedophilia in the same way they do homosexuality. If you all were truthful, you would understand that any sexual proclivity can(and should be if applied fairly) be classified exactly as homosexuality is. One sexual deviancy is really no different than another.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think anything other than male female penis in vagina is sexual deviancy- and that they are all the same as pedophilia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foreplay and masturbation are integral parts of sex. It is what makes it "fun", and that leads to pro creation.
> 
> So, let me turn your question around. Is there anything you consider a deviancy?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you come. And I know plenty of guys that like them blowjobs to completion. So....abnormal and illogical?
> 
> How about masterbation? Old people having sex? The celibate? All 'abnormal and illogical' too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you read what I write? Why do I have to answer this yet again?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Could you direct me to that answer then. Because I've never seen it. 

I've seen you run from my question. I've seen you dodge it. I've never actually seen you answer it.


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You of understand, Mark, the Family Research Council and those who are associated with it are deviants?  America is for everybody, not just you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Then if America is for everybody, you really won't mind if pedophilia is legalized.  After all, they are also part of everybody.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what kind of friggin Homophobic bastard would refuse his kid to a poor oppressed Pedophile!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservatives- once again showing that they cannot tell the difference between consensual sex and rape.
> 
> Homophobes- once again showing that they only pretend to care about child molestation when they are talking about homosexuals.
Click to expand...





> Conservatives- once again showing that they cannot tell the difference between consensual sex and rape.



Oh I see - you believe "Inter Generational Intimacy"  is consensual; sex because the kid willingly bent over  - yes I get it .

Or are you referring to the Bill Clinton type of scenario "Define Sex" - why don't you "Have a cigar" and think about the stupidity you post douchebag.


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation.  It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? In every species, natures way is reproduction. If a body does not reproduce, it kills off its lineage. That is why, in nature, homosexuality has to be considered abnormal.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nature is a complex and wondrous thing. Did you know that some species are a-sexual? Did you know some could change their gender? How about when animals intentionally sterilize themselves due to over population?
> 
> Since Homosexuality exists in over a thousand animals species and has existed in the human animal since the beginning of recorded history, it's pretty safe to assume that we're supposed to be here. Rest easy, scientists have some theories.
> 
> *The evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality
> 
> The genes that code for homosexuality do other things too*
> The allele - or group of genes - that sometimes codes for homosexual orientation may at other times have a strong reproductive benefit. This would compensate for gay people's lack of reproduction and ensure the continuation of the trait, as non-gay carriers of the gene pass it down.
> 
> *Gay people were 'helpers in the nest'*
> Paul Vasey's research in Samoa has focused on a theory called kin selection or the "helper in the nest" hypothesis. The idea is that gay people compensate for their lack of children by promoting the reproductive fitness of brothers or sisters, contributing money or performing other uncle-like activities such as babysitting or tutoring. Some of the gay person's genetic code is shared with nieces and nephews and so, the theory goes, the genes which code for sexual orientation still get passed down.[...]
> 
> *Gay people do have children*
> In the US, around 37% of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people have a child, about 60% of which are biological. According to the Williams Institute, gay couples that have children have an average of two.
> 
> These figures may not be high enough to sustain genetic traits specific to this group, but the evolutionary biologist Jeremy Yoder points out in a blog post that for much of modern history gay people haven't been living openly gay lives. Compelled by society to enter marriages and have children, their reproduction rates may have been higher than they are now.
> 
> *It's not all in the DNA*
> Qazi Rahman says that alleles coding for same sex attraction only explain some of the variety in human sexuality. Other, naturally varying biological factors come into play, with about one in seven gay men, he says, owing their sexuality to the "big brother effect".
> 
> This has nothing to do with George Orwell, but describes the observation that boys with older brothers are significantly more likely to become gay - with every older brother the chance of homosexuality increases by about a third. No-one knows why this is, but one theory is that with each male pregnancy, a woman's body forms an immune reaction to proteins that have a role in the development of the male brain. Since this only comes into play after several siblings have been born - most of whom are heterosexual and go on to have children - this pre-natal quirk hasn't been selected away by evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, after all of this, my statement still stands:
> 
> *In every species, natures way is reproduction. If a body does not reproduce, it kills off its lineage. That is why, in nature, homosexuality has to be considered abnormal.*
> 
> Humans are born with many types of problems. While these conditions are natural, they most assuredly are abnormal.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Lots of things are 'abnormal'- oral sex is abnormal by your definition- yet the majority of Americans experience it at some time in their life- some of us more than others. 

Abnormal doesn't mean bad. 

Except in the case of homophobes- homosexuals=abnormal-= bad.


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> These are a product of the State's power to regulate intra-state commerce. *A*_* power*_* you recognize. *And within that authority its perfectly reasonable to set minimum standards of business conduct, where customers are treated fairly and equally.



Equally?  Bull, you have no right to be treated equally by a business to their other customers.  They are in business to make money.  If you are a bigger customer or more in line with their target clientele, you probably will get better service.  If not, you won't.  I sure don't treat my customers the same in my business.  

And again, government has no legitimate power to compel it's citizens to do business with each other and it is immoral and unethical for them to attempt to do so.  Again, you people are authoritarian leftists, there is nothing liberal about you, nothing at all.


----------



## Skylar

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if I don't serve gays and ignore whatever government does to force me to, then they won't come with guns?  Seriously?  You are an infant.  You're the one who has to grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. The government will fine you. As you've violated the civil law and are subject to financial penalties. And since the States have exclusive jurisdiction over intra state commerce, they have every authority to establish minimum standards of conduct when doing business. Such as....treating your customers fairly and equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I don't go to court and I don't pay the fine, now what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then they'll be collected as levies and liens. Bank accounts will be ceased. Wages garnished. Titles to property forfeit. Like any tax.
> 
> As you well know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what if I ignore those and continue to operate?  Will I see guns?
Click to expand...


If you don't pay your taxes? Ask Ed and Elaine Brown.

However, in public business, you have to interact with the public. And liens can be taken from any proceeds with other members of the public.

If you were to auction off cattle for example.....you'd never see the money. It would go to pay your lien.


----------



## GreenBean

Skylar said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, liberals go to such gyrations to try to repeat back to us what you hear.  Free markets are tyrrany of the majority, the majority voting to force everyone to do their will is not.  Gotcha.
> 
> Obviously you have no business experience at all.  It's hard to get customers.  Only idiots turn them away for stupid reasons like that they are gay.  There's a good reason Jim Crow laws were enacted, businesses weren't interested in turning away customers, so government had to force them to do it.  Read this last paragraph about 10 times and see if you can figure out how clearly it shows how free markets cure tyranny of the majority using government force.  It's obvious, you won't get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laughing...and not a single mention of gays, but your cookie cutter anti-goverment screed. Gee, how did I know that was coming.
> 
> First off, the majority already supports gay marriage:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%
> 
> Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why would the public oppose recognition of gay marriage?
> 
> And second, look at interracial marriage. When the USSC overturned interracial marriage bans in 1967, the public overwhelmingly supported such bans. And what happened in response?
> 
> *Nothing. *You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> Rights are not a commodity. They aren't bought and sold. They aren't traded. And they aren't subject to a vote. You don't understand what rights are, nor can you possibly explain how rights are best protected through the 'free market'.  You're literally arguing for the tyranny of the majority. Where the rights of any person are subject to a 50% plus 1 vote.
> 
> And that's not our system. Nor was it ever meant to be.
Click to expand...




> First off, the majority already supports gay marriage:



*LINK PLEASE *


----------



## kaz

JakeStarkey said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government remains a necessary component of society, and that Kaz does not like it means. . . nothing to the universe.
> 
> Kaz's world would very likely revert to the mad men like Where R My Keys taking over and killing all homosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, moron, I'm anarchist.  Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's hope not.  Your philosophic content does not prevent the opportunity for local elites taking over and punishing those they don't like.
Click to expand...


Yes, moron, I'm an anarchist.  Got it.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You of understand, Mark, the Family Research Council and those who are associated with it are deviants?  America is for everybody, not just you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Then if America is for everybody, you really won't mind if pedophilia is legalized.  After all, they are also part of everybody.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what kind of friggin Homophobic bastard would refuse his kid to a poor oppressed Pedophile!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservatives- once again showing that they cannot tell the difference between consensual sex and rape.
> 
> Homophobes- once again showing that they only pretend to care about child molestation when they are talking about homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives- once again showing that they cannot tell the difference between consensual sex and rape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I see - you believe "Inter Generational Intimacy"  is consensual; sex because the kid willingly bent over  - yes I get it .
> 
> Or are you referring to the Bill Clinton type of scenario "Define Sex" - why don't you "Have a cigar" and think about the stupidity you post douchebag.
Click to expand...



No I am saying very clearly that you think that child rape is the same thing as consensual sex between adults.

 I am saying to your a man taking a 3 year old girl and raping her is exactly the same as two 30 year old men having consensual oral sex in their bedroom.

Because your bigotry and hatred towards homosexuals makes you see the world that way. 

And that endangers children.


----------



## Skylar

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are a product of the State's power to regulate intra-state commerce. *A*_* power*_* you recognize. *And within that authority its perfectly reasonable to set minimum standards of business conduct, where customers are treated fairly and equally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equally?  Bull, you have no right to be treated equally by a business to their other customers.  They are in business to make money.  If you are a bigger customer or more in line with their target clientele, you probably will get better service.  If not, you won't.  I sure don't treat my customers the same in my business.
Click to expand...


Again, you're confusing rights and powers. The public accommodation laws are part of the State's POWER to regulate intrastate commerce. The State requires that those who conducting public business do so in accordanc with minimum codes of conduct. Specifically, that they treat their customers fairly and equally.

So all your babble about 'rights' is just another profound misunderstanding on your part. Public accommodation laws by the State are an issue of powers. Powers you recognize the State possesses.



> And again, government has no legitimate power to compel it's citizens to do business with each other and it is immoral and unethical for them to attempt to do so.  Again, you people are authoritarian leftists, there is nothing liberal about you, nothing at all.



Sure it does. The States are clearly granted exclusive authority over intrastate commerce by the 10th amendment. Which all public business falls under. And treating your customers fairly and equally is both reasonable and ethical.

And the bakers being fined for refusing to serve gays are violating these reasonable, legal, and ethical civil laws.


----------



## GreenBean

Skylar said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if I don't serve gays and ignore whatever government does to force me to, then they won't come with guns?  Seriously?  You are an infant.  You're the one who has to grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. The government will fine you. As you've violated the civil law and are subject to financial penalties. And since the States have exclusive jurisdiction over intra state commerce, they have every authority to establish minimum standards of conduct when doing business. Such as....treating your customers fairly and equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I don't go to court and I don't pay the fine, now what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then they'll be collected as levies and liens. Bank accounts will be ceased. Wages garnished. Titles to property forfeit. Like any tax.
> 
> As you well know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what if I ignore those and continue to operate?  Will I see guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't pay your taxes? Ask Ed and Elaine Brown.
Click to expand...




JakeStarkey said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I choose not to be attracted to men.
> 
> I find a lot of things repugnant.  Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are probably bisexual.
> 
> As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.
> 
> I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.
> 
> If you think you could chose to be turned on by a photo of Clooney in a bathing suit- then you  are probably bisexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could choose to be a criminal.  Does that make me one?
> 
> I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't choose your attraction, only whether to act on them or not. If you are not attracted to men, you can't make yourself attracted to men, trust me on this. (It's why reparative "therapy" has such a high failure rate)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be interesting to know what other psychiatric problems have a "high failure rate" and if we simply gave up because of it.
> 
> Did you ever stop to think that this "high failure rate" is because we haven't been been trying reparative therapy that long?
> 
> I mean fuck, we have been trying to cure cancer, diabetes, and heart disease forever.
> 
> Maybe you think we should stop trying?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reparative therapy has a high failure rate, Mark.  Your suggestion from that fact is useless, meaningless.
Click to expand...


Not True - it has a success rate comparable to substance abuse treatment but is subject to 100X more scrutiny - sometimes the patients relapse which can be said of any psych. treatment


----------



## Syriusly

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd prefer to just skip the entire schtick, and stick with the topic of gay rights and the imaginary 'homosexual dillema'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why don't you address my point if that's what you keep saying you want?  Free markets are the best protection for gay rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save that they aren't. Protecting and preserving rights are the best protection for gay rights.
> 
> Rights aren't a matter of sale. They aren't a commodity to be purchased, or traded. Which renders them unquantifiable to someone who looks at the world in terms of economics. Which is why we don't use economic measures as the metric of rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you will protect rights with your socialist ideology no matter how many rights you have to crush to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you're back to your libertarian schtick. No one gives a fuck about your little obsession with 'socialists'. This is a thread about gays, homoseuxality, gay rights, gays in society, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government has no legitimate authority to use force to compel any of it's citizens to do business with another citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> States have jurisdiction over intra state commerce. Its completely within their authority to regulate commerce. And completely reasonable for the States to set basic minimum standards for conducting business: that you treat your customers fairly and equally.
> 
> Legally and ethically, the States are on firm footing.
> 
> And since rights aren't commodities, the entire concept of allowing the 'free market' to decide it is just ludicrous. And certainly not a belief expressed or practiced by the founders. What you're describing is the tyranny of the majority. And the founders despised the concept. As would any rational person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again with the socialism obsession.  You say "rights" aren't commodities.  You have negative rights, the right to be left alone to live your own life.  The positive rights you assert, the right to force someone to do business with you is an entirely socialist construct and yes, it's completely morally and ethically wrong.  If someone doesn't want to do business with me for being a blond haired blue eyed white guy, that's their choice.  My money is greed.  Your money is green. Gay's money is green.  Green is the only color most of us in business care about.  As for legally, yes, in our system the States do have that power though.  The Federal government does not by the 10th amendment.
Click to expand...


Then your argument is with the 1964 Civil Rights Amendment- and all such subsequent public accomodation laws.

Best get busy on that- I think that should be the platform for the RNC- repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act.


----------



## Skylar

kaz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government remains a necessary component of society, and that Kaz does not like it means. . . nothing to the universe.
> 
> Kaz's world would very likely revert to the mad men like Where R My Keys taking over and killing all homosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, moron, I'm anarchist.  Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's hope not.  Your philosophic content does not prevent the opportunity for local elites taking over and punishing those they don't like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, moron, I'm an anarchist.  Got it.
Click to expand...


No one really gives a shit, Kaz. If you want to start a thread on anarchy, go for it. This isn't it.


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation.  It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? In every species, natures way is reproduction. If a body does not reproduce, it kills off its lineage. That is why, in nature, homosexuality has to be considered abnormal.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nature is a complex and wondrous thing. Did you know that some species are a-sexual? Did you know some could change their gender? How about when animals intentionally sterilize themselves due to over population?
> 
> Since Homosexuality exists in over a thousand animals species and has existed in the human animal since the beginning of recorded history, it's pretty safe to assume that we're supposed to be here. Rest easy, scientists have some theories.
> 
> *The evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality
> 
> The genes that code for homosexuality do other things too*
> The allele - or group of genes - that sometimes codes for homosexual orientation may at other times have a strong reproductive benefit. This would compensate for gay people's lack of reproduction and ensure the continuation of the trait, as non-gay carriers of the gene pass it down.
> 
> *Gay people were 'helpers in the nest'*
> Paul Vasey's research in Samoa has focused on a theory called kin selection or the "helper in the nest" hypothesis. The idea is that gay people compensate for their lack of children by promoting the reproductive fitness of brothers or sisters, contributing money or performing other uncle-like activities such as babysitting or tutoring. Some of the gay person's genetic code is shared with nieces and nephews and so, the theory goes, the genes which code for sexual orientation still get passed down.[...]
> 
> *Gay people do have children*
> In the US, around 37% of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people have a child, about 60% of which are biological. According to the Williams Institute, gay couples that have children have an average of two.
> 
> These figures may not be high enough to sustain genetic traits specific to this group, but the evolutionary biologist Jeremy Yoder points out in a blog post that for much of modern history gay people haven't been living openly gay lives. Compelled by society to enter marriages and have children, their reproduction rates may have been higher than they are now.
> 
> *It's not all in the DNA*
> Qazi Rahman says that alleles coding for same sex attraction only explain some of the variety in human sexuality. Other, naturally varying biological factors come into play, with about one in seven gay men, he says, owing their sexuality to the "big brother effect".
> 
> This has nothing to do with George Orwell, but describes the observation that boys with older brothers are significantly more likely to become gay - with every older brother the chance of homosexuality increases by about a third. No-one knows why this is, but one theory is that with each male pregnancy, a woman's body forms an immune reaction to proteins that have a role in the development of the male brain. Since this only comes into play after several siblings have been born - most of whom are heterosexual and go on to have children - this pre-natal quirk hasn't been selected away by evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, after all of this, my statement still stands:
> 
> *In every species, natures way is reproduction. If a body does not reproduce, it kills off its lineage. That is why, in nature, homosexuality has to be considered abnormal.*
> 
> Humans are born with many types of problems. While these conditions are natural, they most assuredly are abnormal.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of things are 'abnormal'- oral sex is abnormal by your definition- yet the majority of Americans experience it at some time in their life- some of us more than others.
> 
> Abnormal doesn't mean bad.
> 
> Except in the case of homophobes- homosexuals=abnormal-= bad.
Click to expand...

It all boils down to what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - so why does the Gay machine insist on getting into everybody else faces ?


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you have no business experience at all.  It's hard to get customers.  Only idiots turn them away for stupid reasons like that they are gay.  There's a good reason Jim Crow laws were enacted, businesses weren't interested in turning away customers, so government had to force them to do it.  Read this last paragraph about 10 times and see if you can figure out how clearly it shows how free markets cure tyranny of the majority using government force.  It's obvious, you won't get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laughing...and not a single mention of gays, but your cookie cutter anti-goverment screed. Gee, how did I know that was coming.
Click to expand...


Reading not being your strong suit, I highlighted it to help you out.

You were probably too busy writing your government adoring screed.  Gee, how did I know that was coming?  Government will fix the problem for gays, and everyone else, all we have to do is turn over our problems and manhood to them.


----------



## Skylar

GreenBean said:


> It all boils down to what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - so why does the Gay machine insist on getting into everybody else faces ?



They demand equal rights. Which perfectly reasonable. And they don't 'get into everybody's face' anymore than heterosexusals do. Actually, far less than heterosexuals do.


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if I don't serve gays and ignore whatever government does to force me to, then they won't come with guns?  Seriously?  You are an infant.  You're the one who has to grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. The government will fine you. As you've violated the civil law and are subject to financial penalties. And since the States have exclusive jurisdiction over intra state commerce, they have every authority to establish minimum standards of conduct when doing business. Such as....treating your customers fairly and equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I don't go to court and I don't pay the fine, now what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then they'll be collected as levies and liens. Bank accounts will be ceased. Wages garnished. Titles to property forfeit. Like any tax.
> 
> As you well know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what if I ignore those and continue to operate?  Will I see guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't pay your taxes? Ask Ed and Elaine Brown.
> 
> However, in public business, you have to interact with the public. And liens can be taken from any proceeds with other members of the public.
> 
> If you were to auction off cattle for example.....you'd never see the money. It would go to pay your lien.
Click to expand...


So have you given up the idiocy that government is in the end using guns to compel it's citizens or have you given that up as you have clearly conceded that in the end if they don't get what they want, they enforce it with guns?


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who are attracted to children can't make a different choice either.  Compulsive hoarding isn't a choice.  No compulsive disorder leaves the sufferer with a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a choice in acting. For me, as a gay woman, the only choice is in acting upon my natural or god given inclinations. As long as I am acting upon those natural inclinations with another consenting adult, whose fucking business is it and why should I be denied the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage because my life partner of choice happens to be the same gender I am?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice how they no longer say, "What business is it of yours what we do in our own bedroom. This is because they know they've taken in out of the bedroom and shoved it in our faces. They hilariously push their lifestyle into the public while at the same time in this post saying it's none of our business. Just another daffy quirk of the faggoty Left.
Click to expand...


As a heterosexual i say- what business is it what we do in our own bedroom?

I live in San Francisco- I have never seen any homosexual shove sex in my face. I have seen people having sex in public twice here- both heterosexual couples. 

But I think I get what you are trying to say- f*ggots have just gotten too uppity for your liking- they don't know their place anymore.

Because to bigots- f*ggots, n*ggers, c*nts, k*kes......just the same kind of word used for the same kind of purpose.


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You of understand, Mark, the Family Research Council and those who are associated with it are deviants?  America is for everybody, not just you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Then if America is for everybody, you really won't mind if pedophilia is legalized.  After all, they are also part of everybody.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what kind of friggin Homophobic bastard would refuse his kid to a poor oppressed Pedophile!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservatives- once again showing that they cannot tell the difference between consensual sex and rape.
> 
> Homophobes- once again showing that they only pretend to care about child molestation when they are talking about homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives- once again showing that they cannot tell the difference between consensual sex and rape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I see - you believe "Inter Generational Intimacy"  is consensual; sex because the kid willingly bent over  - yes I get it .
> 
> Or are you referring to the Bill Clinton type of scenario "Define Sex" - why don't you "Have a cigar" and think about the stupidity you post douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No I am saying very clearly that you think that child rape is the same thing as consensual sex between adults.
> 
> I am saying to your a man taking a 3 year old girl and raping her is exactly the same as two 30 year old men having consensual oral sex in their bedroom.
> 
> Because your bigotry and hatred towards homosexuals makes you see the world that way.
> 
> And that endangers children.
Click to expand...




> No I am saying very clearly that you think that child rape is the same thing as consensual sex between adults.



*No - but that's how you're trying to spin it.  *I look at two consenting queer Adults sodomizing each other closed doors the same as I look at a Junkie sticking a needle in his arm or a crack head sticking a glass pipe in his pie hole - they are  both wrong and harmful not only to the individual but to society as a whole.


----------



## JakeStarkey

GreenBean said:


> ]It all boils down to what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - so why does the Gay machine insist on getting into everybody else faces ?



Because the far right social cons want to dictate what grown adults do sexually.

That's over and done with. You've lost.


----------



## Skylar

kaz said:


> So have you given up the idiocy that government is in the end using guns to compel it's citizens or have you given that up as you have clearly conceded that in the end if they don't get what they want, they enforce it with guns?



For taxes? Sure. Taxes are quite mandatory. And have been since the founding of our nation. That you disagree is utterly irrelevant to this discussion....and no one gives a shit.

For civil liens? There's no particular need. You can seize property or make it unsellable, garnish wages, collect proceeds from your interactions with other businesses and customers.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So with a mere choice you could find a man's hairy ass as sexually attractive as a woman's shapely backside?
> 
> Then Sy's right. You're probably bi already. For most of us, its not a choice. Its just an attribute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:
> 
> Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News
> 
> Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.
> 
> Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should really stop sucking dicks.  It's not normal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, it's not normal for me since I'm a lesbian and only lick pussy. I've never sucked a dick in my life nor do I ever intend to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither do I. Nor do I ask my wife to do that with the mouth she kisses our kids with. I consider oral sex to be an abomination so normalized nobody ever considers how wrong and unnatural it is anymore.
Click to expand...


Yeah that is going to be a winning argument for your side- we hate homosexuals- and you shouldn't give or get blowjobs from your spouse either. 

And the trick is finding a woman you don't have to ask.


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> And the bakers being fined for refusing to serve gays are violating these reasonable, legal, and ethical civil laws.



To an authoritarian leftist, yes.  To a liberal, no.  A liberal walks out of a business that doesn't want to do business with them and goes to one that does.  An authoritarian leftist runs to government to use force to compel them to do business. It's very clear.


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the experts don't agree with the far right on this Board.
> 
> Amazing.  The weirds start taking same sex attraction and these voyeurs start gabbling excitingly about bestiality, group sex, and other behavior that fascinates them.  No connection at all but they do get excited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. The APA is discussing classifying pedophilia in the same way they do homosexuality. If you all were truthful, you would understand that any sexual proclivity can(and should be if applied fairly) be classified exactly as homosexuality is. One sexual deviancy is really no different than another.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think anything other than male female penis in vagina is sexual deviancy- and that they are all the same as pedophilia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foreplay and masturbation are integral parts of sex. It is what makes it "fun", and that leads to pro creation.
> 
> So, let me turn your question around. Is there anything you consider a deviancy?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


You didn't answer the question- do you equate anything other than male female penis in vagina as deviancy- just like pedophilia?


----------



## JakeStarkey

GreenBean said:


> I look at two consenting queer Adults sodomizing each other closed doors the same as I look at a Junkie sticking a needle in his arm or a crack head sticking a glass pipe in his pie hole - they are  both wrong and harmful not only to the individual but to society as a whole.



What you think means squat in law, James, but your thinking is wrong and harmful to the nation as a whole.


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who are attracted to children can't make a different choice either.  Compulsive hoarding isn't a choice.  No compulsive disorder leaves the sufferer with a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a choice in acting. For me, as a gay woman, the only choice is in acting upon my natural or god given inclinations. As long as I am acting upon those natural inclinations with another consenting adult, whose fucking business is it and why should I be denied the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage because my life partner of choice happens to be the same gender I am?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice how they no longer say, "What business is it of yours what we do in our own bedroom. This is because they know they've taken in out of the bedroom and shoved it in our faces. They hilariously push their lifestyle into the public while at the same time in this post saying it's none of our business. Just another daffy quirk of the faggoty Left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a heterosexual i say- what business is it what we do in our own bedroom?
> 
> I live in San Francisco- I have never seen any homosexual shove sex in my face. I have seen people having sex in public twice here- both heterosexual couples.
> 
> But I think I get what you are trying to say- f*ggots have just gotten too uppity for your liking- they don't know their place anymore.
> 
> Because to bigots- f*ggots, n*ggers, c*nts, k*kes......just the same kind of word used for the same kind of purpose.
Click to expand...


[QUOTE*]I live in San Francisco- I have never seen any homosexual shove sex in my face*. [/QUOTE]

*Mod Note: photo removed due to uncovered nipples.*


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone here that that can prove that homosexuals NEED to get married, I will buy you a GOOD  cup coffee, you name it. Really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't hold your breath...
> 
> The purpose of the demand for marriage is that with marriage come legitimacy... what they don't understand is that legitimacy comes as a result of the standard that defines it.  Therefore, they're chasing something that can't be had until THEY turn from that which renders them illegitimate.
> 
> It's some fairly sad stuff... but insanity has always been sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they're willing to settle for appearances, because real marriage cannot be redefined. Gay couple can play house and delude themselves, but they can never marry for real. The Bible refers to this as "strong delusions". They forget that marriage is ordained by God and is not up for personal interpretation.
Click to expand...


Marriage in this era is for many reasons.  In western culture it is mostly about love.  Two people love each other and want to commit to a long term (hopefully) permanent relationship with each other that might or might not include children, that might include purchasing and building a home together, shared assets, a shared future together that is recognized legally and - if religion is involved, by a religious service. It is a relationship recognized right now, in many areas, as limited only to hetero couples.


----------



## Coyote

Skylar said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suffice to say, there are some very decent gays who aren't pushy assholes. I know, two of them are dear friends of mine. It's a tragedy that the faggots have become the face of gay people, but that's how life is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your standard for a 'pushy asshole' is any gay or lesbian who doesn't 'sit down and shut the fuck up'. Which isn't a particularly compelling standard.
> 
> You're a far greater threat to the rights of gays, then gays are a threat to your rights.
Click to expand...


There is nothing "pushy" about two people who want to commit to a stable long term legally recognized relationship.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Worry about other adults' consensual sexual behavior with other adults is deviant, indeed.


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> no one gives a shit.



Yes, there are legions of people who agree with you, who agree with you.  They are patting you on the back and telling you how right you are.  LOL, is your sense of self worth so tiny that you need to believe that?  I speak for myself.  I don't need to agreed with or disagreed with to consider my view valid.  Grow a pair.


----------



## Coyote

80zephyr said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation.  It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that depends. Every other generation didn't celebrate it.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Most don't "celebrate it".  Wanting to not be forced to hide it is not "celebrating" it.  They want to be treated the same way you are - like people.


----------



## Skylar

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the bakers being fined for refusing to serve gays are violating these reasonable, legal, and ethical civil laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To an authoritarian leftist, yes.  To a liberal, no.  A liberal walks out of a business that doesn't want to do business with them and goes to one that does.  An authoritarian leftist runs to government to use force to compel them to do business. It's very clear.
Click to expand...


We've resolved the authority issue, as the states clearly have the authority over commerce within their States.

What's left are ethical issues. And I think its perfectly ethical and reasonable for a State to require those doing business with the public to treat the public fairly and equally. 

You disagree. So?


----------



## Skylar

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> no one gives a shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there are legions of people who agree with you, who agree with you.  They are patting you on the back and telling you how right you are.  LOL, is your sense of self worth so tiny that you need to believe that?  I speak for myself.  I don't need to agreed with or disagreed with to consider my view valid.  Grow a pair.
Click to expand...


More accurately, your one trick pony shctick, where you try and turn every conversation into another long, whining screed about anarchy is something most folks don't give a shit about.

Want to discuss anarchy? Start a thread. Want to babble about anarchy *here*, in a thread about homosexuality? No one gives a shit.


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suffice to say, there are some very decent gays who aren't pushy assholes. I know, two of them are dear friends of mine. It's a tragedy that the faggots have become the face of gay people, but that's how life is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your standard for a 'pushy asshole' is any gay or lesbian who doesn't 'sit down and shut the fuck up'. Which isn't a particularly compelling standard.
> 
> You're a far greater threat to the rights of gays, then gays are a threat to your rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing "pushy" about two people who want to commit to a stable long term legally recognized relationship.
Click to expand...


Yes, to be a true relationship, government has to validate it.  I mean who could consider their partner to be their partner without government recognition?  That wouldn't be possible.  Man, a partner without OKs from politicians and bureaucrats, that would just be meaningless, wouldn't it?


----------



## Coyote

*Moderator Message:  Guys, too many people are posting in red and bold red.  Please don't do this.  It's reserved for moderator messages and doing so confuses people - particularly if we have to edit posts or leave a note.*

*Thank you *


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the bakers being fined for refusing to serve gays are violating these reasonable, legal, and ethical civil laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To an authoritarian leftist, yes.  To a liberal, no.  A liberal walks out of a business that doesn't want to do business with them and goes to one that does.  An authoritarian leftist runs to government to use force to compel them to do business. It's very clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've resolved the authority issue, as the states clearly have the authority over commerce within their States.
> 
> What's left are ethical issues. And I think its perfectly ethical and reasonable for a State to require those doing business with the public to treat the public fairly and equally.
> 
> You disagree. So?
Click to expand...


So, I am a liberal and you are an authoritarian leftist.


----------



## Skylar

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the bakers being fined for refusing to serve gays are violating these reasonable, legal, and ethical civil laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To an authoritarian leftist, yes.  To a liberal, no.  A liberal walks out of a business that doesn't want to do business with them and goes to one that does.  An authoritarian leftist runs to government to use force to compel them to do business. It's very clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've resolved the authority issue, as the states clearly have the authority over commerce within their States.
> 
> What's left are ethical issues. And I think its perfectly ethical and reasonable for a State to require those doing business with the public to treat the public fairly and equally.
> 
> You disagree. So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I am a liberal and you are an authoritarian leftist.
Click to expand...


Nope. You're just an anarchist with an opinion. One I don't give a shit about in this thread. 

Do you have anything else to say about homosexuality?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Coyote said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation.  It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that depends. Every other generation didn't celebrate it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most don't "celebrate it".  Wanting to not be forced to hide it is not "celebrating" it.  They want to be treated the same way you are - like people.
Click to expand...


The militiant straights want to "celebrate" their sexuality.  Of course.  So do gays.

The straights do not want gays to have the same rights under law.

That is deviant.


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  It is about science and how different conlcusions can come from the same research.
> 
> People Are Not Born Gay Affirms Royal College of Psychiatrists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that's not what happened. What happened was an anti gay group misinterpreted the study.
> 
> UK ‘gay cure’ group red-faced as psychiatrists point out they are wrong
> 
> _Speaking to Gay Star News, a Royal College of Psychiatrists spokeswoman said it was a clear ‘misinterpretation’ of their actual statement.
> 
> ‘Homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder,’ it reads. ‘The College believes strongly in evidence-based treatment. There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.
> 
> ‘The College would not support a therapy for converting people from homosexuality any more than we would do so from heterosexuality.
> 
> ‘Psychiatrists should be committed to reducing inequalities, not supporting practices that are explicitly based on pathologizing homosexuality. As such, the College remains in favor of legislative efforts to ban such conversion therapies.’_​
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  Gay West New York cop claims in lawsuit he was harassed intimidated by police director NJ.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a lot more than just "saying something" in that case. Also, you can't "say anything" at work, you know that right? Your "free speech" goes only as far as your employer allows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tebow's action of praying got media attention.  However, had he not scored a toughdown, etc. there would have been no attention because he wouldn't have Tebowed.  For Sam, the attention came before ever stepping foot on an NFL field.  Tebow also had high school accomplishments.  You don't start at Florida and win the Heisman if you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't pretend Michael Sam didn't have accomplishments prior to coming out. He was SEC defensive player of the year and I think would be on a roster right now if he hadn't come out as gay.
> 
> Do you think role models are important? You obviously see Tebow as a role model for Christians and have no problem with that. Why can't Michael Sam be a role model for gay athletes? You may not realize it, but it is important for the gay High School football player in Iowa to see that there are others like him and it's okay to be athletic and gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  Define equal.  It doens't mean you get to do exactly the same things I do or vice versa.
> 
> Just ask them about polygamy or a sibling marriage.  They are quicker to say no to it coming up with why equality should be denied than they are about bending over and taking one in the ass for the homos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Polygamy and incest are both illegal so bringing them up is what is referred to in polite circles as a "slippery slope fallacy". They are completely unrelated to gays having equal access to civil marriage, and would either have a valid argument for legalization or they would not regardless of gays civilly marrying.
> 
> Quite a few countries have been marrying the gays for a while now. Even more countries perform legal polygamist marriages. None do both. There is no slippery slope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a slippery slope. It started with the leftists instituting welfare, easy divorce, and single motherhood to destroy families.
> 
> Gay marriage is simply the latest step in that direction.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


So the 'left' instituted 'single motherhood'?

I have a great grandmother who raised 4 kids as a single mom- which 'leftists' was responsible for the death of her husband and wanting to destroy families by her chosing not to remarry?

'easy divorce'

the top five states for divorce rates are largely conservative:
Maine, Alaska, Oklahoma, Kentucky and Nevada, ranked at the top for divorces

Ronald Reagan opted for one of those 'easy' divorces- so did Newt Gingrich.

Conservatives have embraced divorce with a passion. 

So much for your 'leftist' slippery slope fantasies.


----------



## peach174

JakeStarkey said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays would not have to complain about their rights if it wasn't for big government that is taking their rights away in the first place.
> The smaller the government the more rights all of us have.
> Gays have been unfairly taxed with inheritance laws because of bigger government.
> They can't see their loved ones because of hospital rules of only relatives.
> That is not only for Gays rights but for all of us, just recently a littler girl who survived a plane crash wanted the man who helped her when she knocked on his door, to go to the hospital with her, but he couldn't because he was not a relative. Hospitals had to make that rule because of bid government.
> That little girl had just lost her parents and all she wanted was a kind grownup with her for comfort.
> If it wasn't for the stupid rules of big government for marriage licenses, gays could get married how ever they wished.
> The bigger the government the more of all of our rights are being taken away.
> The smaller the government the more rights we have for all of us as Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your conclusion is false, and the material above it does not lead to your conclusion.
> 
> Only through bigger government were the slaves freed, women enfranchised, segregation ended, older teens empowered, and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals.
Click to expand...


Slaves were freed because of the war, government itself was not able to do it even though it tried.
The others you mentioned was to free them with laws, it was not bigger government.
Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.


----------



## GreenBean

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> no one gives a shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there are legions of people who agree with you, who agree with you.  They are patting you on the back and telling you how right you are.  LOL, is your sense of self worth so tiny that you need to believe that?  I speak for myself.  I don't need to agreed with or disagreed with to consider my view valid.  Grow a pair.
Click to expand...




> I speak for myself.  I don't need to agreed with or disagreed with to consider my view valid.



Hope you don't mind Kaz - I know you don't need it - but I "agreed" with your post - lol


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone think posting  "link" is  proves anything? Get a life. The proof is experience. Living a full life and having  wide range of experiences. Gays are nice folks, in general. But I don't understand this push for rights for them, I really don't. Tell me why? This is about a general consensus, there isn't any right or wrong. I just don't understand  this rationalizing  irrational sexual behavior. They are never gonna have children, why this PUSH for marriage equality? Why? I just am not buying it. I don't understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> Suffice to say, there are some very decent gays who aren't pushy assholes. I know, two of them are dear friends of mine. It's a tragedy that the faggots have become the face of gay people, but that's how life is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah- I have known racists who claim that there are some very decent negroes too- the ones that aren't uppity like the n*ggers.
> 
> They always have a story of dear friends who were colored, the shoe shine man....the guy who pumped their gas- the ones who 'knew their place'.
> 
> Bigots always have rationalizations like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know that race and lifestyle choice are two different things? Yes you can be judged by how you CHOOSE to live and that doesn't make me a bigot. 90% of blacks oppose homosexuality and resent the hell out of having your fake "cause" lumped in with their genuine plight.
Click to expand...


Race and lifestyle are different. But bigots are all the same. 

Yeah- I have known racists who claim that there are some very decent negroes too- the ones that aren't uppity like the n*ggers.

They always have a story of dear friends who were colored, the shoe shine man....the guy who pumped their gas- the ones who 'knew their place'.

Bigots always have rationalizations like that


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone here that that can prove that homosexuals NEED to get married, I will buy you a GOOD  cup coffee, you name it. Really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't hold your breath...
> 
> The purpose of the demand for marriage is that with marriage come legitimacy... what they don't understand is that legitimacy comes as a result of the standard that defines it.  Therefore, they're chasing something that can't be had until THEY turn from that which renders them illegitimate.
> 
> It's some fairly sad stuff... but insanity has always been sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they're willing to settle for appearances, because real marriage cannot be redefined. Gay couple can play house and delude themselves, but they can never marry for real. The Bible refers to this as "strong delusions". They forget that marriage is ordained by God and is not up for personal interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage in this era is for many reasons.  In western culture it is mostly about love.  Two people love each other and want to commit to a long term (hopefully) permanent relationship with each other that might or might not include children, that might include purchasing and building a home together, shared assets, a shared future together that is recognized legally and - if religion is involved, by a religious service. It is a relationship recognized right now, in many areas, as limited only to hetero couples.
Click to expand...


And people can't do all that without government?  Why not?


----------



## kaz

GreenBean said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> no one gives a shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there are legions of people who agree with you, who agree with you.  They are patting you on the back and telling you how right you are.  LOL, is your sense of self worth so tiny that you need to believe that?  I speak for myself.  I don't need to agreed with or disagreed with to consider my view valid.  Grow a pair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I speak for myself.  I don't need to agreed with or disagreed with to consider my view valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hope you don't mind Kaz - I know you don't need it - but I "agreed" with your post - lol
Click to expand...


LOL, you're a good guy GreenBean.

I should have added that I do greatly appreciate when people thank or agree with my posts, so thank you, GreenBean.  I just meant I don't need validation of my view to think it.


----------



## GreenBean

GreenBean said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who are attracted to children can't make a different choice either.  Compulsive hoarding isn't a choice.  No compulsive disorder leaves the sufferer with a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a choice in acting. For me, as a gay woman, the only choice is in acting upon my natural or god given inclinations. As long as I am acting upon those natural inclinations with another consenting adult, whose fucking business is it and why should I be denied the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage because my life partner of choice happens to be the same gender I am?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice how they no longer say, "What business is it of yours what we do in our own bedroom. This is because they know they've taken in out of the bedroom and shoved it in our faces. They hilariously push their lifestyle into the public while at the same time in this post saying it's none of our business. Just another daffy quirk of the faggoty Left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a heterosexual i say- what business is it what we do in our own bedroom?
> 
> I live in San Francisco- I have never seen any homosexual shove sex in my face. I have seen people having sex in public twice here- both heterosexual couples.
> 
> But I think I get what you are trying to say- f*ggots have just gotten too uppity for your liking- they don't know their place anymore.
> 
> Because to bigots- f*ggots, n*ggers, c*nts, k*kes......just the same kind of word used for the same kind of purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [QUOTE*]I live in San Francisco- I have never seen any homosexual shove sex in my face*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Mod Note: photo removed due to uncovered nipples.*
Click to expand...


*Mod Note: photo removed due to uncovered nipples.

Awww Shucks !!!!!!*


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get that from men either.  That's why I chose women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I certainly chose to have sex with women- I chose to marry a woman- but I never, ever chose to be attracted to women.
> 
> IF you can choose to be attracted to women- then you should be able to chose to be attracted to men.
> 
> If you find the idea of a stubbly male face kissing your lips repugnant- like I do- then your attraction is not a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I choose not to be attracted to men.
> 
> I find a lot of things repugnant.  Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are probably bisexual.
> 
> As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.
> 
> I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.
> 
> If you think you could chose to be turned on by a photo of Clooney in a bathing suit- then you  are probably bisexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could choose to be a criminal.  Does that make me one?
> 
> I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't choose your attraction, only whether to act on them or not. If you are not attracted to men, you can't make yourself attracted to men, trust me on this. (It's why reparative "therapy" has such a high failure rate)
Click to expand...



And that's what at issue.  The Action and the choice to take that action.

The desire is irrelevant... the choice to act on that desire is what brings the negative consequences.


----------



## GreenBean

JakeStarkey said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation.  It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that depends. Every other generation didn't celebrate it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most don't "celebrate it".  Wanting to not be forced to hide it is not "celebrating" it.  They want to be treated the same way you are - like people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The militiant straights want to "celebrate" their sexuality.  Of course.  So do gays.
> 
> The straights do not want gays to have the same rights under law.
> 
> That is deviant.
Click to expand...



So Penis Breath - who, pray tell , in your warped little mind  are the "militant" Heterosexuals -


----------



## Syriusly

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the bakers being fined for refusing to serve gays are violating these reasonable, legal, and ethical civil laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To an authoritarian leftist, yes.  To a liberal, no.  A liberal walks out of a business that doesn't want to do business with them and goes to one that does.  An authoritarian leftist runs to government to use force to compel them to do business. It's very clear.
Click to expand...


As a liberal- I probably would not force a business who chose not to do business with me because  I am white- or because the shop owner thought I was jewish or whatever. Mainly because I have never faced any discrimination in my life.

If I was part of a minority that had routinely been discriminated against by people all of my life- I might well take advantage of the laws put in place specifically to protect the rights of minorities from discrimination by business'.


----------



## GreenBean

GreenBean said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation.  It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that depends. Every other generation didn't celebrate it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most don't "celebrate it".  Wanting to not be forced to hide it is not "celebrating" it.  They want to be treated the same way you are - like people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The militiant straights want to "celebrate" their sexuality.  Of course.  So do gays.
> 
> The straights do not want gays to have the same rights under law.
> 
> That is deviant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So Penis Breath - who, pray tell , in your warped little mind  are the "militant" Heterosexuals - ya know - I've been away for a few months and forgot how incredibly hopelessly and pathetically ignorant you are
Click to expand...


So Penis Breath - who, pray tell , in your warped little mind  are the "militant" Heterosexuals - ya know - I've been away for a few months and forgot how incredibly hopelessly and pathetically ignorant you are


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> no one gives a shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there are legions of people who agree with you, who agree with you.  They are patting you on the back and telling you how right you are.  LOL, is your sense of self worth so tiny that you need to believe that?  I speak for myself.  I don't need to agreed with or disagreed with to consider my view valid.  Grow a pair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More accurately, your one trick pony shctick, where you try and turn every conversation into another long, whining screed about anarchy is something most folks don't give a shit about.
Click to expand...


You show me the way by stopping your one trick pony schtick where you try and turn every conversation into another long, whining screed about love of government that only liberals give a shit about.

And given the number of thanks and agrees I get, the facts don't give up your claim.  No, liberals don't want to hear that government isn't the solution to every problem.  But stop whining, I have as much right to post that government isn't the solution to a problem as you do to post that government is the solution to that problem.



Skylar said:


> Want to discuss anarchy? Start a thread. Want to babble about anarchy *here*, in a thread about homosexuality? No one gives a shit.



No, I'm not an anarchist moron.  I'm a small government libertarian.  Here's a link you won't understand or remember.  Your manhood is in a blind trust to government.

What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## kaz

Skylar said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the bakers being fined for refusing to serve gays are violating these reasonable, legal, and ethical civil laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To an authoritarian leftist, yes.  To a liberal, no.  A liberal walks out of a business that doesn't want to do business with them and goes to one that does.  An authoritarian leftist runs to government to use force to compel them to do business. It's very clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've resolved the authority issue, as the states clearly have the authority over commerce within their States.
> 
> What's left are ethical issues. And I think its perfectly ethical and reasonable for a State to require those doing business with the public to treat the public fairly and equally.
> 
> You disagree. So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I am a liberal and you are an authoritarian leftist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. You're just an anarchist with an opinion. One I don't give a shit about in this thread.
> 
> Do you have anything else to say about homosexuality?
Click to expand...


Yes, gays have every right to be left alone, they have no right to demand anything from anyone.

Just like everyone else.


----------



## GreenBean

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I certainly chose to have sex with women- I chose to marry a woman- but I never, ever chose to be attracted to women.
> 
> IF you can choose to be attracted to women- then you should be able to chose to be attracted to men.
> 
> If you find the idea of a stubbly male face kissing your lips repugnant- like I do- then your attraction is not a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I choose not to be attracted to men.
> 
> I find a lot of things repugnant.  Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are probably bisexual.
> 
> As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.
> 
> I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.
> 
> If you think you could chose to be turned on by a photo of Clooney in a bathing suit- then you  are probably bisexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could choose to be a criminal.  Does that make me one?
> 
> I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't choose your attraction, only whether to act on them or not. If you are not attracted to men, you can't make yourself attracted to men, trust me on this. (It's why reparative "therapy" has such a high failure rate)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that's what at issue.  The Action and the choice to take that action.
> 
> The desire is irrelevant... the choice to act on that desire is what brings the negative consequences.
Click to expand...





> You can't choose your attraction, only whether to act on them or not.



Actually - you can't CONSCIOUSLY choose your attractions - perverted attractions are generally derived from early childhood traumatic experiences .  While normal heterosexual attractions are our biological norm.


----------



## Coyote

80zephyr said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  It is about science and how different conlcusions can come from the same research.
> 
> People Are Not Born Gay Affirms Royal College of Psychiatrists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that's not what happened. What happened was an anti gay group misinterpreted the study.
> 
> UK ‘gay cure’ group red-faced as psychiatrists point out they are wrong
> 
> _Speaking to Gay Star News, a Royal College of Psychiatrists spokeswoman said it was a clear ‘misinterpretation’ of their actual statement.
> 
> ‘Homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder,’ it reads. ‘The College believes strongly in evidence-based treatment. There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.
> 
> ‘The College would not support a therapy for converting people from homosexuality any more than we would do so from heterosexuality.
> 
> ‘Psychiatrists should be committed to reducing inequalities, not supporting practices that are explicitly based on pathologizing homosexuality. As such, the College remains in favor of legislative efforts to ban such conversion therapies.’_​
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  Gay West New York cop claims in lawsuit he was harassed intimidated by police director NJ.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a lot more than just "saying something" in that case. Also, you can't "say anything" at work, you know that right? Your "free speech" goes only as far as your employer allows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tebow's action of praying got media attention.  However, had he not scored a toughdown, etc. there would have been no attention because he wouldn't have Tebowed.  For Sam, the attention came before ever stepping foot on an NFL field.  Tebow also had high school accomplishments.  You don't start at Florida and win the Heisman if you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't pretend Michael Sam didn't have accomplishments prior to coming out. He was SEC defensive player of the year and I think would be on a roster right now if he hadn't come out as gay.
> 
> Do you think role models are important? You obviously see Tebow as a role model for Christians and have no problem with that. Why can't Michael Sam be a role model for gay athletes? You may not realize it, but it is important for the gay High School football player in Iowa to see that there are others like him and it's okay to be athletic and gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  Define equal.  It doens't mean you get to do exactly the same things I do or vice versa.
> 
> Just ask them about polygamy or a sibling marriage.  They are quicker to say no to it coming up with why equality should be denied than they are about bending over and taking one in the ass for the homos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Polygamy and incest are both illegal so bringing them up is what is referred to in polite circles as a "slippery slope fallacy". They are completely unrelated to gays having equal access to civil marriage, and would either have a valid argument for legalization or they would not regardless of gays civilly marrying.
> 
> Quite a few countries have been marrying the gays for a while now. Even more countries perform legal polygamist marriages. None do both. There is no slippery slope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a slippery slope. It started with the leftists instituting welfare, easy divorce, and single motherhood to destroy families.
> 
> Gay marriage is simply the latest step in that direction.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


There is such a thing as a "slippery slope fallacy".


----------



## kaz

Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the bakers being fined for refusing to serve gays are violating these reasonable, legal, and ethical civil laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To an authoritarian leftist, yes.  To a liberal, no.  A liberal walks out of a business that doesn't want to do business with them and goes to one that does.  An authoritarian leftist runs to government to use force to compel them to do business. It's very clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a liberal- I probably would not force a business who chose not to do business with me because  I am white- or because the shop owner thought I was jewish or whatever. Mainly because I have never faced any discrimination in my life.
> 
> If I was part of a minority that had routinely been discriminated against by people all of my life- I might well take advantage of the laws put in place specifically to protect the rights of minorities from discrimination by business'.
Click to expand...


I acknowledge Syriusly that you have a point that it's hard to say how I would react if I were in different circumstances.  However, I hope I would realize they are the idiots and I don't even want to do business with them.  Again, Jim Crow was enacted because government wanted discrimination and they couldn't count on people to do it on their own, so they used the force of government to compel them.

And we are all discriminated against.  I think about how I dress and how I shave when I go to do certain transactions to ensure I am taken seriously.  I stayed at a Hilton in Phoenix once.  I checked into the hotel and left to go hiking without parking.  I came back to the hotel sweaty and grubby.  I asked where to park.  The lady at the front said there's a pay garage across the street.  I thought for a second and said I'm staying here, where do I park?  She said the pay garage across the street.  I was like hmm.  I walked out the door, and the other direction it said hotel parking.  I went in and asked for the manager.  I told him what happened and said if she didn't think I was staying there ... ask for my key.  I said the run around was ridiculous and a waste of my time.  BTW, I was in management consulting, I was a Diamond VIP.  I didn't run to government to bring a gun.

It's part of life.  That doesn't make it fair, but you have to deal with it the right way.  And forcing a bigot to do business isn't the right way.  There are plenty of options.


----------



## Coyote

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the bakers being fined for refusing to serve gays are violating these reasonable, legal, and ethical civil laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To an authoritarian leftist, yes.  To a liberal, no.  A liberal walks out of a business that doesn't want to do business with them and goes to one that does.  An authoritarian leftist runs to government to use force to compel them to do business. It's very clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've resolved the authority issue, as the states clearly have the authority over commerce within their States.
> 
> What's left are ethical issues. And I think its perfectly ethical and reasonable for a State to require those doing business with the public to treat the public fairly and equally.
> 
> You disagree. So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I am a liberal and you are an authoritarian leftist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. You're just an anarchist with an opinion. One I don't give a shit about in this thread.
> 
> Do you have anything else to say about homosexuality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, gays have every right to be left alone, they have no right to demand anything from anyone.
> 
> Just like everyone else.
Click to expand...


People, any people, have a right to demand equality.


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> To an authoritarian leftist, yes.  To a liberal, no.  A liberal walks out of a business that doesn't want to do business with them and goes to one that does.  An authoritarian leftist runs to government to use force to compel them to do business. It's very clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've resolved the authority issue, as the states clearly have the authority over commerce within their States.
> 
> What's left are ethical issues. And I think its perfectly ethical and reasonable for a State to require those doing business with the public to treat the public fairly and equally.
> 
> You disagree. So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I am a liberal and you are an authoritarian leftist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. You're just an anarchist with an opinion. One I don't give a shit about in this thread.
> 
> Do you have anything else to say about homosexuality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, gays have every right to be left alone, they have no right to demand anything from anyone.
> 
> Just like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People, any people, have a right to demand equality.
Click to expand...


No you don't.  Go to your bank and demand they treat you like a million dollar account holder.  Go to government and demand to be treated like a politician.

You have the right to be left alone if you're not harming anyone.  No one has the right to demand anything from others, including government.


----------



## Coyote

All peope have a right to be treated with respect until their individual actions warrant otherwise.
All people have a right to be treated equally under the law.
People opposing same-sex marriage fall back on the same tired old arguments:  
Gays are being "pushy"
Gays are asking for "special rights"
Marriage is between one man and one woman.
It will destroy the institution of marriage.

On the first - how is it that people trying to gain equal rights, get labeled pushy?  Women demanding the vote? Blacks and civil rights?  Those advocating for the rights of the unborn and those advocating for the rights of women over their own bodies?  Advocating for fundamental rights is not "pushy" and marriage is recognized as a fundamental right.

Gays are asking for "special rights"...no, not really, because - to turn yet another argument on it's head (that gays already have the right to marry, they can marry anyone of the opposite sex) - there is no special right here, heterosexuals will have the same right to marry someone of the same sex.

Marriage is between one man and one woman.  Marriage, and the reasons for it as an institution has evolved and changed throughout history (for example, marriage at in medievil Europe was reserved for upper classes for political and inheritance reasons while the lower classes cohabitated), it varies according to culture and has not always been one/one.  Opponents of same sex marriage are essentially saying marriage can't change anymore and ignoring history.

It will destroy the institution of marriage.  This is the one I find hysterically funny.  How exactly will that happen?  No one has been able to explain how the marriages, of a subset of the approx 4% gay population, is going to have any affect on the rest of the 96% who might or might not choose to marry.  

Marriage is a fundamental right.  In today's western world, we recognize that right, and it is not attached to procreation alone.  We recognize the right of two elderly people to marry just as we recognize the right of two young people to marry.  Extending that dignity and respect for the union of two people in love to a same-sex marriage is not that much of a stretch.

People have a right to happyness as long as that right does not infringe on the rights of others or hurt others.  Marriage is widely recognized as a socially stabilizing influence and there is no reason that would not apply to same sex marriages as well.

Same sex marriage hurts NO ONE.  It's not "shoving" anything into someone else's face.  It's about recognizing the union of two people who want to spend the rest of their lives together under the legal protections and benefits of marriage.


----------



## Skylar

Coyote said:


> There is such a thing as a "slippery slope fallacy".



Oh, its a classic. You'll find all the best fallacies represented here. The most common being an Appeal to Authority. Where homosexuality is wrong because 'nature' said it was. Or 'god' said it was. Or whatever. 

There's no logical or rational basis behind it. Nor can they offer much in terms of reasoned, rational arguments. Its the main reason why most gay marriage opponents have such a rough time in court. As the motivation for many of them is 'God Hates Fags!'. But you can't really argue that in court.

So they're left with a litany of half baked 2nd tier arguments that are easily refuted....as they don't  make the slightest sense.


----------



## Coyote

kaz said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've resolved the authority issue, as the states clearly have the authority over commerce within their States.
> 
> What's left are ethical issues. And I think its perfectly ethical and reasonable for a State to require those doing business with the public to treat the public fairly and equally.
> 
> You disagree. So?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I am a liberal and you are an authoritarian leftist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. You're just an anarchist with an opinion. One I don't give a shit about in this thread.
> 
> Do you have anything else to say about homosexuality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, gays have every right to be left alone, they have no right to demand anything from anyone.
> 
> Just like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People, any people, have a right to demand equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you don't.  Go to your bank and demand they treat you like a million dollar account holder.  Go to government and demand to be treated like a politician.
> 
> You have the right to be left alone if you're not harming anyone.  No one has the right to demand anything from others, including government.
Click to expand...


So women had no right to demand the vote?
Blacks had no right to demand an end to Jim Crowe?


----------



## Coyote

peach174 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays would not have to complain about their rights if it wasn't for big government that is taking their rights away in the first place.
> The smaller the government the more rights all of us have.
> Gays have been unfairly taxed with inheritance laws because of bigger government.
> They can't see their loved ones because of hospital rules of only relatives.
> That is not only for Gays rights but for all of us, just recently a littler girl who survived a plane crash wanted the man who helped her when she knocked on his door, to go to the hospital with her, but he couldn't because he was not a relative. Hospitals had to make that rule because of bid government.
> That little girl had just lost her parents and all she wanted was a kind grownup with her for comfort.
> If it wasn't for the stupid rules of big government for marriage licenses, gays could get married how ever they wished.
> The bigger the government the more of all of our rights are being taken away.
> The smaller the government the more rights we have for all of us as Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your conclusion is false, and the material above it does not lead to your conclusion.
> 
> Only through bigger government were the slaves freed, women enfranchised, segregation ended, older teens empowered, and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slaves were freed because of the war, government itself was not able to do it even though it tried.
> The others you mentioned was to free them with laws, it was not bigger government.
> *Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.*
Click to expand...


No one is talking about forcing churches to do anything.  It's not about churches.  They're free to marry whom they want under the auspices of their religious beliefs.  This is government recognition of marriages and the benefits it bestows on married couples.


----------



## Coyote

kaz said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone here that that can prove that homosexuals NEED to get married, I will buy you a GOOD  cup coffee, you name it. Really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't hold your breath...
> 
> The purpose of the demand for marriage is that with marriage come legitimacy... what they don't understand is that legitimacy comes as a result of the standard that defines it.  Therefore, they're chasing something that can't be had until THEY turn from that which renders them illegitimate.
> 
> It's some fairly sad stuff... but insanity has always been sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they're willing to settle for appearances, because real marriage cannot be redefined. Gay couple can play house and delude themselves, but they can never marry for real. The Bible refers to this as "strong delusions". They forget that marriage is ordained by God and is not up for personal interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage in this era is for many reasons.  In western culture it is mostly about love.  Two people love each other and want to commit to a long term (hopefully) permanent relationship with each other that might or might not include children, that might include purchasing and building a home together, shared assets, a shared future together that is recognized legally and - if religion is involved, by a religious service. It is a relationship recognized right now, in many areas, as limited only to hetero couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And people can't do all that without government?  Why not?
Click to expand...


Because in our country marriage is recognized by the government which confers special priveledges and legal benefits to those couples that may or may not be obtained by unmarried couples.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I choose not to be attracted to men.
> 
> I find a lot of things repugnant.  Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are probably bisexual.
> 
> As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.
> 
> I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.
> 
> If you think you could chose to be turned on by a photo of Clooney in a bathing suit- then you  are probably bisexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could choose to be a criminal.  Does that make me one?
> 
> I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't choose your attraction, only whether to act on them or not. If you are not attracted to men, you can't make yourself attracted to men, trust me on this. (It's why reparative "therapy" has such a high failure rate)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that's what at issue.  The Action and the choice to take that action.
> 
> The desire is irrelevant... the choice to act on that desire is what brings the negative consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't choose your attraction, only whether to act on them or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually - you can't CONSCIOUSLY choose your attractions - perverted attractions are generally derived from early childhood traumatic experiences .  While normal heterosexual attractions are our biological norm.
Click to expand...


You can't choose your attractions but you can choose how to act on them.

With normal human beings, how others conduct themselves with other adults in private isn't an issue.


----------



## Syriusly

kaz said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the bakers being fined for refusing to serve gays are violating these reasonable, legal, and ethical civil laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To an authoritarian leftist, yes.  To a liberal, no.  A liberal walks out of a business that doesn't want to do business with them and goes to one that does.  An authoritarian leftist runs to government to use force to compel them to do business. It's very clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a liberal- I probably would not force a business who chose not to do business with me because  I am white- or because the shop owner thought I was jewish or whatever. Mainly because I have never faced any discrimination in my life.
> 
> If I was part of a minority that had routinely been discriminated against by people all of my life- I might well take advantage of the laws put in place specifically to protect the rights of minorities from discrimination by business'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I acknowledge Syriusly that you have a point that it's hard to say how I would react if I were in different circumstances.  However, I hope I would realize they are the idiots and I don't even want to do business with them.  Again, Jim Crow was enacted because government wanted discrimination and they couldn't count on people to do it on their own, so they used the force of government to compel them.
Click to expand...


Jim Crow was enacted because white voters wanted discrimination, and wanted to force all business's to go along with it. 
Beyond Jim Crow were business's and business associations which enacted their own racial discrimination- restrictive covenents for home ownership in housing developments, etc.

And it took government action- and law suits- to end that discrimination. 

Law suits by people who were claiming their constitutional rights.


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the bakers being fined for refusing to serve gays are violating these reasonable, legal, and ethical civil laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To an authoritarian leftist, yes.  To a liberal, no.  A liberal walks out of a business that doesn't want to do business with them and goes to one that does.  An authoritarian leftist runs to government to use force to compel them to do business. It's very clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a liberal- I probably would not force a business who chose not to do business with me because  I am white- or because the shop owner thought I was jewish or whatever. Mainly because I have never faced any discrimination in my life.
> 
> If I was part of a minority that had routinely been discriminated against by people all of my life- I might well take advantage of the laws put in place specifically to protect the rights of minorities from discrimination by business'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I acknowledge Syriusly that you have a point that it's hard to say how I would react if I were in different circumstances.  However, I hope I would realize they are the idiots and I don't even want to do business with them.  Again, Jim Crow was enacted because government wanted discrimination and they couldn't count on people to do it on their own, so they used the force of government to compel them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jim Crow was enacted because white voters wanted discrimination, and wanted to force all business's to go along with it.
> Beyond Jim Crow were business's and business associations which enacted their own racial discrimination- restrictive covenents for home ownership in housing developments, etc.
> 
> And it took government action- and law suits- to end that discrimination.
> 
> Law suits by people who were claiming their constitutional rights.
Click to expand...


You are attempting to "*Frame*"  the debate to suit your needs. To have it seem as if those opposed to Homosexuality and the persistent efforts of Homosexuals to indoctrinate the younger generation are themselves the villains -who invade the privacy of people who simply wish to be left in peace.

This tactic is known as "*Jamming*" - it is derived from tactics developed by the Communist Chinese in the Korean War era.

If all they wanted was to be left in peace - there would be no debate -

The very nature of the Homosexual dementia in most perverts demands they be the center of attraction - thus the flagrant exhibitionism - "In your face" queerdom.

Gay activism, [not the individual fruit cake who simply seeks more and more ways to get his rocks off] is the furthest thing from a civil rights movement that there ever was .  It is a societal abomination that seeks to bend society to its will ,pervert the morals, denigrate the family structure - coupled with Lesbian Feminism [Which is the foundation of Leftist Feminism] it seeks to destroy the family unit by destroying the natural maternal and paternal parent images ingrained in our psyche since humanity separated itself from our primate ancestors.

Getting back to my original supposition 
*Jamming -  *The objective of jamming is to force opponents into silence by accusations of homophobia, latent homosexual tendencies and bigotry . The purpose being to create a social stigmatization of anyone whom opposes the Agenda. Jamming is to ridicule the opponent in the eyes of the world and to evoke the "pack mentality" .

*Framing* -  is a psychological theory which suggests that people will have a different reaction to an idea when it is given a positive spin than they would if it was given a negative spin. Advertising professionals, public relations people and propagandists must possess a clear and concise knowledge and understanding of this concept to successfully spin their spiel. The implications of framing is that our decisions and opinions are based more on our predetermined attitudes rather than factual evidence. In communication, and advertising and propaganda campaigns framing defines how the media will shape mass opinion. 

Framing, when properly executed in social discourse short-circuits counter arguments . No one can speak up against an effective frame and say, Why, yes, I do think women should be raped and I do think women should be sex objects. when discussing the Feminist "rape culture" frame .  And no one can speak out against the Gay intrusion into public schools under the guise of tolerance and diversity  and state I do think students should kill themselves, or I do think gay kids should be beat up. 

Gay Brainwashing Techniques


----------



## Coyote

Gay brainwashing techniques?  Seriously?


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the bakers being fined for refusing to serve gays are violating these reasonable, legal, and ethical civil laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To an authoritarian leftist, yes.  To a liberal, no.  A liberal walks out of a business that doesn't want to do business with them and goes to one that does.  An authoritarian leftist runs to government to use force to compel them to do business. It's very clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a liberal- I probably would not force a business who chose not to do business with me because  I am white- or because the shop owner thought I was jewish or whatever. Mainly because I have never faced any discrimination in my life.
> 
> If I was part of a minority that had routinely been discriminated against by people all of my life- I might well take advantage of the laws put in place specifically to protect the rights of minorities from discrimination by business'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I acknowledge Syriusly that you have a point that it's hard to say how I would react if I were in different circumstances.  However, I hope I would realize they are the idiots and I don't even want to do business with them.  Again, Jim Crow was enacted because government wanted discrimination and they couldn't count on people to do it on their own, so they used the force of government to compel them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jim Crow was enacted because white voters wanted discrimination, and wanted to force all business's to go along with it.
> Beyond Jim Crow were business's and business associations which enacted their own racial discrimination- restrictive covenents for home ownership in housing developments, etc.
> 
> And it took government action- and law suits- to end that discrimination.
> 
> Law suits by people who were claiming their constitutional rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are attempting to "*Frame*"  the debate to suit your needs. To have it seem as if those opposed to Homosexuality and the persistent efforts of Homosexuals to indoctrinate the younger generation are themselves the villains -who invade the privacy of people who simply wish to be left in peace.
Click to expand...


As of course are you- you frame it in the language of hate and bigotry. 

And yes- bigots like yourself did invade the privacy of people who wanted to be left in peace.

For decades bigots like yourself would find a group of brave buddies and drive around to find a fem looking guy the 4 of you could bravely beat up- because you could call him gay.

For decades, bigots like yourself worked on police forces, rousting gays from bars- for daring to hang out with other gays- calling their employers to let them know that they were gay, and that it would be best if the bosses fired them. 

For decades, bigots like yourself worked to get gays fired from employment- from the State Department to public school systems.

Only through the efforts of the gay community- by actually demanding their rights did that end. 

And you bigots hate it. 

Now your kind focus on trying to malign homosexuals. 

Your kind label them child molesters and endanger children by telling people that the child molesters are all gay- putting every boy and girl at risk from the Jerry Sandusky and Roman Polanski's of the world. 

Look at your participation on these boards- it is all about spreading your message of hate.

That is all you have.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The hetero-fascists are indeed unAmerican in belief and behavior.


----------



## JakeStarkey

peach174 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays would not have to complain about their rights if it wasn't for big government that is taking their rights away in the first place.
> The smaller the government the more rights all of us have.
> Gays have been unfairly taxed with inheritance laws because of bigger government.
> They can't see their loved ones because of hospital rules of only relatives.
> That is not only for Gays rights but for all of us, just recently a littler girl who survived a plane crash wanted the man who helped her when she knocked on his door, to go to the hospital with her, but he couldn't because he was not a relative. Hospitals had to make that rule because of bid government.
> That little girl had just lost her parents and all she wanted was a kind grownup with her for comfort.
> If it wasn't for the stupid rules of big government for marriage licenses, gays could get married how ever they wished.
> The bigger the government the more of all of our rights are being taken away.
> The smaller the government the more rights we have for all of us as Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your conclusion is false, and the material above it does not lead to your conclusion.
> 
> Only through bigger government were the slaves freed, women enfranchised, segregation ended, older teens empowered, and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slaves were freed because of the army run by the government.
> 
> The force by the law of bigger government enforced freedom for the slaves and rights for women, minorities, and older teens.
> 
> "Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.
Click to expand...


Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens.  If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.

The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.


----------



## Silhouette

Coyote said:


> Gay brainwashing techniques?  Seriously?


 No, that's... Gay brainwashing techniques_...Syriusly_...


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't.  Go to your bank and demand they treat you like a million dollar account holder.  Go to government and demand to be treated like a politician.
> 
> You have the right to be left alone if you're not harming anyone.  No one has the right to demand anything from others, including government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So women had no right to demand the vote?
> Blacks had no right to demand an end to Jim Crowe?
Click to expand...


So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights?  I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote.  I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain.  Seriously, you don't know the difference?

If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone here that that can prove that homosexuals NEED to get married, I will buy you a GOOD  cup coffee, you name it. Really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't hold your breath...
> 
> The purpose of the demand for marriage is that with marriage come legitimacy... what they don't understand is that legitimacy comes as a result of the standard that defines it.  Therefore, they're chasing something that can't be had until THEY turn from that which renders them illegitimate.
> 
> It's some fairly sad stuff... but insanity has always been sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they're willing to settle for appearances, because real marriage cannot be redefined. Gay couple can play house and delude themselves, but they can never marry for real. The Bible refers to this as "strong delusions". They forget that marriage is ordained by God and is not up for personal interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage in this era is for many reasons.  In western culture it is mostly about love.  Two people love each other and want to commit to a long term (hopefully) permanent relationship with each other that might or might not include children, that might include purchasing and building a home together, shared assets, a shared future together that is recognized legally and - if religion is involved, by a religious service. It is a relationship recognized right now, in many areas, as limited only to hetero couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And people can't do all that without government?  Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because in our country marriage is recognized by the government which confers special priveledges and legal benefits to those couples that may or may not be obtained by unmarried couples.
Click to expand...


I see, so it's about the $$$.  Gays don't feel valued unless they are paid for it.  It's sad when you look at the history of oppression in the world what liberals think makes life unbearable and not worth living.  They are soft and weak.


All government marriage is wrong.  Government should not treat any citizens differently.  The "previleges and legal benefits" should be open to all Americans, not just "couples."


----------



## JakeStarkey

GreenBean said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation.  It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that depends. Every other generation didn't celebrate it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most don't "celebrate it".  Wanting to not be forced to hide it is not "celebrating" it.  They want to be treated the same way you are - like people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The militiant straights want to "celebrate" their sexuality.  Of course.  So do gays.
> 
> The straights do not want gays to have the same rights under law.
> 
> That is deviant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So Penis Breath - who, pray tell , in your warped little mind  are the "militant" Heterosexuals -
Click to expand...








  Why,you are by all your dancing and prancing here, son.

Let it go.  Marriage Equality is here and SCOTUS will nationalize it this year.


----------



## kaz

Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the bakers being fined for refusing to serve gays are violating these reasonable, legal, and ethical civil laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To an authoritarian leftist, yes.  To a liberal, no.  A liberal walks out of a business that doesn't want to do business with them and goes to one that does.  An authoritarian leftist runs to government to use force to compel them to do business. It's very clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a liberal- I probably would not force a business who chose not to do business with me because  I am white- or because the shop owner thought I was jewish or whatever. Mainly because I have never faced any discrimination in my life.
> 
> If I was part of a minority that had routinely been discriminated against by people all of my life- I might well take advantage of the laws put in place specifically to protect the rights of minorities from discrimination by business'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I acknowledge Syriusly that you have a point that it's hard to say how I would react if I were in different circumstances.  However, I hope I would realize they are the idiots and I don't even want to do business with them.  Again, Jim Crow was enacted because government wanted discrimination and they couldn't count on people to do it on their own, so they used the force of government to compel them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jim Crow was enacted because white voters wanted discrimination, and wanted to force all business's to go along with it.
> Beyond Jim Crow were business's and business associations which enacted their own racial discrimination- restrictive covenents for home ownership in housing developments, etc.
> 
> And it took government action- and law suits- to end that discrimination.
> 
> Law suits by people who were claiming their constitutional rights.
Click to expand...


You don't have Constitutional rights regarding business or private associations, you have Constitutional rights regarding government.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Third most delusional statement of the day: "I see, so it's about the $$$. Gays don't feel valued unless they are paid for it."


----------



## JakeStarkey

kaz said:


> ]You don't have Constitutional rights regarding business or private associations, you have Constitutional rights regarding government.



I think SCOTUS and the American people differ.


----------



## Syriusly

kaz said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the bakers being fined for refusing to serve gays are violating these reasonable, legal, and ethical civil laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To an authoritarian leftist, yes.  To a liberal, no.  A liberal walks out of a business that doesn't want to do business with them and goes to one that does.  An authoritarian leftist runs to government to use force to compel them to do business. It's very clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a liberal- I probably would not force a business who chose not to do business with me because  I am white- or because the shop owner thought I was jewish or whatever. Mainly because I have never faced any discrimination in my life.
> 
> If I was part of a minority that had routinely been discriminated against by people all of my life- I might well take advantage of the laws put in place specifically to protect the rights of minorities from discrimination by business'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I acknowledge Syriusly that you have a point that it's hard to say how I would react if I were in different circumstances.  However, I hope I would realize they are the idiots and I don't even want to do business with them.  Again, Jim Crow was enacted because government wanted discrimination and they couldn't count on people to do it on their own, so they used the force of government to compel them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jim Crow was enacted because white voters wanted discrimination, and wanted to force all business's to go along with it.
> Beyond Jim Crow were business's and business associations which enacted their own racial discrimination- restrictive covenents for home ownership in housing developments, etc.
> 
> And it took government action- and law suits- to end that discrimination.
> 
> Law suits by people who were claiming their constitutional rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have Constitutional rights regarding business or private associations, you have Constitutional rights regarding government.
Click to expand...


Shelley v. Kraemer - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  It is about science and how different conlcusions can come from the same research.
> 
> People Are Not Born Gay Affirms Royal College of Psychiatrists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that's not what happened. What happened was an anti gay group misinterpreted the study.
> 
> UK ‘gay cure’ group red-faced as psychiatrists point out they are wrong
> 
> _Speaking to Gay Star News, a Royal College of Psychiatrists spokeswoman said it was a clear ‘misinterpretation’ of their actual statement.
> 
> ‘Homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder,’ it reads. ‘The College believes strongly in evidence-based treatment. There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.
> 
> ‘The College would not support a therapy for converting people from homosexuality any more than we would do so from heterosexuality.
> 
> ‘Psychiatrists should be committed to reducing inequalities, not supporting practices that are explicitly based on pathologizing homosexuality. As such, the College remains in favor of legislative efforts to ban such conversion therapies.’_​
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  Gay West New York cop claims in lawsuit he was harassed intimidated by police director NJ.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a lot more than just "saying something" in that case. Also, you can't "say anything" at work, you know that right? Your "free speech" goes only as far as your employer allows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tebow's action of praying got media attention.  However, had he not scored a toughdown, etc. there would have been no attention because he wouldn't have Tebowed.  For Sam, the attention came before ever stepping foot on an NFL field.  Tebow also had high school accomplishments.  You don't start at Florida and win the Heisman if you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't pretend Michael Sam didn't have accomplishments prior to coming out. He was SEC defensive player of the year and I think would be on a roster right now if he hadn't come out as gay.
> 
> Do you think role models are important? You obviously see Tebow as a role model for Christians and have no problem with that. Why can't Michael Sam be a role model for gay athletes? You may not realize it, but it is important for the gay High School football player in Iowa to see that there are others like him and it's okay to be athletic and gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  Define equal.  It doens't mean you get to do exactly the same things I do or vice versa.
> 
> Just ask them about polygamy or a sibling marriage.  They are quicker to say no to it coming up with why equality should be denied than they are about bending over and taking one in the ass for the homos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Polygamy and incest are both illegal so bringing them up is what is referred to in polite circles as a "slippery slope fallacy". They are completely unrelated to gays having equal access to civil marriage, and would either have a valid argument for legalization or they would not regardless of gays civilly marrying.
> 
> Quite a few countries have been marrying the gays for a while now. Even more countries perform legal polygamist marriages. None do both. There is no slippery slope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a slippery slope. It started with the leftists instituting welfare, easy divorce, and single motherhood to destroy families.
> 
> Gay marriage is simply the latest step in that direction.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is such a thing as a "slippery slope fallacy".
Click to expand...


Yes, there is a slippery slope fallacy...  however, that fallacy only exists where the appeal is to a slippery slope that does not exist.  

The Slope relevant to the Normalizing of Sexual Abnormality is steep and makes wet ice look like a well treated drag strip (They're covered in adhesive, thus incredibly sticky.)

Remember, in the 80s when the "Movement" was really getting traction, in public debate after debate, the advocates proclaimed that 'it was ludicrous to claim that if the US Culture just accepted the individual homosexuals and dropped the sodomy laws, that homosexuals would inevitably demand to be married; declaring THEN that the claim that such was inevitable was 'a slippery slope fallacy'.

Again... the facts demonstrate that the slope is steep and greasy, thus it is foolish to even consider going down it.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Yes, there is a slippery slope fallacy...  however, that fallacy only exists where the appeal is to a slippery slope that does not exist.



Your argument has one huge hole: *you can't establish causation. *You insist that no culture that has embraced homosexuality has survived. Yet virtually no culture that has rejected homosexuality has survived either. When your 'effect' exists even if your 'cause' doesn't....clearly you need to work on your causation. 



> Again... the facts demonstrate that the slope is steep and greasy, thus it is foolish to even consider going down it.



If facts were 'whatever you imagine', then perhaps. Alas, reality doesn't work that way. And your assumptions don't translate into our concern.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone here that that can prove that homosexuals NEED to get married, I will buy you a GOOD  cup coffee, you name it. Really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't hold your breath...
> 
> The purpose of the demand for marriage is that with marriage come legitimacy... what they don't understand is that legitimacy comes as a result of the standard that defines it.  Therefore, they're chasing something that can't be had until THEY turn from that which renders them illegitimate.
> 
> It's some fairly sad stuff... but insanity has always been sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they're willing to settle for appearances, because real marriage cannot be redefined. Gay couple can play house and delude themselves, but they can never marry for real. The Bible refers to this as "strong delusions". They forget that marriage is ordained by God and is not up for personal interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage in this era is for many reasons.  In western culture it is mostly about love.  Two people love each other and want to commit to a long term (hopefully) permanent relationship with each other that might or might not include children, that might include purchasing and building a home together, shared assets, a shared future together that is recognized legally and - if religion is involved, by a religious service. It is a relationship recognized right now, in many areas, as limited only to hetero couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And people can't do all that without government?  Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because in our country marriage is recognized by the government which confers special priveledges and legal benefits to those couples that may or may not be obtained by unmarried couples.
Click to expand...


Recognized by the government or not, Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.  

That the government seeks to encourage marriage, through providing married couples a lower tax liability is irrelevant to those who demand to alter that which defines marriage, as a means to help them find the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage, which exists because of the very standards that they seek to remove, thus stripping it of legitimacy.

Open marriage to same gender unions, then by your own reasoning, marriage must be opened to siblings, Mothers and son, Dads and daughters, more than two people, varying species... and by allowing all of that sick shit to "be Married" the state 'legitimizes' or normalizes that nonsense... effectively ending marriage, and the culture whose viability rests upon the principled standards that define it.

Reasonable people recognize _that_, as NONSENSE!


----------



## 80zephyr

Seawytch said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who are attracted to children can't make a different choice either.  Compulsive hoarding isn't a choice.  No compulsive disorder leaves the sufferer with a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a choice in acting. For me, as a gay woman, the only choice is in acting upon my natural or god given inclinations. As long as I am acting upon those natural inclinations with another consenting adult, whose fucking business is it and why should I be denied the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage because my life partner of choice happens to be the same gender I am?
Click to expand...



And who are you to define what a consenting adult is? I mean, if you want to be honest, your conditions are as arbitrary as mine are.

I just happen to have a higher standard of morality than you.

Mark


----------



## kaz

JakeStarkey said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]You don't have Constitutional rights regarding business or private associations, you have Constitutional rights regarding government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think SCOTUS and the American people differ.
Click to expand...


You don't know what the Constitution is, Jake.  Read it.


----------



## kaz

Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> To an authoritarian leftist, yes.  To a liberal, no.  A liberal walks out of a business that doesn't want to do business with them and goes to one that does.  An authoritarian leftist runs to government to use force to compel them to do business. It's very clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a liberal- I probably would not force a business who chose not to do business with me because  I am white- or because the shop owner thought I was jewish or whatever. Mainly because I have never faced any discrimination in my life.
> 
> If I was part of a minority that had routinely been discriminated against by people all of my life- I might well take advantage of the laws put in place specifically to protect the rights of minorities from discrimination by business'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I acknowledge Syriusly that you have a point that it's hard to say how I would react if I were in different circumstances.  However, I hope I would realize they are the idiots and I don't even want to do business with them.  Again, Jim Crow was enacted because government wanted discrimination and they couldn't count on people to do it on their own, so they used the force of government to compel them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jim Crow was enacted because white voters wanted discrimination, and wanted to force all business's to go along with it.
> Beyond Jim Crow were business's and business associations which enacted their own racial discrimination- restrictive covenents for home ownership in housing developments, etc.
> 
> And it took government action- and law suits- to end that discrimination.
> 
> Law suits by people who were claiming their constitutional rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have Constitutional rights regarding business or private associations, you have Constitutional rights regarding government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shelley v. Kraemer - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Yes, that was made up law by the courts.


----------



## kaz

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't hold your breath...
> 
> The purpose of the demand for marriage is that with marriage come legitimacy... what they don't understand is that legitimacy comes as a result of the standard that defines it.  Therefore, they're chasing something that can't be had until THEY turn from that which renders them illegitimate.
> 
> It's some fairly sad stuff... but insanity has always been sad.
> 
> 
> 
> And they're willing to settle for appearances, because real marriage cannot be redefined. Gay couple can play house and delude themselves, but they can never marry for real. The Bible refers to this as "strong delusions". They forget that marriage is ordained by God and is not up for personal interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage in this era is for many reasons.  In western culture it is mostly about love.  Two people love each other and want to commit to a long term (hopefully) permanent relationship with each other that might or might not include children, that might include purchasing and building a home together, shared assets, a shared future together that is recognized legally and - if religion is involved, by a religious service. It is a relationship recognized right now, in many areas, as limited only to hetero couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And people can't do all that without government?  Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because in our country marriage is recognized by the government which confers special priveledges and legal benefits to those couples that may or may not be obtained by unmarried couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Recognized by the government or not, Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> That the government seeks to encourage marriage, through providing married couples a lower tax liability is irrelevant to those who demand to alter that which defines marriage, as a means to help them find the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage, which exists because of the very standards that they seek to remove, thus stripping it of legitimacy.
> 
> Open marriage to same gender unions, then by your own reasoning, marriage must be opened to siblings, Mothers and son, Dads and daughters, more than two people, varying species... and by allowing all of that sick shit to "be Married" the state 'legitimizes' or normalizes that nonsense... effectively ending marriage, and the culture whose viability rests upon the principled standards that define it.
> 
> Reasonable people recognize _that_, as NONSENSE!
Click to expand...


Yes, what nonsense thinking we can live our lives without government validation.  What was I thinking?  "Marriage" should be open to everyone or no one.  That government decides who is "married" is what is nonsense.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kaz, you are making up something out of nothing.

Believe as you will, it certainly is your right even as you are wrong.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

80zephyr said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who are attracted to children can't make a different choice either.  Compulsive hoarding isn't a choice.  No compulsive disorder leaves the sufferer with a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a choice in acting. For me, as a gay woman, the only choice is in acting upon my natural or god given inclinations. As long as I am acting upon those natural inclinations with another consenting adult, whose fucking business is it and why should I be denied the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage because my life partner of choice happens to be the same gender I am?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And who are you to define what a consenting adult is? I mean, if you want to be honest, your conditions are as arbitrary as mine are.
> 
> I just happen to have a higher standard of morality than you.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Oh, it gets MUCH worse than that.

"Consenting Adult"... means what?

It means a person who is, at least of the age set into law to be capable of consenting... .  A "Consenting Adult" could by a simple alteration of "The Law" represent a 16 year old, or a 12 year old, or an 10 year old, or '_any person who favors the caring intimacy, of another, without regard to age'. 
_
Prior to just a few years ago, the Militant-homo lobby, OKA: The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality would without fail respond to allegations that homosexuals are prone toward the pursuit of sexual gratification with children, with OUTRAGE!  When pushed to explain the basis fo their outrage, they would respond with some variation on the "Its SICK!" theme....  Then, it morphed into "It's ILLEGAL!" 

Pedophilia is in fact illegal... it's also SICK; meaning that it is a function of a disordered, dysfunctional mind, but no less so than the disorder that induces the rationalization that sex with people of one's own gender.  It is precisely the same thing.  And the goal of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is to rinse from the culture, any sense of sexual propriety.  And all through the APPEAL TO MISLEADING AUTHORITY wherein the same people that 'informed' us that Homosexuality is not a mental disorder, are now 'informing us' that _"there are no lasting effects from sex with an adult, where the encounter is expressed through a loving, caring perspective."
_
They're steadily _'progressing' _toward the lowering of the legal age of sexual consent, until there is no standard.  

Just as they're moving to lower the standard for marriage.

So, yes... it is a terrible, slippery slope. 

But it's evil, and such is the nature of evil.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The following is  a type of foolery known by "as if la la logic":  A 'Consenting Adult' could by a simple alteration of 'The Law' represent a 16 year old, or a 12 year old, or an 10 year old, or '_any person who favors the caring intimacy, of another, without regard to age'."
_
This is a make believe concoction that does not exist except as the fulmination of weak brain in a foolish person.  This fantasy derives from feeling not objective evidence or solid logic.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

kaz said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they're willing to settle for appearances, because real marriage cannot be redefined. Gay couple can play house and delude themselves, but they can never marry for real. The Bible refers to this as "strong delusions". They forget that marriage is ordained by God and is not up for personal interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage in this era is for many reasons.  In western culture it is mostly about love.  Two people love each other and want to commit to a long term (hopefully) permanent relationship with each other that might or might not include children, that might include purchasing and building a home together, shared assets, a shared future together that is recognized legally and - if religion is involved, by a religious service. It is a relationship recognized right now, in many areas, as limited only to hetero couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And people can't do all that without government?  Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because in our country marriage is recognized by the government which confers special priveledges and legal benefits to those couples that may or may not be obtained by unmarried couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Recognized by the government or not, Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> That the government seeks to encourage marriage, through providing married couples a lower tax liability is irrelevant to those who demand to alter that which defines marriage, as a means to help them find the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage, which exists because of the very standards that they seek to remove, thus stripping it of legitimacy.
> 
> Open marriage to same gender unions, then by your own reasoning, marriage must be opened to siblings, Mothers and son, Dads and daughters, more than two people, varying species... and by allowing all of that sick shit to "be Married" the state 'legitimizes' or normalizes that nonsense... effectively ending marriage, and the culture whose viability rests upon the principled standards that define it.
> 
> Reasonable people recognize _that_, as NONSENSE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, what nonsense thinking we can live our lives without government validation.  What was I thinking?  "Marriage" should be open to everyone or no one.  That government decides who is "married" is what is nonsense.
Click to expand...


Marriage is open to everyone. 

I've been married to my wife for 35 years.  And if the government came out tonight and decreed that marriage was the joining of a Monkey and a football... it would not change our life in the slightest.  We would remain married, as our marriage is before God, in sync with nature and is between the two of us. 

Two men pretending to be married does not directly affect us, or our marriage.  But indirectly, it strips the culture in which we live, of the nucleus that bonds it... .  While OUR marriage is set in stone, allowing people of the same gender to marry MUST effect the way that future generations will perceive marriage.  

And given the negative effect that Leftist reasoning has already had on Marriage and as a consequence of THAT, on the culture, it follows that further degeneration of the cultural nucleus would only further degeneration the culture.

The Ideological Left, or more accurately, our tolerance of the idiocy that IS the Ideological Left, has long crippled our culture.  And I could list the damage that their reasoning has caused, but we all know what it is...  that we have tolerated their nonsense all these years, does not obligate us toward further tolerance... and you can rest assured that on this issue... we are not inclined to compromise.

There are any number of alternatives for the Sexually abnormal to play house... Marriage is just not one of them.

Because: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage in this era is for many reasons.  In western culture it is mostly about love.  Two people love each other and want to commit to a long term (hopefully) permanent relationship with each other that might or might not include children, that might include purchasing and building a home together, shared assets, a shared future together that is recognized legally and - if religion is involved, by a religious service. It is a relationship recognized right now, in many areas, as limited only to hetero couples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And people can't do all that without government?  Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because in our country marriage is recognized by the government which confers special priveledges and legal benefits to those couples that may or may not be obtained by unmarried couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Recognized by the government or not, Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> That the government seeks to encourage marriage, through providing married couples a lower tax liability is irrelevant to those who demand to alter that which defines marriage, as a means to help them find the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage, which exists because of the very standards that they seek to remove, thus stripping it of legitimacy.
> 
> Open marriage to same gender unions, then by your own reasoning, marriage must be opened to siblings, Mothers and son, Dads and daughters, more than two people, varying species... and by allowing all of that sick shit to "be Married" the state 'legitimizes' or normalizes that nonsense... effectively ending marriage, and the culture whose viability rests upon the principled standards that define it.
> 
> Reasonable people recognize _that_, as NONSENSE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, what nonsense thinking we can live our lives without government validation.  What was I thinking?  "Marriage" should be open to everyone or no one.  That government decides who is "married" is what is nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is open to everyone.
> 
> I've been married to my wife for 35 years.  And if the government came out tonight and decreed that marriage was the joining of a Monkey and a football... it would not change our life in the slightest.  We would remain married, as our marriage is before God, in sync with nature and is between the two of us.
> 
> Two men pretending to be married does not directly affect us, or our marriage.  But indirectly, it strips the culture in which we live, of the nucleus that bonds it... .  While OUR marriage is set in stone, allowing people of the same gender to marry MUST effect the way that future generations will perceive marriage.
> 
> And given the negative effect that Leftist reasoning has already had on Marriage and as a consequence of THAT, on the culture, it follows that further degeneration of the cultural nucleus would only further degeneration the culture.
> 
> The Ideological Left, or more accurately, our tolerance of the idiocy that IS the Ideological Left, has long crippled our culture.  And I could list the damage that their reasoning has caused, but we all know what it is...  that we have tolerated their nonsense all these years, does not obligate us toward further tolerance... and you can rest assured that on this issue... we are not inclined to compromise.
> 
> There are any number of alternatives for the Sexually abnormal to play house... Marriage is just not one of them.
> 
> Because: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...

Got some news for you, this isn't Jesusland, yet, and you've lost so now what, you just keep bitching?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And people can't do all that without government?  Why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because in our country marriage is recognized by the government which confers special priveledges and legal benefits to those couples that may or may not be obtained by unmarried couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Recognized by the government or not, Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> That the government seeks to encourage marriage, through providing married couples a lower tax liability is irrelevant to those who demand to alter that which defines marriage, as a means to help them find the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage, which exists because of the very standards that they seek to remove, thus stripping it of legitimacy.
> 
> Open marriage to same gender unions, then by your own reasoning, marriage must be opened to siblings, Mothers and son, Dads and daughters, more than two people, varying species... and by allowing all of that sick shit to "be Married" the state 'legitimizes' or normalizes that nonsense... effectively ending marriage, and the culture whose viability rests upon the principled standards that define it.
> 
> Reasonable people recognize _that_, as NONSENSE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, what nonsense thinking we can live our lives without government validation.  What was I thinking?  "Marriage" should be open to everyone or no one.  That government decides who is "married" is what is nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is open to everyone.
> 
> I've been married to my wife for 35 years.  And if the government came out tonight and decreed that marriage was the joining of a Monkey and a football... it would not change our life in the slightest.  We would remain married, as our marriage is before God, in sync with nature and is between the two of us.
> 
> Two men pretending to be married does not directly affect us, or our marriage.  But indirectly, it strips the culture in which we live, of the nucleus that bonds it... .  While OUR marriage is set in stone, allowing people of the same gender to marry MUST effect the way that future generations will perceive marriage.
> 
> And given the negative effect that Leftist reasoning has already had on Marriage and as a consequence of THAT, on the culture, it follows that further degeneration of the cultural nucleus would only further degeneration the culture.
> 
> The Ideological Left, or more accurately, our tolerance of the idiocy that IS the Ideological Left, has long crippled our culture.  And I could list the damage that their reasoning has caused, but we all know what it is...  that we have tolerated their nonsense all these years, does not obligate us toward further tolerance... and you can rest assured that on this issue... we are not inclined to compromise.
> 
> There are any number of alternatives for the Sexually abnormal to play house... Marriage is just not one of them.
> 
> Because: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got some news for you, this isn't Jesusland, yet, and you've lost so now what, you just keep bitching?
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO!

_"We'll scratch your eyes out!"

Adorable!_


----------



## Coyote

kaz said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't.  Go to your bank and demand they treat you like a million dollar account holder.  Go to government and demand to be treated like a politician.
> 
> You have the right to be left alone if you're not harming anyone.  No one has the right to demand anything from others, including government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So women had no right to demand the vote?
> Blacks had no right to demand an end to Jim Crowe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights?  I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote.  I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain.  Seriously, you don't know the difference?
> 
> If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."
Click to expand...


No.

No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".  

The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally.  As in - the right to vote.  The right to use public drinking fountains.  The right to marry.

Those are retarded examples.  SURELY you can see the that?


----------



## Coyote

kaz said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't hold your breath...
> 
> The purpose of the demand for marriage is that with marriage come legitimacy... what they don't understand is that legitimacy comes as a result of the standard that defines it.  Therefore, they're chasing something that can't be had until THEY turn from that which renders them illegitimate.
> 
> It's some fairly sad stuff... but insanity has always been sad.
> 
> 
> 
> And they're willing to settle for appearances, because real marriage cannot be redefined. Gay couple can play house and delude themselves, but they can never marry for real. The Bible refers to this as "strong delusions". They forget that marriage is ordained by God and is not up for personal interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage in this era is for many reasons.  In western culture it is mostly about love.  Two people love each other and want to commit to a long term (hopefully) permanent relationship with each other that might or might not include children, that might include purchasing and building a home together, shared assets, a shared future together that is recognized legally and - if religion is involved, by a religious service. It is a relationship recognized right now, in many areas, as limited only to hetero couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And people can't do all that without government?  Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because in our country marriage is recognized by the government which confers special priveledges and legal benefits to those couples that may or may not be obtained by unmarried couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, so it's about the $$$.
Click to expand...


Why do you think it's about money?  "privledges and legal benefits" =/= money.  They include such simple things as the right to be with a dying spouse in a hospital.

[quote[ Gays don't feel valued unless they are paid for it.[/quote]

Where did you come up with that?



> It's sad when you look at the history of oppression in the world what liberals think makes life unbearable and not worth living.  They are soft and weak.



Actually...it's sad when you can't find it in yourself to allow two people who love each other to marry when it does no harm to you or anyone else.



> All government marriage is wrong.  Government should not treat any citizens differently.  The "previleges and legal benefits" should be open to all Americans, not just "couples."



Ok.  I can go along with that a well.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't.  Go to your bank and demand they treat you like a million dollar account holder.  Go to government and demand to be treated like a politician.
> 
> You have the right to be left alone if you're not harming anyone.  No one has the right to demand anything from others, including government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So women had no right to demand the vote?
> Blacks had no right to demand an end to Jim Crowe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights?  I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote.  I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain.  Seriously, you don't know the difference?
> 
> If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".
> 
> The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally.  As in - the right to vote.  The right to use public drinking fountains.  The right to marry. ...
Click to expand...


Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.  

*A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.*


----------



## Coyote

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because in our country marriage is recognized by the government which confers special priveledges and legal benefits to those couples that may or may not be obtained by unmarried couples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recognized by the government or not, Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> That the government seeks to encourage marriage, through providing married couples a lower tax liability is irrelevant to those who demand to alter that which defines marriage, as a means to help them find the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage, which exists because of the very standards that they seek to remove, thus stripping it of legitimacy.
> 
> Open marriage to same gender unions, then by your own reasoning, marriage must be opened to siblings, Mothers and son, Dads and daughters, more than two people, varying species... and by allowing all of that sick shit to "be Married" the state 'legitimizes' or normalizes that nonsense... effectively ending marriage, and the culture whose viability rests upon the principled standards that define it.
> 
> Reasonable people recognize _that_, as NONSENSE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, what nonsense thinking we can live our lives without government validation.  What was I thinking?  "Marriage" should be open to everyone or no one.  That government decides who is "married" is what is nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is open to everyone.
> 
> I've been married to my wife for 35 years.  And if the government came out tonight and decreed that marriage was the joining of a Monkey and a football... it would not change our life in the slightest.  We would remain married, as our marriage is before God, in sync with nature and is between the two of us.
> 
> Two men pretending to be married does not directly affect us, or our marriage.  But indirectly, it strips the culture in which we live, of the nucleus that bonds it... .  While OUR marriage is set in stone, allowing people of the same gender to marry MUST effect the way that future generations will perceive marriage.
> 
> And given the negative effect that Leftist reasoning has already had on Marriage and as a consequence of THAT, on the culture, it follows that further degeneration of the cultural nucleus would only further degeneration the culture.
> 
> The Ideological Left, or more accurately, our tolerance of the idiocy that IS the Ideological Left, has long crippled our culture.  And I could list the damage that their reasoning has caused, but we all know what it is...  that we have tolerated their nonsense all these years, does not obligate us toward further tolerance... and you can rest assured that on this issue... we are not inclined to compromise.
> 
> There are any number of alternatives for the Sexually abnormal to play house... Marriage is just not one of them.
> 
> Because: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got some news for you, this isn't Jesusland, yet, and you've lost so now what, you just keep bitching?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> _"We'll scratch your eyes out!"
> 
> Adorable!_
Click to expand...


Nah.  I'll just bite you in the butt.


----------



## Coyote

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't.  Go to your bank and demand they treat you like a million dollar account holder.  Go to government and demand to be treated like a politician.
> 
> You have the right to be left alone if you're not harming anyone.  No one has the right to demand anything from others, including government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So women had no right to demand the vote?
> Blacks had no right to demand an end to Jim Crowe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights?  I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote.  I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain.  Seriously, you don't know the difference?
> 
> If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".
> 
> The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally.  As in - the right to vote.  The right to use public drinking fountains.  The right to marry. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.
> 
> *A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.*
Click to expand...


Hey...the racial standard applied equally too.  Everyone had a right to marry someone of the same race.


----------



## Coyote

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  It is about science and how different conlcusions can come from the same research.
> 
> People Are Not Born Gay Affirms Royal College of Psychiatrists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that's not what happened. What happened was an anti gay group misinterpreted the study.
> 
> UK ‘gay cure’ group red-faced as psychiatrists point out they are wrong
> 
> _Speaking to Gay Star News, a Royal College of Psychiatrists spokeswoman said it was a clear ‘misinterpretation’ of their actual statement.
> 
> ‘Homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder,’ it reads. ‘The College believes strongly in evidence-based treatment. There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.
> 
> ‘The College would not support a therapy for converting people from homosexuality any more than we would do so from heterosexuality.
> 
> ‘Psychiatrists should be committed to reducing inequalities, not supporting practices that are explicitly based on pathologizing homosexuality. As such, the College remains in favor of legislative efforts to ban such conversion therapies.’_​
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  Gay West New York cop claims in lawsuit he was harassed intimidated by police director NJ.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a lot more than just "saying something" in that case. Also, you can't "say anything" at work, you know that right? Your "free speech" goes only as far as your employer allows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tebow's action of praying got media attention.  However, had he not scored a toughdown, etc. there would have been no attention because he wouldn't have Tebowed.  For Sam, the attention came before ever stepping foot on an NFL field.  Tebow also had high school accomplishments.  You don't start at Florida and win the Heisman if you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't pretend Michael Sam didn't have accomplishments prior to coming out. He was SEC defensive player of the year and I think would be on a roster right now if he hadn't come out as gay.
> 
> Do you think role models are important? You obviously see Tebow as a role model for Christians and have no problem with that. Why can't Michael Sam be a role model for gay athletes? You may not realize it, but it is important for the gay High School football player in Iowa to see that there are others like him and it's okay to be athletic and gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  Define equal.  It doens't mean you get to do exactly the same things I do or vice versa.
> 
> Just ask them about polygamy or a sibling marriage.  They are quicker to say no to it coming up with why equality should be denied than they are about bending over and taking one in the ass for the homos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Polygamy and incest are both illegal so bringing them up is what is referred to in polite circles as a "slippery slope fallacy". They are completely unrelated to gays having equal access to civil marriage, and would either have a valid argument for legalization or they would not regardless of gays civilly marrying.
> 
> Quite a few countries have been marrying the gays for a while now. Even more countries perform legal polygamist marriages. None do both. There is no slippery slope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a slippery slope. It started with the leftists instituting welfare, easy divorce, and single motherhood to destroy families.
> 
> Gay marriage is simply the latest step in that direction.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is such a thing as a "slippery slope fallacy".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is a slippery slope fallacy...  however, that fallacy only exists where the appeal is to a slippery slope that does not exist.
Click to expand...


Read the second to the last line of his post: an appeal to a slippery slope.



> The Slope relevant to the Normalizing of Sexual Abnormality is steep and makes wet ice look like a well treated drag strip (They're covered in adhesive, thus incredibly sticky.)



Kudos to you for awesome imagery.

HOWEVER...let's examine this particular slope.

Allowing same-sex marriage will open the door to all kinds of "perversions" in marriage.

Will it?

The common denomenator between same sex marriages and hetero marriages in the US is what? (yes, there is one).  It is between consenting adults, there is no coercion and no adverse effect to either the individuals involved or to public welfare.

Typical pervisions thrown up by the anti-pervert lobby:

"people will demand to marry their dogs" -- no consenting adults, dogs can't consent, and it is coercive.
"pedos will marry children" -- same argument and add to it is damaging to the child
"people will want to marry their siblings" -- consenting adults are possible, however it can be argued to be damaging to the public welfare if children are produced and this becomes an acceptable norm.

I'm not seeing a slippery slope but rather well sanded stairs with one exception - polygamy.  I can't come up with any good arguments against polygamy.



> Remember, in the 80s when the "Movement" was really getting traction, in public debate after debate, the advocates proclaimed that 'it was ludicrous to claim that if the US Culture just accepted the individual homosexuals and dropped the sodomy laws, that homosexuals would inevitably demand to be married; declaring THEN that the claim that such was inevitable was 'a slippery slope fallacy'.



Nope.



> Again... the facts demonstrate that the slope is steep and greasy, thus it is foolish to even consider going down it.


[/quote]

Suggestion - take off the dark glasses and you'll see well defined stairs.


----------



## Coyote

kaz said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they're willing to settle for appearances, because real marriage cannot be redefined. Gay couple can play house and delude themselves, but they can never marry for real. The Bible refers to this as "strong delusions". They forget that marriage is ordained by God and is not up for personal interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage in this era is for many reasons.  In western culture it is mostly about love.  Two people love each other and want to commit to a long term (hopefully) permanent relationship with each other that might or might not include children, that might include purchasing and building a home together, shared assets, a shared future together that is recognized legally and - if religion is involved, by a religious service. It is a relationship recognized right now, in many areas, as limited only to hetero couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And people can't do all that without government?  Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because in our country marriage is recognized by the government which confers special priveledges and legal benefits to those couples that may or may not be obtained by unmarried couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Recognized by the government or not, Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> That the government seeks to encourage marriage, through providing married couples a lower tax liability is irrelevant to those who demand to alter that which defines marriage, as a means to help them find the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage, which exists because of the very standards that they seek to remove, thus stripping it of legitimacy.
> 
> Open marriage to same gender unions, then by your own reasoning, marriage must be opened to siblings, Mothers and son, Dads and daughters, more than two people, varying species... and by allowing all of that sick shit to "be Married" the state 'legitimizes' or normalizes that nonsense... effectively ending marriage, and the culture whose viability rests upon the principled standards that define it.
> 
> Reasonable people recognize _that_, as NONSENSE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, what nonsense thinking we can live our lives without government validation.  What was I thinking?  "Marriage" should be open to everyone or no one.  That government decides who is "married" is what is nonsense.
Click to expand...


Really?  See THAT is where I see a slippery slope.


----------



## Carib Gyal

You are limiting consent to two people. Hundreds, thousands of consenting humans should all be allowed to marry each other.


----------



## Coyote

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't.  Go to your bank and demand they treat you like a million dollar account holder.  Go to government and demand to be treated like a politician.
> 
> You have the right to be left alone if you're not harming anyone.  No one has the right to demand anything from others, including government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So women had no right to demand the vote?
> Blacks had no right to demand an end to Jim Crowe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights?  I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote.  I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain.  Seriously, you don't know the difference?
> 
> If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".
> 
> The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally.  As in - the right to vote.  The right to use public drinking fountains.  The right to marry. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.
> 
> *A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.*
Click to expand...


Why does it need to be a "distinct gender"?  That automatically is discrimminatory.  Heteros can marry the person they love.  Homos can not.


----------



## Coyote

Carib Gyal said:


> You are limiting consent to two people. Hundreds, thousands of consenting humans should all be allowed to marry each other.



 why not?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> Actually...it's sad when you can't find it in yourself to allow two people who love each other to marry when it does no harm to you or anyone else.



Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.  

Now isn't it sad that a group is so devoid of reason that they can't look at that equally enforced and essential standard, and not demand that they be included, despite their failure to rise up and meet that standard.

Do you know why I am not a starting linebacker for the Miami Dolphins?  

It's because I do not rise to the standard required by that position.  Now is that fair?

Yes... its entirely fair.

And why is it fair?  

It's fair because if Miami put me in as a starting linebacker, I'd be seriously injured within the first 2 minutes... and prior to that, Miami's offense would be in a seriously deficient state, injuring their means to effectively march down the grid iron, taking ground from their opposition. 

Because my skills do not meet the minimal threshold required.

That my self esteem would be 'improved', that I may feel more legitimate... at least during the pre-game week, taking the Interviews and reading my name in print: "Old Fat Guy Suits Up for Miami" is irrelevant.

Because of my deficiencies, I will never BE a legitimate linebacker for Miami.  It's never going to happen.

BUT!  Let's assume for the sake of argument that it does...  There I am in my shiny new uniform, all slumped over from the weight of those professional pads and helmet... the lights shining down glistening off my brand new Nike cleats.  Then the first snap... I get smashed into a sack of shattered bones and blood... and because I was accepted, they bring in my fat-assed replacement... who, on the second snap is subsequently rinsed off the field, then the third and so on, until somewhere toward just after the start of the first qrtr, it becomes obvious to everyone that Miami is no longer a legitimate team... and because of Miami's mistake to accept me, other teams are being forced to accept illegitimate 'players' and because of that... the NFL is thoroughly delegitimized and the sport of professional football is in RUINS!  And No one of any discernible self respect wants anything to DO with it anymore... .

Unless and until the 'fairness doctrine' is shutout of the culture and the standards essential to the legitimacy of the sport, are re-established.

Now... my position is that there's no reason to ruin my means to move my arms and legs and the National Football League, just to prove that I am not a suitable candidate for the NFL.  And the same goes for those who are not suitable for marriage.

See how that works?


----------



## Carib Gyal

Coyote said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are limiting consent to two people. Hundreds, thousands of consenting humans should all be allowed to marry each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why not?
Click to expand...

Exactly. We are redefining the meaning of the word. Let's redefine it.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> Why does it need to be a "distinct gender"?



Because that's how nature designed the species...  



> That automatically is discrimminatory.[sic]



Yes, it is discriminatory.  That's what standards do, they discriminate.  It's why we create them: TO DISCRIMINATE.



> Heteros can marry the person they love.  Homos can not.



Yep... It pays to be a winner!


----------



## JakeStarkey

The ideological social con reactionary far right does not have the correct, much less the final say on the "appropriateness" or the "truthfulness" or the "correctness" on the validity of marriage equality.

Our Constitution is not based on wiggy far right Christian maxim, it is not based on a la la looniness as expressed by Where R My Keys.

To suggest that our government might define "marriage [as] the joining of a Monkey and a football" was by far the stupidest appeal to the absurd today.  God will recognize Steve and Paul as much as Mr. and Mrs. Keys.  To suggest otherwise makes both God and Reason stare.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JakeStarkey said:


> The ideological social con reactionary far right does not have the correct, much less the final say on the "appropriateness" or the "truthfulness" or the "correctness" on the validity of marriage equality.
> 
> Our Constitution is not based on wiggy far right Christian maxim, it is not based on a la la looniness as expressed by Where R My Keys.
> 
> To suggest that our government might define "marriage [as] the joining of a Monkey and a football" was by far the stupidest appeal to the absurd today.  God will recognize Steve and Paul as much as Mr. and Mrs. Keys.  To suggest otherwise makes both God and Reason stare.



To argue otherwise is an expression of a deviant soul.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

JakeStarkey said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ideological social con reactionary far right does not have the correct, much less the final say on the "appropriateness" or the "truthfulness" or the "correctness" on the validity of marriage equality.
> 
> Our Constitution is not based on wiggy far right Christian maxim, it is not based on a la la looniness as expressed by Where R My Keys.
> 
> To suggest that our government might define "marriage [as] the joining of a Monkey and a football" was by far the stupidest appeal to the absurd today.  God will recognize Steve and Paul as much as Mr. and Mrs. Keys.  To suggest otherwise makes both God and Reason stare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To argue otherwise is an expression of a deviant soul.
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO!

A CLASSIC example of how foolish is was to shut down the asylums...  Ya let them out and the next thing ya know, they're standing in the town square screamin' their heads off about deviant souls.


----------



## JakeStarkey

_Where are my keys_ does have to rise to the standard of fairness.

Another false appeal to the absurd with the Miami example: doesn't work.

Where's self-esteem means nothing to this OP.

See how that works?


----------



## JakeStarkey

_Where are my keys_ does have to rise to the standard of fairness.

Another false appeal to the absurd with the Miami example: doesn't work.

Where's self-esteem means nothing to this OP.

See how that works?


----------



## Coyote

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually...it's sad when you can't find it in yourself to allow two people who love each other to marry when it does no harm to you or anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...


An arbritrary definition.  Procreation is between one man and one woman.



> Now isn't it sad that a group is so devoid of reason that they can't look at that equally enforced and essential standard, and not demand that they be included, despite their failure to rise up and meet that standard.



They aren't inlcuded...equally.
Heteros can choose to marry the one they love.
Homos can not.



> Do you know why I am not a starting linebacker for the Miami Dolphins?
> 
> It's because I do not rise to the standard required by that position.  Now is that fair?



so...here we have a person who equates marital bliss with full contact pro-football.  Just not sure what to say here....



> Yes... its entirely fair.
> 
> And why is it fair?
> 
> It's fair because if Miami put me in as a starting linebacker, I'd be seriously injured within the first 2 minutes... and prior to that, Miami's offense would be in a seriously deficient state, injuring their means to effectively march down the grid iron, taking ground from their opposition.



This is where I feel the need to remind you that had you sufficient Cabury intake you would be a prime linebacker.  I'm sure!  I'd vote for you.  Yessiree!



> Because my skills do not meet the minimal threshold required.



What skills are required for marriage beyond the ability to say "I do"?



> That my self esteem would be 'improved', that I may feel more legitimate... at least during the pre-game week, taking the Interviews and reading my name in print: "Old Fat Guy Suits Up for Miami" is irrelevant.
> 
> Because of my deficiencies, I will never BE a legitimate linebacker for Miami.  It's never going to happen.



But...no one is telling you that you can not try out for it.



> BUT!  Let's assume for the sake of argument that it does...  There I am in my shiny new uniform, all slumped over from the weight of those professional pads and helmet... the lights shining down glistening off my brand new Nike cleats.  Then the first snap... I get smashed into a sack of shattered bones and blood... and because I was accepted, they bring in my fat-assed replacement... who, on the second snap is subsequently rinsed off the field, then the third and so on, until somewhere toward just after the start of the first qrtr, it becomes obvious to everyone that Miami is no longer a legitimate team... and because of Miami's mistake to accept me, other teams are being forced to accept illegitimate 'players' and because of that... the NFL is thoroughly delegitimized and the sport of professional football is in RUINS!  And No one of any discernible self respect wants anything to DO with it anymore... .



oh sweetie...you are stretching it way thin here....marriage requires only consent and substandard performance on your marriage would have no effect on mine (and vice versa).



> Unless and until the 'fairness doctrine' is shutout of the culture and the standards essential to the legitimacy of the sport, are re-established.



I understand that to some...marriage is a sport...but...



> Now... my position is that there's no reason to ruin my means to move my arms and legs and the National Football League, just to prove that I am not a suitable candidate for the NFL.  And the same goes for those who are not suitable for marriage.
> 
> See how that works?



Are you sure you are suitable to the trauma and potential risks of marriage?


----------



## Coyote

Carib Gyal said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are limiting consent to two people. Hundreds, thousands of consenting humans should all be allowed to marry each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. We are redefining the meaning of the word. Let's redefine it.
Click to expand...


Marriage has only recently (in terms of human history) been *redefined *as  one woman/one man.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ideological social con reactionary far right does not have the correct, much less the final say on the "appropriateness" or the "truthfulness" or the "correctness" on the validity of marriage equality.
> 
> Our Constitution is not based on wiggy far right Christian maxim, it is not based on a la la looniness as expressed by Where R My Keys.
> 
> To suggest that our government might define "marriage [as] the joining of a Monkey and a football" was by far the stupidest appeal to the absurd today.  God will recognize Steve and Paul as much as Mr. and Mrs. Keys.  To suggest otherwise makes both God and Reason stare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To argue otherwise is an expression of a deviant soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> A CLASSIC example of how foolish is was to shut down the asylums...  Ya let them out and the next thing ya know, they're standing in the town square screamin' their heads off about deviant souls.
Click to expand...


Anyone who disagrees with you is insane?  You prove you are deviant. 

Son, you are not the standard bearer of light, only that of a dark light of self-glorification.


----------



## Carib Gyal

Coyote said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are limiting consent to two people. Hundreds, thousands of consenting humans should all be allowed to marry each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. We are redefining the meaning of the word. Let's redefine it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage has only recently (in terms of human history) been *redefined *as  one woman/one man.
Click to expand...

And now we are redefining it again, to mean (as always), whatever we want it to mean. Do you really want to discriminate against the rights of thousands of consenting adults to marry each other? How very....close-minded of you.

What if one little Mexican wants out of the marriage to the old gay guy, but wants to remain married to the other homosexual members of the group marriage?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Another argument to the absurd.


----------



## Carib Gyal

JakeStarkey said:


> Another argument to the absurd.


That's what keys has been telling you


----------



## JakeStarkey

That's what I have been telling keys and you.

But that's OK.


----------



## Carib Gyal

How about this:

One guy could marry every illegal alien that are soon to be allowed to stay legally in the US by Obama's EO. Instant green cards for 5 million people. And why stop there? He could marry the entire population of the Earth and get green cards for everyone since they would all be legally married. This is fraught with possibilities. I like it.


----------



## Coyote

Carib Gyal said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are limiting consent to two people. Hundreds, thousands of consenting humans should all be allowed to marry each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. We are redefining the meaning of the word. Let's redefine it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage has only recently (in terms of human history) been *redefined *as  one woman/one man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And now we are redefining it again, to mean (as always), whatever we want it to mean. *Do you really want to discriminate against the rights of thousands of consenting adults to marry each other*? How very....close-minded of you.
Click to expand...


????

If people want plural marriages as long as they are consenting adults I could care less. I've said that several times. I have yet to come across a good argument against polygamy in the US (in other countries it frequently leads to abuse of women).



> What if one little Mexican wants out of the marriage to the old gay guy, but wants to remain married to the other homosexual members of the group marriage?



Good question.  No idea how those things would be worked out.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually...it's sad when you can't find it in yourself to allow two people who love each other to marry when it does no harm to you or anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An arbritrary definition.[sic]
Click to expand...


Arbitrary?

It follows the natural design of the species.  Its as far from arbitrary as one can get>


----------



## Coyote

Carib Gyal said:


> How about this:
> 
> One guy could marry every illegal alien that are soon to be allowed to stay legally in the US by Obama's EO. Instant green cards for 5 million people. And why stop there? He could marry the entire population of the Earth and get green cards for everyone since they would all be legally married. This is fraught with possibilities. I like it.



Ok.  So now you are mixing immigration into this.  Let's keep this simple and make it about marriage.  And lets keep it realistic.


----------



## Coyote

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually...it's sad when you can't find it in yourself to allow two people who love each other to marry when it does no harm to you or anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An arbritrary definition.[sic]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arbitrary?
> 
> It follows the natural design of the species.  Its as far from arbitrary as one can get>
Click to expand...


Procreation is the natural order.  Marriage is an artificial socio-political-religious construct.  Arbritrary given how it varies and it's changed.


----------



## Carib Gyal

Coyote said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about this:
> 
> One guy could marry every illegal alien that are soon to be allowed to stay legally in the US by Obama's EO. Instant green cards for 5 million people. And why stop there? He could marry the entire population of the Earth and get green cards for everyone since they would all be legally married. This is fraught with possibilities. I like it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  So now you are mixing immigration into this.  Let's keep this simple and make it about marriage.  And lets keep it realistic.
Click to expand...

Sometimes it takes extremes to make the simple point. Why would you advocate for limitations on plural marriage? Why would you deny consenting adults the rights of marriage? Suddenly your previous open-minded stance becomes bigoted and contrived.


----------



## Coyote

Carib Gyal said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about this:
> 
> One guy could marry every illegal alien that are soon to be allowed to stay legally in the US by Obama's EO. Instant green cards for 5 million people. And why stop there? He could marry the entire population of the Earth and get green cards for everyone since they would all be legally married. This is fraught with possibilities. I like it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  So now you are mixing immigration into this.  Let's keep this simple and make it about marriage.  And lets keep it realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes it takes extremes to make the simple point. Why would you advocate for limitations on plural marriage? Why would you deny consenting adults the rights of marriage? *Suddenly your previous open-minded stance becomes bigoted and contrived*.
Click to expand...


Does it?  I already said I don't have an issue with consenting adults in plural marriage.  But I think that argument can be made without going to ridiculous extremes that are unlikely to ever happen.  If it does then it would have to be figured out.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation.  It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? In every species, natures way is reproduction. If a body does not reproduce, it kills off its lineage. That is why, in nature, homosexuality has to be considered abnormal.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nature is a complex and wondrous thing. Did you know that some species are a-sexual? Did you know some could change their gender? How about when animals intentionally sterilize themselves due to over population?
> 
> Since Homosexuality exists in over a thousand animals species and has existed in the human animal since the beginning of recorded history, it's pretty safe to assume that we're supposed to be here. Rest easy, scientists have some theories.
> 
> *The evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality
> 
> The genes that code for homosexuality do other things too*
> The allele - or group of genes - that sometimes codes for homosexual orientation may at other times have a strong reproductive benefit. This would compensate for gay people's lack of reproduction and ensure the continuation of the trait, as non-gay carriers of the gene pass it down.
> 
> *Gay people were 'helpers in the nest'*
> Paul Vasey's research in Samoa has focused on a theory called kin selection or the "helper in the nest" hypothesis. The idea is that gay people compensate for their lack of children by promoting the reproductive fitness of brothers or sisters, contributing money or performing other uncle-like activities such as babysitting or tutoring. Some of the gay person's genetic code is shared with nieces and nephews and so, the theory goes, the genes which code for sexual orientation still get passed down.[...]
> 
> *Gay people do have children*
> In the US, around 37% of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people have a child, about 60% of which are biological. According to the Williams Institute, gay couples that have children have an average of two.
> 
> These figures may not be high enough to sustain genetic traits specific to this group, but the evolutionary biologist Jeremy Yoder points out in a blog post that for much of modern history gay people haven't been living openly gay lives. Compelled by society to enter marriages and have children, their reproduction rates may have been higher than they are now.
> 
> *It's not all in the DNA*
> Qazi Rahman says that alleles coding for same sex attraction only explain some of the variety in human sexuality. Other, naturally varying biological factors come into play, with about one in seven gay men, he says, owing their sexuality to the "big brother effect".
> 
> This has nothing to do with George Orwell, but describes the observation that boys with older brothers are significantly more likely to become gay - with every older brother the chance of homosexuality increases by about a third. No-one knows why this is, but one theory is that with each male pregnancy, a woman's body forms an immune reaction to proteins that have a role in the development of the male brain. Since this only comes into play after several siblings have been born - most of whom are heterosexual and go on to have children - this pre-natal quirk hasn't been selected away by evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, after all of this, my statement still stands:
> 
> *In every species, natures way is reproduction. If a body does not reproduce, it kills off its lineage. That is why, in nature, homosexuality has to be considered abnormal.*
> 
> Humans are born with many types of problems. While these conditions are natural, they most assuredly are abnormal.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of things are 'abnormal'- oral sex is abnormal by your definition- yet the majority of Americans experience it at some time in their life- some of us more than others.
> 
> Abnormal doesn't mean bad.
> 
> Except in the case of homophobes- homosexuals=abnormal-= bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It all boils down to what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - so why does the Gay machine insist on getting into everybody else faces ?
Click to expand...


The very question this whole thread is about.  And in over 75 pages, none of the hemorrhoids have been able to answer it.


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? In every species, natures way is reproduction. If a body does not reproduce, it kills off its lineage. That is why, in nature, homosexuality has to be considered abnormal.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nature is a complex and wondrous thing. Did you know that some species are a-sexual? Did you know some could change their gender? How about when animals intentionally sterilize themselves due to over population?
> 
> Since Homosexuality exists in over a thousand animals species and has existed in the human animal since the beginning of recorded history, it's pretty safe to assume that we're supposed to be here. Rest easy, scientists have some theories.
> 
> *The evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality
> 
> The genes that code for homosexuality do other things too*
> The allele - or group of genes - that sometimes codes for homosexual orientation may at other times have a strong reproductive benefit. This would compensate for gay people's lack of reproduction and ensure the continuation of the trait, as non-gay carriers of the gene pass it down.
> 
> *Gay people were 'helpers in the nest'*
> Paul Vasey's research in Samoa has focused on a theory called kin selection or the "helper in the nest" hypothesis. The idea is that gay people compensate for their lack of children by promoting the reproductive fitness of brothers or sisters, contributing money or performing other uncle-like activities such as babysitting or tutoring. Some of the gay person's genetic code is shared with nieces and nephews and so, the theory goes, the genes which code for sexual orientation still get passed down.[...]
> 
> *Gay people do have children*
> In the US, around 37% of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people have a child, about 60% of which are biological. According to the Williams Institute, gay couples that have children have an average of two.
> 
> These figures may not be high enough to sustain genetic traits specific to this group, but the evolutionary biologist Jeremy Yoder points out in a blog post that for much of modern history gay people haven't been living openly gay lives. Compelled by society to enter marriages and have children, their reproduction rates may have been higher than they are now.
> 
> *It's not all in the DNA*
> Qazi Rahman says that alleles coding for same sex attraction only explain some of the variety in human sexuality. Other, naturally varying biological factors come into play, with about one in seven gay men, he says, owing their sexuality to the "big brother effect".
> 
> This has nothing to do with George Orwell, but describes the observation that boys with older brothers are significantly more likely to become gay - with every older brother the chance of homosexuality increases by about a third. No-one knows why this is, but one theory is that with each male pregnancy, a woman's body forms an immune reaction to proteins that have a role in the development of the male brain. Since this only comes into play after several siblings have been born - most of whom are heterosexual and go on to have children - this pre-natal quirk hasn't been selected away by evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, after all of this, my statement still stands:
> 
> *In every species, natures way is reproduction. If a body does not reproduce, it kills off its lineage. That is why, in nature, homosexuality has to be considered abnormal.*
> 
> Humans are born with many types of problems. While these conditions are natural, they most assuredly are abnormal.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of things are 'abnormal'- oral sex is abnormal by your definition- yet the majority of Americans experience it at some time in their life- some of us more than others.
> 
> Abnormal doesn't mean bad.
> 
> Except in the case of homophobes- homosexuals=abnormal-= bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It all boils down to what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - so why does the Gay machine insist on getting into everybody else faces ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The very question this whole thread is about.  And in over 75 pages, none of the hemorrhoids have been able to answer it.
Click to expand...


Do you consider marriage "getting in everybody's faces"?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could choose to be a criminal.  Does that make me one?
> 
> I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So with a mere choice you could find a man's hairy ass as sexually attractive as a woman's shapely backside?
> 
> Then Sy's right. You're probably bi already. For most of us, its not a choice. Its just an attribute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:
> 
> Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News
> 
> Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.
> 
> Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
Click to expand...


So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature is a complex and wondrous thing. Did you know that some species are a-sexual? Did you know some could change their gender? How about when animals intentionally sterilize themselves due to over population?
> 
> Since Homosexuality exists in over a thousand animals species and has existed in the human animal since the beginning of recorded history, it's pretty safe to assume that we're supposed to be here. Rest easy, scientists have some theories.
> 
> *The evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality
> 
> The genes that code for homosexuality do other things too*
> The allele - or group of genes - that sometimes codes for homosexual orientation may at other times have a strong reproductive benefit. This would compensate for gay people's lack of reproduction and ensure the continuation of the trait, as non-gay carriers of the gene pass it down.
> 
> *Gay people were 'helpers in the nest'*
> Paul Vasey's research in Samoa has focused on a theory called kin selection or the "helper in the nest" hypothesis. The idea is that gay people compensate for their lack of children by promoting the reproductive fitness of brothers or sisters, contributing money or performing other uncle-like activities such as babysitting or tutoring. Some of the gay person's genetic code is shared with nieces and nephews and so, the theory goes, the genes which code for sexual orientation still get passed down.[...]
> 
> *Gay people do have children*
> In the US, around 37% of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people have a child, about 60% of which are biological. According to the Williams Institute, gay couples that have children have an average of two.
> 
> These figures may not be high enough to sustain genetic traits specific to this group, but the evolutionary biologist Jeremy Yoder points out in a blog post that for much of modern history gay people haven't been living openly gay lives. Compelled by society to enter marriages and have children, their reproduction rates may have been higher than they are now.
> 
> *It's not all in the DNA*
> Qazi Rahman says that alleles coding for same sex attraction only explain some of the variety in human sexuality. Other, naturally varying biological factors come into play, with about one in seven gay men, he says, owing their sexuality to the "big brother effect".
> 
> This has nothing to do with George Orwell, but describes the observation that boys with older brothers are significantly more likely to become gay - with every older brother the chance of homosexuality increases by about a third. No-one knows why this is, but one theory is that with each male pregnancy, a woman's body forms an immune reaction to proteins that have a role in the development of the male brain. Since this only comes into play after several siblings have been born - most of whom are heterosexual and go on to have children - this pre-natal quirk hasn't been selected away by evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, after all of this, my statement still stands:
> 
> *In every species, natures way is reproduction. If a body does not reproduce, it kills off its lineage. That is why, in nature, homosexuality has to be considered abnormal.*
> 
> Humans are born with many types of problems. While these conditions are natural, they most assuredly are abnormal.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of things are 'abnormal'- oral sex is abnormal by your definition- yet the majority of Americans experience it at some time in their life- some of us more than others.
> 
> Abnormal doesn't mean bad.
> 
> Except in the case of homophobes- homosexuals=abnormal-= bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It all boils down to what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - so why does the Gay machine insist on getting into everybody else faces ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The very question this whole thread is about.  And in over 75 pages, none of the hemorrhoids have been able to answer it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider marriage "getting in everybody's faces"?
Click to expand...


I consider the subverting of the democratic process just so you can get your way is getting in everyone's face.  You people are the most self centered of all, making sure that everyone is forced to accept your lifestyle even if at the point of a gun.  Yes, you are getting in everyone's face and that's not going to go unanswered for long.


----------



## hipeter924

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So with a mere choice you could find a man's hairy ass as sexually attractive as a woman's shapely backside?
> 
> Then Sy's right. You're probably bi already. For most of us, its not a choice. Its just an attribute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:
> 
> Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News
> 
> Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.
> 
> Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
Click to expand...

 Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

hipeter924 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:
> 
> Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News
> 
> Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.
> 
> Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
Click to expand...


But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So with a mere choice you could find a man's hairy ass as sexually attractive as a woman's shapely backside?
> 
> Then Sy's right. You're probably bi already. For most of us, its not a choice. Its just an attribute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:
> 
> Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News
> 
> Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.
> 
> Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
Click to expand...

This fails as a straw man fallacy.

This issue concerns only two consenting adults eligible to enter into a marriage contract who are disallowed from doing so in violation of the Constitution.

To attempt to reference children is irrelevant demagoguery.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

hipeter924 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:
> 
> Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News
> 
> Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.
> 
> Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
Click to expand...

Age of what?  Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand.  Fuck five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a fuck, I have a life to lead.


----------



## Carib Gyal

Coyote said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about this:
> 
> One guy could marry every illegal alien that are soon to be allowed to stay legally in the US by Obama's EO. Instant green cards for 5 million people. And why stop there? He could marry the entire population of the Earth and get green cards for everyone since they would all be legally married. This is fraught with possibilities. I like it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  So now you are mixing immigration into this.  Let's keep this simple and make it about marriage.  And lets keep it realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes it takes extremes to make the simple point. Why would you advocate for limitations on plural marriage? Why would you deny consenting adults the rights of marriage? *Suddenly your previous open-minded stance becomes bigoted and contrived*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it?  I already said I don't have an issue with consenting adults in plural marriage.  But I think that argument can be made without going to ridiculous extremes that are unlikely to ever happen.  If it does then it would have to be figured out.
Click to expand...

Some people think gay marriage is a ridiculous extreme. Your very arguments advocating same can be applied to plural marriage. Equal protection, consenting adults, redefinitions, etc.

But even you think there would be ridiculous extremes, and limitations would have to be figured out. Just not the limitations you don't want.


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, after all of this, my statement still stands:
> 
> *In every species, natures way is reproduction. If a body does not reproduce, it kills off its lineage. That is why, in nature, homosexuality has to be considered abnormal.*
> 
> Humans are born with many types of problems. While these conditions are natural, they most assuredly are abnormal.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of things are 'abnormal'- oral sex is abnormal by your definition- yet the majority of Americans experience it at some time in their life- some of us more than others.
> 
> Abnormal doesn't mean bad.
> 
> Except in the case of homophobes- homosexuals=abnormal-= bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It all boils down to what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - so why does the Gay machine insist on getting into everybody else faces ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The very question this whole thread is about.  And in over 75 pages, none of the hemorrhoids have been able to answer it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider marriage "getting in everybody's faces"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I consider the subverting of the democratic process just so you can get your way is getting in everyone's face.  You people are the most self centered of all, making sure that everyone is forced to accept your lifestyle even if at the point of a gun.  Yes, you are getting in everyone's face and that's not going to go unanswered for long.
Click to expand...


So blacks subverted the democratic process when they wanted to end Jim Crowe.
Women subverted the democratic process when they wanted the vote.

Oh how self centered they were forcing you all to accept their rights even at the point of a gun.

Wait a minute.  At the point of a gun?  Aren't you being a little bit ridiculous here?

And how is it going to go unanswered?  You going to lynch some people?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:
> 
> Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News
> 
> Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.
> 
> Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This fails as a straw man fallacy.
> 
> This issue concerns only two consenting adults eligible to enter into a marriage contract who are disallowed from doing so in violation of the Constitution.
> 
> To attempt to reference children is irrelevant demagoguery.
Click to expand...


But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?  Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up.  I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left. 







Oh yeah!


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?
Click to expand...


Age of consent is a social/cultural overlay.  However - love is wrong when it damages a person.  Pedophilia has been shown to be very damaging to children.  Children do not have the mental maturity to consent.  Adults do.  *No rights are unlimited.*


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of things are 'abnormal'- oral sex is abnormal by your definition- yet the majority of Americans experience it at some time in their life- some of us more than others.
> 
> Abnormal doesn't mean bad.
> 
> Except in the case of homophobes- homosexuals=abnormal-= bad.
> 
> 
> 
> It all boils down to what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - so why does the Gay machine insist on getting into everybody else faces ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The very question this whole thread is about.  And in over 75 pages, none of the hemorrhoids have been able to answer it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider marriage "getting in everybody's faces"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I consider the subverting of the democratic process just so you can get your way is getting in everyone's face.  You people are the most self centered of all, making sure that everyone is forced to accept your lifestyle even if at the point of a gun.  Yes, you are getting in everyone's face and that's not going to go unanswered for long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So blacks subverted the democratic process when they wanted to end Jim Crowe.
> Women subverted the democratic process when they wanted the vote.
> 
> Oh how self centered they were forcing you all to accept their rights even at the point of a gun.
> 
> Wait a minute.  At the point of a gun?  Aren't you being a little bit ridiculous here?
> 
> And how is it going to go unanswered?  You going to lynch some people?
Click to expand...


Lifestyle ≠ race.


----------



## hipeter924

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? *Who are you to say they're love is wrong?*
Click to expand...

 Because it is sexually harassing minors


PaintMyHouse said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Age of what?  *Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand*.  Fuck five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a fuck, I have a life to lead.
Click to expand...

 No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand'. Children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This fails as a straw man fallacy.
> 
> This issue concerns only two consenting adults eligible to enter into a marriage contract who are disallowed from doing so in violation of the Constitution.
> 
> To attempt to reference children is irrelevant demagoguery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?*  Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up.  I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah!
Click to expand...


No there isn't.  This is the typical slippery slope fallacy that you guys employ.

A person does not have the right to harm another person and that is what "shagging" a child does.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> Age of consent is a social/cultural overlay.



I'm glad you said it again.  I thought you might try to deny ever saying that.


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> It all boils down to what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - so why does the Gay machine insist on getting into everybody else faces ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The very question this whole thread is about.  And in over 75 pages, none of the hemorrhoids have been able to answer it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider marriage "getting in everybody's faces"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I consider the subverting of the democratic process just so you can get your way is getting in everyone's face.  You people are the most self centered of all, making sure that everyone is forced to accept your lifestyle even if at the point of a gun.  Yes, you are getting in everyone's face and that's not going to go unanswered for long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So blacks subverted the democratic process when they wanted to end Jim Crowe.
> Women subverted the democratic process when they wanted the vote.
> 
> Oh how self centered they were forcing you all to accept their rights even at the point of a gun.
> 
> Wait a minute.  At the point of a gun?  Aren't you being a little bit ridiculous here?
> 
> And how is it going to go unanswered?  You going to lynch some people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lifestyle ≠ race.
Click to expand...


True.

However sexual orientaiton = race.


----------



## Carib Gyal

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Age of consent is a social/cultural overlay.  However - love is wrong when it damages a person.  Pedophilia has been shown to be very damaging to children.  Children do not have the mental maturity to consent.  Adults do.  *No rights are unlimited.*
Click to expand...

Including the rights of one person to marry the entire adult population of the planet.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, after all of this, my statement still stands:
> 
> *In every species, natures way is reproduction. If a body does not reproduce, it kills off its lineage. That is why, in nature, homosexuality has to be considered abnormal.*
> 
> Humans are born with many types of problems. While these conditions are natural, they most assuredly are abnormal.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of things are 'abnormal'- oral sex is abnormal by your definition- yet the majority of Americans experience it at some time in their life- some of us more than others.
> 
> Abnormal doesn't mean bad.
> 
> Except in the case of homophobes- homosexuals=abnormal-= bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It all boils down to what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - so why does the Gay machine insist on getting into everybody else faces ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The very question this whole thread is about.  And in over 75 pages, none of the hemorrhoids have been able to answer it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider marriage "getting in everybody's faces"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I consider the subverting of the democratic process just so you can get your way is getting in everyone's face.  You people are the most self centered of all, making sure that everyone is forced to accept your lifestyle even if at the point of a gun.  Yes, you are getting in everyone's face and that's not going to go unanswered for long.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

Voters do not have the authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights.

Citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not the subjective, capricious whims of the majority; consequently democracy is not being 'subverted,' the states acted in a manner clearly repugnant to the Constitution, and the states alone are to blame for their un-Constitutional measures being appropriately invalidated by the courts.

And the notion that anything is being 'forced' on anyone is unfounded and ridiculous.


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Age of consent is a social/cultural overlay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad you said it again.  I thought you might try to deny ever saying that.
Click to expand...


You do realize it's against the rules to edit a person's quote so as to change the meaning?  You left out the rest of my quote - which is the meat of it.
*
"However - love is wrong when it damages a person. Pedophilia has been shown to be very damaging to children. Children do not have the mental maturity to consent. Adults do. No rights are unlimited."*


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

hipeter924 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? *Who are you to say they're love is wrong?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Age of what?  *Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand*.  Fuck five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a fuck, I have a life to lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
Click to expand...


You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?  Are you going to deny them their love for a 40 year old obese man?  Maybe you need to rethink your backward, religiously motivated judgment of people's lifestyles and start showing a little tolerance. Hateful pedophobes like you are the reason that child lovers have been denied equal rights in this country.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> Age of consent is a social/cultural overlay.





Senior Moderator, I'm under no obligation to use your entire quote, nor did I edit what you said in any way.  See?  I just did it again. It doesn't violate the rules.


----------



## Coyote

Carib Gyal said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Age of consent is a social/cultural overlay.  However - love is wrong when it damages a person.  Pedophilia has been shown to be very damaging to children.  Children do not have the mental maturity to consent.  Adults do.  *No rights are unlimited.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Including the rights of one person to marry the entire adult population of the planet.
Click to expand...




saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? *Who are you to say they're love is wrong?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Age of what?  *Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand*.  Fuck five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a fuck, I have a life to lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?  Are you going to deny them their love for a 40 year old obese man?  Maybe you need to rethink your backward, religiously motivated judgment of people's lifestyles and start showing a little tolerance. Hateful pedophobes like you are the reason that child lovers have been denied equal rights in this country.
Click to expand...


Children can not legally consent.


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Age of consent is a social/cultural overlay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Senior Moderator, I'm under no obligation to use your entire quote, nor did I edit what you said in any way.  See?  I just did it again. It doesn't violate the rules.
Click to expand...


It does it it alters the meaning of what I said or implies something else.


----------



## hipeter924

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? *Who are you to say they're love is wrong?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Age of what?  *Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand*.  Fuck five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a fuck, I have a life to lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?*[...]
Click to expand...

 When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Age of consent is a social/cultural overlay.  However - love is wrong when it damages a person.  Pedophilia has been shown to be very damaging to children.  Children do not have the mental maturity to consent.  Adults do.  *No rights are unlimited.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Including the rights of one person to marry the entire adult population of the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? *Who are you to say they're love is wrong?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Age of what?  *Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand*.  Fuck five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a fuck, I have a life to lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?  Are you going to deny them their love for a 40 year old obese man?  Maybe you need to rethink your backward, religiously motivated judgment of people's lifestyles and start showing a little tolerance. Hateful pedophobes like you are the reason that child lovers have been denied equal rights in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children can not legally consent.
Click to expand...


But what about those laws that prohibited homosexual conduct?  Why are those to be ignored and laws restricting sex with minors to be observed?  Why do we get to pick and choose which laws restricting deviancy are valid?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

hipeter924 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? *Who are you to say they're love is wrong?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Age of what?  *Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand*.  Fuck five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a fuck, I have a life to lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?*[...]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.
Click to expand...


But what if a child did consent to it?  Who are you to tell that child their love is wrong?


----------



## Carib Gyal

Coyote said:


> Children can not legally consent.


That's where the "adult" part comes in to my quote:

"Including the rights of one person to marry the entire *adult* population of the planet."


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Carib Gyal said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Children can not legally consent.
> 
> 
> 
> That's where the "adult" part comes in to my quote:
> 
> "Including the rights of one person to marry the entire *adult* population of the planet."
Click to expand...

Good luck with that.  Most men can only deal with one bitch like you at a time.


----------



## Coyote

Same Sex Marriage and Logical Fallacies:  Same-Sex Marriage and Logical Fallacies Skeptoid



> First, I want to examine the fallacies used by those who oppose same-sex marriage. In order to avoid creating straw men, each of these arguments stems from a direct quote.
> 
> _“[H]er point was that if same-sex fits the bill of the contract, then everything fits the bill. And at some point who’s to say that you cannot have sex with a child…some point.” – Rush Limbaugh_​
> This uses the slippery slope fallacy to wrongly insinuate that if we do X, then naturally, Y and Z will follow. That is to say that if people of the same gender are allowed to marry, then we’ll have to allow anyone to marry anyone or anything, including children, multiple partners, siblings, inanimate objects, animals or the dead.
> 
> However, there is no reason to think any of this will actually happen, for numerous reasons, some legal and some personal. For one thing, close to a dozen countries already permit same-sex marriage, and none have seen spikes in any of these behaviors. They are cultural taboos, and will remain so, no matter what.
> 
> *The arguments against marriage to children, goats, corpses, pieces of fruit, etc., are simple: none of them can legally give their consent. Without consent between both parties, a marriage doesn’t exist and has no legal standing.*
> 
> The prohibition against incest is also sensible. The state and society have a vested interest in not permitting inbreeding because of the potential for malformed children. Whether relatives who either can’t or don’t intend to have children should be allowed to marry is a potentially interesting question from a civil liberties standpoint, but even if incest was legal, (which absolutely nobody is talking about) it’s doubtful that there would be a sudden onslaught of siblings and cousins desperate to marry.
> 
> As for legalized group marriage, one could again argue that the state has no business barring activities between consenting adults, even if there are more than two, but polygamy has not been protected by the US Constitution since 1878, and until someone challenges that ruling, it’s essentially a dead issue – and a _non sequitur_, as nobody is demanding the right to a group marriage.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This fails as a straw man fallacy.
> 
> This issue concerns only two consenting adults eligible to enter into a marriage contract who are disallowed from doing so in violation of the Constitution.
> 
> To attempt to reference children is irrelevant demagoguery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?*  Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up.  I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No there isn't.  This is the typical slippery slope fallacy that you guys employ.
> 
> A person does not have the right to harm another person and that is what "shagging" a child does.
Click to expand...


But what if that child consents to it?  Who are you to deny that child and that 40 year old obese man their 14th Amendment rights?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

hipeter924 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? *Who are you to say they're love is wrong?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Age of what?  *Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand*.  Fuck five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a fuck, I have a life to lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand'. Children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
Click to expand...

Got news for you dummy, an adult female is nearly 27, and an adult male almost 29.  That's reality, 18 is a line in the sand.


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? *Who are you to say they're love is wrong?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Age of what?  *Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand*.  Fuck five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a fuck, I have a life to lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?*[...]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But what if a child did consent to it?  Who are you to tell that child their love is wrong?
Click to expand...


I child can not legally consent and for good reason.  They are not mature.  We - adults, parents - ARE their guardians for a reason.  So yes, it is our responsibility to protect them.  This is totally different than a relationship with two consenting adults and is nothing more than a diversion.


----------



## Carib Gyal

PaintMyHouse said:


> Good luck with that.  Most men can only deal with one bitch like you at a time.


Most men can only deal with one bitch like you at a time, as well. I guess you'll be jerking off and fingering yourself no matter what laws they make.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? *Who are you to say they're love is wrong?*
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Age of what?  *Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand*.  Fuck five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a fuck, I have a life to lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?*[...]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But what if a child did consent to it?  Who are you to tell that child their love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I child can not legally consent and for good reason.  They are not mature.  We - adults, parents - ARE their guardians for a reason.  So yes, it is our responsibility to protect them.  This is totally different than a relationship with two consenting adults and is nothing more than a diversion.
Click to expand...


You just said that the age of consent is a social overlay, so who's to say our culture is right and the culture in Saudi Arabia is wrong? What if children are ready for sex by the age of 12?  Who are you to stand in the way of their love and their civil rights?


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't.  Go to your bank and demand they treat you like a million dollar account holder.  Go to government and demand to be treated like a politician.
> 
> You have the right to be left alone if you're not harming anyone.  No one has the right to demand anything from others, including government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So women had no right to demand the vote?
> Blacks had no right to demand an end to Jim Crowe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights?  I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote.  I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain.  Seriously, you don't know the difference?
> 
> If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".
> 
> The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally.  As in - the right to vote.  The right to use public drinking fountains.  The right to marry.
> 
> Those are retarded examples.  SURELY you can see the that?
Click to expand...


So show me where straights can enter into single sex marriage and we're talking.  In the mean time, you have nothing.  The law is applied equally to everyone.  That you don't want what straights want is irrelevant to the law.


----------



## hipeter924

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? *Who are you to say they're love is wrong?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Age of what?  *Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand*.  Fuck five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a fuck, I have a life to lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?*[...]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But what if a child did consent to it?  Who are you to tell that child their love is wrong?
Click to expand...

 It isn't love, it is taking advantage of a child below the age of consent (which is 16-18 in most states). Children below that age have underdeveloped brains, and can easily be taken advantage of or abused by adults - children can be conditioned to view their abusers behavior as normal or even acceptable but that doesn't make it right.

Then there is always Stockholm syndrome: Stockholm syndrome - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


> Stockholm syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of _Kreditbanken_ at Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm, Sweden, in which several bank employees were held hostage in a bank vault from August 23 to 28, 1973, while their captors negotiated with police. *During this standoff, the victims became emotionally attached to their captors, rejected assistance from government officials at one point, and even defended their captors after they were freed from their six-day ordeal.*[6] The term was coined by the criminologist and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot as "Norrmalmstorgssyndromet" (Swedish), directly translated as The Norrmalmstorg Syndrome, but then later became known abroad as the Stockholm syndrome.[7] It was originally defined by psychiatrist Frank Ochberg to aid the management of hostage situations.[8]


----------



## Coyote

kaz said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't.  Go to your bank and demand they treat you like a million dollar account holder.  Go to government and demand to be treated like a politician.
> 
> You have the right to be left alone if you're not harming anyone.  No one has the right to demand anything from others, including government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So women had no right to demand the vote?
> Blacks had no right to demand an end to Jim Crowe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights?  I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote.  I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain.  Seriously, you don't know the difference?
> 
> If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".
> 
> The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally.  As in - the right to vote.  The right to use public drinking fountains.  The right to marry.
> 
> Those are retarded examples.  SURELY you can see the that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So show me where straights can enter into single sex marriage and we're talking.  In the mean time, you have nothing.  The law is applied equally to everyone.  That you don't want what straights want is irrelevant to the law.
Click to expand...


Where same sex marriage is legal, "straights" can enter in to same sex marriages.  It's applied equally.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?*[...]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But what if a child did consent to it?  Who are you to tell that child their love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I child can not legally consent and for good reason.  They are not mature.  We - adults, parents - ARE their guardians for a reason.  So yes, it is our responsibility to protect them.  This is totally different than a relationship with two consenting adults and is nothing more than a diversion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just said that the age of consent is a social overlay, so who's to say our culture is right and the culture in Saudi Arabia is wrong? What if children are ready for sex by the age of 12?  Who are you to stand in the way of their love and their civil rights?
Click to expand...

We don't, asswipe.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> To an authoritarian leftist, yes.  To a liberal, no.  A liberal walks out of a business that doesn't want to do business with them and goes to one that does.  An authoritarian leftist runs to government to use force to compel them to do business. It's very clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've resolved the authority issue, as the states clearly have the authority over commerce within their States.
> 
> What's left are ethical issues. And I think its perfectly ethical and reasonable for a State to require those doing business with the public to treat the public fairly and equally.
> 
> You disagree. So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I am a liberal and you are an authoritarian leftist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. You're just an anarchist with an opinion. One I don't give a shit about in this thread.
> 
> Do you have anything else to say about homosexuality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, gays have every right to be left alone, they have no right to demand anything from anyone.
> 
> Just like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People, any people, have a right to demand equality.
Click to expand...


Yes....I'm sure these guys are saying "finally, someone GETS it!"


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> Actually...it's sad when you can't find it in yourself to allow two people who love each other to marry when it does no harm to you or anyone else.



Not interested in your strawmen.  Making accusations as to my motives just makes you full of shit.  You have no idea what i think, and I didn't tell you.  We are talking about logic.  You interested in a debate about logic and our positions or you want to go all girl on me and gush about your feelings?  If you want the latter, paintmywagon is probably interested, but i'm not.  If you want the former, cut the crap and discuss the issue, not how you feel about it.  I don't give a shit how you feel about it.


----------



## kaz

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't.  Go to your bank and demand they treat you like a million dollar account holder.  Go to government and demand to be treated like a politician.
> 
> You have the right to be left alone if you're not harming anyone.  No one has the right to demand anything from others, including government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So women had no right to demand the vote?
> Blacks had no right to demand an end to Jim Crowe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights?  I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote.  I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain.  Seriously, you don't know the difference?
> 
> If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".
> 
> The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally.  As in - the right to vote.  The right to use public drinking fountains.  The right to marry. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.
> 
> *A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.*
Click to expand...


A logical point.  so far that's over Coyote's head, she just wants to talk about how she feels about it.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Carib Gyal said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck with that.  Most men can only deal with one bitch like you at a time.
> 
> 
> 
> Most men can only deal with one bitch like you at a time, as well. I guess you'll be jerking off and fingering yourself no matter what laws they make.
Click to expand...

Chaffing the Bishop is illegal only in Vatican City, and I live in America.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

hipeter924 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? *Who are you to say they're love is wrong?*
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Age of what?  *Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand*.  Fuck five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a fuck, I have a life to lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?*[...]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But what if a child did consent to it?  Who are you to tell that child their love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't love, it is taking advantage of a child below the age of consent (which is 16-18 in most states). Children below that age have underdeveloped brains, and can easily be taken advantage of or abused by adults - children can be conditioned to view their abusers behavior as normal or even acceptable but that doesn't make it right.
> 
> Then there is always Stockholm syndrome: Stockholm syndrome - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Stockholm syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of _Kreditbanken_ at Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm, Sweden, in which several bank employees were held hostage in a bank vault from August 23 to 28, 1973, while their captors negotiated with police. *During this standoff, the victims became emotionally attached to their captors, rejected assistance from government officials at one point, and even defended their captors after they were freed from their six-day ordeal.*[6] The term was coined by the criminologist and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot as "Norrmalmstorgssyndromet" (Swedish), directly translated as The Norrmalmstorg Syndrome, but then later became known abroad as the Stockholm syndrome.[7] It was originally defined by psychiatrist Frank Ochberg to aid the management of hostage situations.[8]
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


So are you saying that children wanting to have sex with an adult is a mental disorder?  Do you think that NAMBLA might succeed in getting that reference dropped by the APA like you guys did?


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't.  Go to your bank and demand they treat you like a million dollar account holder.  Go to government and demand to be treated like a politician.
> 
> You have the right to be left alone if you're not harming anyone.  No one has the right to demand anything from others, including government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So women had no right to demand the vote?
> Blacks had no right to demand an end to Jim Crowe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights?  I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote.  I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain.  Seriously, you don't know the difference?
> 
> If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".
> 
> The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally.  As in - the right to vote.  The right to use public drinking fountains.  The right to marry. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.
> 
> *A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey...the racial standard applied equally too.  Everyone had a right to marry someone of the same race.
Click to expand...


Being black or white changes who can you marry.  Being straight or gay doesn't.  Ouch, fail, right out of the gate.


----------



## Carib Gyal

PaintMyHouse said:


> Chaffing the Bishop is illegal only in Vatican City, and I live in America.


You are free to finger yourself into eternity. Bless you, my son.


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage in this era is for many reasons.  In western culture it is mostly about love.  Two people love each other and want to commit to a long term (hopefully) permanent relationship with each other that might or might not include children, that might include purchasing and building a home together, shared assets, a shared future together that is recognized legally and - if religion is involved, by a religious service. It is a relationship recognized right now, in many areas, as limited only to hetero couples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And people can't do all that without government?  Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because in our country marriage is recognized by the government which confers special priveledges and legal benefits to those couples that may or may not be obtained by unmarried couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Recognized by the government or not, Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> That the government seeks to encourage marriage, through providing married couples a lower tax liability is irrelevant to those who demand to alter that which defines marriage, as a means to help them find the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage, which exists because of the very standards that they seek to remove, thus stripping it of legitimacy.
> 
> Open marriage to same gender unions, then by your own reasoning, marriage must be opened to siblings, Mothers and son, Dads and daughters, more than two people, varying species... and by allowing all of that sick shit to "be Married" the state 'legitimizes' or normalizes that nonsense... effectively ending marriage, and the culture whose viability rests upon the principled standards that define it.
> 
> Reasonable people recognize _that_, as NONSENSE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, what nonsense thinking we can live our lives without government validation.  What was I thinking?  "Marriage" should be open to everyone or no one.  That government decides who is "married" is what is nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  See THAT is where I see a slippery slope.
Click to expand...


  was that supposed to make sense?  Do you know what slippery slope means?


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?*[...]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But what if a child did consent to it?  Who are you to tell that child their love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I child can not legally consent and for good reason.  They are not mature.  We - adults, parents - ARE their guardians for a reason.  So yes, it is our responsibility to protect them.  This is totally different than a relationship with two consenting adults and is nothing more than a diversion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just said that the age of consent is a social overlay, so who's to say our culture is right and the culture in Saudi Arabia is wrong? What if children are ready for sex by the age of 12?  Who are you to stand in the way of their love and their civil rights?
Click to expand...


I'm arguing from a * scientific viewpoint* that recognizes that sexual exploitation of prebuscent children is very damaging to the child.  In addition, child marriages in areas that do allow it are often very damaging to the girl - physically (because she is not mature enough for child birth), educationally (because her education stops) and she is frequently a victim of abuse.  "Age of consent" is cultural  in that it spans an age from 12-18 (a few have no minimum) but child advocate groups are trying to make it at least 16.


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't.  Go to your bank and demand they treat you like a million dollar account holder.  Go to government and demand to be treated like a politician.
> 
> You have the right to be left alone if you're not harming anyone.  No one has the right to demand anything from others, including government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So women had no right to demand the vote?
> Blacks had no right to demand an end to Jim Crowe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights?  I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote.  I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain.  Seriously, you don't know the difference?
> 
> If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".
> 
> The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally.  As in - the right to vote.  The right to use public drinking fountains.  The right to marry. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.
> 
> *A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it need to be a "distinct gender"?  That automatically is discrimminatory.  Heteros can marry the person they love.  Homos can not.
Click to expand...


"the person they love"  seriously?

Give me another law that changes based on what someone wants.


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't.  Go to your bank and demand they treat you like a million dollar account holder.  Go to government and demand to be treated like a politician.
> 
> You have the right to be left alone if you're not harming anyone.  No one has the right to demand anything from others, including government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So women had no right to demand the vote?
> Blacks had no right to demand an end to Jim Crowe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights?  I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote.  I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain.  Seriously, you don't know the difference?
> 
> If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".
> 
> The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally.  As in - the right to vote.  The right to use public drinking fountains.  The right to marry.
> 
> Those are retarded examples.  SURELY you can see the that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So show me where straights can enter into single sex marriage and we're talking.  In the mean time, you have nothing.  The law is applied equally to everyone.  That you don't want what straights want is irrelevant to the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where same sex marriage is legal, "straights" can enter in to same sex marriages.  It's applied equally.
Click to expand...


True but irrelevant.


----------



## Coyote

kaz said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And people can't do all that without government?  Why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because in our country marriage is recognized by the government which confers special priveledges and legal benefits to those couples that may or may not be obtained by unmarried couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Recognized by the government or not, Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> That the government seeks to encourage marriage, through providing married couples a lower tax liability is irrelevant to those who demand to alter that which defines marriage, as a means to help them find the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage, which exists because of the very standards that they seek to remove, thus stripping it of legitimacy.
> 
> Open marriage to same gender unions, then by your own reasoning, marriage must be opened to siblings, Mothers and son, Dads and daughters, more than two people, varying species... and by allowing all of that sick shit to "be Married" the state 'legitimizes' or normalizes that nonsense... effectively ending marriage, and the culture whose viability rests upon the principled standards that define it.
> 
> Reasonable people recognize _that_, as NONSENSE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, what nonsense thinking we can live our lives without government validation.  What was I thinking?  "Marriage" should be open to everyone or no one.  That government decides who is "married" is what is nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  See THAT is where I see a slippery slope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> was that supposed to make sense?  Do you know what slippery slope means?
Click to expand...


No...it doesn't make sense 

I think I meant that for another post


----------



## hipeter924

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?*[...]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But what if a child did consent to it?  Who are you to tell that child their love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't love, it is taking advantage of a child below the age of consent (which is 16-18 in most states). Children below that age have underdeveloped brains, and can easily be taken advantage of or abused by adults - children can be conditioned to view their abusers behavior as normal or even acceptable but that doesn't make it right.
> 
> Then there is always Stockholm syndrome: Stockholm syndrome - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Stockholm syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of _Kreditbanken_ at Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm, Sweden, in which several bank employees were held hostage in a bank vault from August 23 to 28, 1973, while their captors negotiated with police. *During this standoff, the victims became emotionally attached to their captors, rejected assistance from government officials at one point, and even defended their captors after they were freed from their six-day ordeal.*[6] The term was coined by the criminologist and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot as "Norrmalmstorgssyndromet" (Swedish), directly translated as The Norrmalmstorg Syndrome, but then later became known abroad as the Stockholm syndrome.[7] It was originally defined by psychiatrist Frank Ochberg to aid the management of hostage situations.[8]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you saying that children wanting to have sex with an adult is a mental disorder?  Do you think that NAMBLA might succeed in getting that reference dropped by the APA like you guys did?
Click to expand...

 Not all child molesters are pedophiles, and even if they are pedophiles they can still be attracted to other adults.


----------



## Carib Gyal

kaz said:


> "the person they love"  seriously?
> 
> Give me another law that changes based on what someone wants.


He's already argued that there are loveless hetero marriages.

Here's the dealio: For every single point made in arguing for gay marriage, the exact same argument can be made for unlimited plural marriage.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

kaz said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And people can't do all that without government?  Why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because in our country marriage is recognized by the government which confers special priveledges and legal benefits to those couples that may or may not be obtained by unmarried couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Recognized by the government or not, Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> That the government seeks to encourage marriage, through providing married couples a lower tax liability is irrelevant to those who demand to alter that which defines marriage, as a means to help them find the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage, which exists because of the very standards that they seek to remove, thus stripping it of legitimacy.
> 
> Open marriage to same gender unions, then by your own reasoning, marriage must be opened to siblings, Mothers and son, Dads and daughters, more than two people, varying species... and by allowing all of that sick shit to "be Married" the state 'legitimizes' or normalizes that nonsense... effectively ending marriage, and the culture whose viability rests upon the principled standards that define it.
> 
> Reasonable people recognize _that_, as NONSENSE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, what nonsense thinking we can live our lives without government validation.  What was I thinking?  "Marriage" should be open to everyone or no one.  That government decides who is "married" is what is nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  See THAT is where I see a slippery slope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> was that supposed to make sense?  Do you know what slippery slope means?
Click to expand...


I think it's a gay reference, it's when the cleft of a guy's ass is generously lubed and....

You get the picture....


----------



## Coyote

kaz said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> So women had no right to demand the vote?
> Blacks had no right to demand an end to Jim Crowe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights?  I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote.  I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain.  Seriously, you don't know the difference?
> 
> If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".
> 
> The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally.  As in - the right to vote.  The right to use public drinking fountains.  The right to marry. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.
> 
> *A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it need to be a "distinct gender"?  That automatically is discrimminatory.  Heteros can marry the person they love.  Homos can not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "the person they love"  seriously?
> 
> Give me another law that changes based on what someone wants.
Click to expand...


Marriage is ALL about what someone wants.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

kaz said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> So women had no right to demand the vote?
> Blacks had no right to demand an end to Jim Crowe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights?  I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote.  I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain.  Seriously, you don't know the difference?
> 
> If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".
> 
> The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally.  As in - the right to vote.  The right to use public drinking fountains.  The right to marry. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.
> 
> *A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it need to be a "distinct gender"?  That automatically is discrimminatory.  Heteros can marry the person they love.  Homos can not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "the person they love"  seriously?
> 
> Give me another law that changes based on what someone wants.
Click to expand...

Blacks wanting freedom, Women wanting the vote,  Mixed-race couples wanting to marry, women wanting legal abortions, the US wanting a nation governed by men and not a king.  Shall I continue, dumbass?


----------



## Coyote

Carib Gyal said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> "the person they love"  seriously?
> 
> Give me another law that changes based on what someone wants.
> 
> 
> 
> He's already argued that there are loveless hetero marriages.
> 
> *Here's the dealio: For every single point made in arguing for gay marriage, the exact same argument can be made for unlimited plural marriage.*
Click to expand...


Come to think of it...all those arguments apply to hetero marriage too - OMG - why have ANY marriage?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?*[...]
> 
> 
> 
> When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But what if a child did consent to it?  Who are you to tell that child their love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I child can not legally consent and for good reason.  They are not mature.  We - adults, parents - ARE their guardians for a reason.  So yes, it is our responsibility to protect them.  This is totally different than a relationship with two consenting adults and is nothing more than a diversion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just said that the age of consent is a social overlay, so who's to say our culture is right and the culture in Saudi Arabia is wrong? What if children are ready for sex by the age of 12?  Who are you to stand in the way of their love and their civil rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm arguing from a * scientific viewpoint* that recognizes that sexual exploitation of prebuscent children is very damaging to the child.  In addition, child marriages in areas that do allow it are often very damaging to the girl - physically (because she is not mature enough for child birth), educationally (because her education stops) and she is frequently a victim of abuse.  "Age of consent" is cultural  in that it spans an age from 12-18 (a few have no minimum) but child advocate groups are trying to make it at least 16.
Click to expand...


But why aren't we letting HER decide when she's mature enough?  If she's old enough to have a constitutional right to an abortion without her parents' permission, isn't she old enough to decide when she's ready for sex with a 30 year old man?


----------



## Coyote

kaz said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> So women had no right to demand the vote?
> Blacks had no right to demand an end to Jim Crowe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights?  I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote.  I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain.  Seriously, you don't know the difference?
> 
> If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".
> 
> The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally.  As in - the right to vote.  The right to use public drinking fountains.  The right to marry.
> 
> Those are retarded examples.  SURELY you can see the that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So show me where straights can enter into single sex marriage and we're talking.  In the mean time, you have nothing.  The law is applied equally to everyone.  That you don't want what straights want is irrelevant to the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where same sex marriage is legal, "straights" can enter in to same sex marriages.  It's applied equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True but irrelevant.
Click to expand...


You are the one that ask me to "where straights can enter into single sex marriage and we're talking" and now you say it's irrelevant?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Carib Gyal said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chaffing the Bishop is illegal only in Vatican City, and I live in America.
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to finger yourself into eternity. Bless you, my son.
Click to expand...

I jerk off, ****, you finger yourself.  Rub it out as you desire.


----------



## Carib Gyal

Coyote said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> "the person they love"  seriously?
> 
> Give me another law that changes based on what someone wants.
> 
> 
> 
> He's already argued that there are loveless hetero marriages.
> 
> *Here's the dealio: For every single point made in arguing for gay marriage, the exact same argument can be made for unlimited plural marriage.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come to think of it...all those arguments apply to hetero marriage too - OMG - why have ANY marriage?
Click to expand...

That's what keys has been saying.    

And yet...and yet. If the government doesn't have the right to deny two people equal rights, how then does it have the right to deny millions, or billions?


----------



## Carib Gyal

PaintMyHouse said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chaffing the Bishop is illegal only in Vatican City, and I live in America.
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to finger yourself into eternity. Bless you, my son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I jerk off, ****, you finger yourself.  Rub it out as you desire.
Click to expand...

Bend over and finger away, thumber.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

hipeter924 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?*[...]
> 
> 
> 
> When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But what if a child did consent to it?  Who are you to tell that child their love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't love, it is taking advantage of a child below the age of consent (which is 16-18 in most states). Children below that age have underdeveloped brains, and can easily be taken advantage of or abused by adults - children can be conditioned to view their abusers behavior as normal or even acceptable but that doesn't make it right.
> 
> Then there is always Stockholm syndrome: Stockholm syndrome - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Stockholm syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of _Kreditbanken_ at Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm, Sweden, in which several bank employees were held hostage in a bank vault from August 23 to 28, 1973, while their captors negotiated with police. *During this standoff, the victims became emotionally attached to their captors, rejected assistance from government officials at one point, and even defended their captors after they were freed from their six-day ordeal.*[6] The term was coined by the criminologist and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot as "Norrmalmstorgssyndromet" (Swedish), directly translated as The Norrmalmstorg Syndrome, but then later became known abroad as the Stockholm syndrome.[7] It was originally defined by psychiatrist Frank Ochberg to aid the management of hostage situations.[8]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you saying that children wanting to have sex with an adult is a mental disorder?  Do you think that NAMBLA might succeed in getting that reference dropped by the APA like you guys did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all child molesters are pedophiles, and even if they are pedophiles they can still be attracted to other adults.
Click to expand...


So what are you saying..that if there's dual sexualities that's good reason to deny someone their rights?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up. I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.”

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy, and in fact is a lie.

There is no 'right' to have sex with children, there is a right to equal protection of the law, in this case marriage law.

Unlike un-Constitutional measures that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying, laws prohibiting adults from having sex with children are applied to everyone equally, no protected class of persons is singled out for exclusion, where such laws are rationally based and pursue a proper legislative end.

And no, pedophiles do not constitute a 'protected class of persons.'


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what if a child did consent to it?  Who are you to tell that child their love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I child can not legally consent and for good reason.  They are not mature.  We - adults, parents - ARE their guardians for a reason.  So yes, it is our responsibility to protect them.  This is totally different than a relationship with two consenting adults and is nothing more than a diversion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just said that the age of consent is a social overlay, so who's to say our culture is right and the culture in Saudi Arabia is wrong? What if children are ready for sex by the age of 12?  Who are you to stand in the way of their love and their civil rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm arguing from a * scientific viewpoint* that recognizes that sexual exploitation of prebuscent children is very damaging to the child.  In addition, child marriages in areas that do allow it are often very damaging to the girl - physically (because she is not mature enough for child birth), educationally (because her education stops) and she is frequently a victim of abuse.  "Age of consent" is cultural  in that it spans an age from 12-18 (a few have no minimum) but child advocate groups are trying to make it at least 16.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *But why aren't we letting HER decide when she's mature enough?  *If she's old enough to have a constitutional right to an abortion without her parents' permission, isn't she old enough to decide when she's ready for sex with a 30 year old man?
Click to expand...


Because by legal definition she isn't.

The other is an attempt to side track this into another argument.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:
> 
> “But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up. I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.”
> 
> This fails as a slippery slope fallacy, and in fact is a lie.
> 
> There is no 'right' to have sex with children, there is a right to equal protection of the law, in this case marriage law.
> 
> Unlike un-Constitutional measures that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying, laws prohibiting adults from having sex with children are applied to everyone equally, no protected class of persons is singled out for exclusion, where such laws are rationally based and pursue a proper legislative end.
> 
> And no, pedophiles do not constitute a 'protected class of persons.'



But marriage laws allowing any person to marry any unrelated person of the opposite sex were also applied equally.   So by your logic, we should have sex between adults and children legalized in 10 years or less....as soon as enough successful challenges make it to the Supreme Court.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what if a child did consent to it?  Who are you to tell that child their love is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I child can not legally consent and for good reason.  They are not mature.  We - adults, parents - ARE their guardians for a reason.  So yes, it is our responsibility to protect them.  This is totally different than a relationship with two consenting adults and is nothing more than a diversion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just said that the age of consent is a social overlay, so who's to say our culture is right and the culture in Saudi Arabia is wrong? What if children are ready for sex by the age of 12?  Who are you to stand in the way of their love and their civil rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm arguing from a * scientific viewpoint* that recognizes that sexual exploitation of prebuscent children is very damaging to the child.  In addition, child marriages in areas that do allow it are often very damaging to the girl - physically (because she is not mature enough for child birth), educationally (because her education stops) and she is frequently a victim of abuse.  "Age of consent" is cultural  in that it spans an age from 12-18 (a few have no minimum) but child advocate groups are trying to make it at least 16.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *But why aren't we letting HER decide when she's mature enough?  *If she's old enough to have a constitutional right to an abortion without her parents' permission, isn't she old enough to decide when she's ready for sex with a 30 year old man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because by legal definition she isn't.
> 
> The other is an attempt to side track this into another argument.
Click to expand...


Ah, right. The "social overlay" again.  

Isn't that subjective and therefore an insufficient reason to deny that 12 year old girl her 14th Amendment rights to sex with an adult?


----------



## Coyote

Carib Gyal said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> "the person they love"  seriously?
> 
> Give me another law that changes based on what someone wants.
> 
> 
> 
> He's already argued that there are loveless hetero marriages.
> 
> *Here's the dealio: For every single point made in arguing for gay marriage, the exact same argument can be made for unlimited plural marriage.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come to think of it...all those arguments apply to hetero marriage too - OMG - why have ANY marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what keys has been saying.
> 
> And yet...and yet. If the government doesn't have the right to deny two people equal rights, how then does it have the right to deny millions, or billions?
Click to expand...


Reality.

We can take anything - any law - to the point of absurbity.  But the chances of it happening are virtually nil.  So because of that do you have no laws?

I don't have an issue with polygamy if people want it. But that's also another argument.  If people want polygamy then they need to make a compelling case for it on it's own merits.  The case for same sex marriage is being argued on it's own merits - not alongside polygamy.


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I child can not legally consent and for good reason.  They are not mature.  We - adults, parents - ARE their guardians for a reason.  So yes, it is our responsibility to protect them.  This is totally different than a relationship with two consenting adults and is nothing more than a diversion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just said that the age of consent is a social overlay, so who's to say our culture is right and the culture in Saudi Arabia is wrong? What if children are ready for sex by the age of 12?  Who are you to stand in the way of their love and their civil rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm arguing from a * scientific viewpoint* that recognizes that sexual exploitation of prebuscent children is very damaging to the child.  In addition, child marriages in areas that do allow it are often very damaging to the girl - physically (because she is not mature enough for child birth), educationally (because her education stops) and she is frequently a victim of abuse.  "Age of consent" is cultural  in that it spans an age from 12-18 (a few have no minimum) but child advocate groups are trying to make it at least 16.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *But why aren't we letting HER decide when she's mature enough?  *If she's old enough to have a constitutional right to an abortion without her parents' permission, isn't she old enough to decide when she's ready for sex with a 30 year old man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because by legal definition she isn't.
> 
> The other is an attempt to side track this into another argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, right. The "social overlay" again.
Click to expand...


No, this one is the legal overlay since we are, after all, arguing law 



> Isn't that subjective and therefore an insufficient reason to deny that 12 year old girl her 14th Amendment rights to sex with an adult?



Nope.  Children have never had the same rights as adults.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are limiting consent to two people. Hundreds, thousands of consenting humans should all be allowed to marry each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. We are redefining the meaning of the word. Let's redefine it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage has only recently (in terms of human history) been *redefined *as  one woman/one man.
Click to expand...


Well, the enlightenment was fairly recent, so that serves reason.


----------



## Coyote

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are limiting consent to two people. Hundreds, thousands of consenting humans should all be allowed to marry each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. We are redefining the meaning of the word. Let's redefine it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage has only recently (in terms of human history) been *redefined *as  one woman/one man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the enlightenment was fairly recent, so that serves reason.
Click to expand...


What enlightenment?  It's still pretty dark in here.


----------



## GreenBean

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This fails as a straw man fallacy.
> 
> This issue concerns only two consenting adults eligible to enter into a marriage contract who are disallowed from doing so in violation of the Constitution.
> 
> To attempt to reference children is irrelevant demagoguery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?*  Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up.  I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No there isn't.  This is the typical slippery slope fallacy that you guys employ.
> 
> A person does not have the right to harm another person and that is what "shagging" a child does.
Click to expand...



..... the great majority of homosexual men also deplore Sandusky’s alleged acts. At the same time, there is a very large pedophile elephant that is hiding in the gay activist closet. Dare we expose it?

Let’s start with our children’s schools, where GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight, Education Network, has long advocated for the celebration of homosexual history, using tools like “North American History Game Cards,” where elementary school children learn that famous Americans like Allen Ginsberg and Walt Whitman were gay.

What the children don’t learn is that if Whitman was a homosexual, he was also a pederast, that Ginsberg was a defender of NAMBLA, the notorious North American Man Boy Love Association, and that he (in)famously said, “*Attacks on NAMBLA stink of politics, witchhunting for profit, humorlessness, vanity, anger and ignorance. . . . I’m a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too — everybody does, who has a little humanity.”   ......................*............

From 2001-2006, Yale University’s LGBT program was greatly helped by the Larry Kramer Initiative for Lesbian and Gay Studies, named after the famous gay activist and author. *Kramer too was a NAMBLA supporter*, and in a 2004 speech in New York City, he spoke of a “sweet young boy who didn’t know anything and was in awe of me.* I was the first man who [had sex with] him. I think I murdered him*” (meaning, by infecting him with AIDS). Where is the gay outcry over this? ..............................

....*gay activist attempts to reduce (or repeal!) the age of consent in different countries, including America *(see, for example, the 1972 Gay Rights Platform), but the inescapable truth is clear: The gay activist closet has been opened, and the pedophile elephant is there.

Let gay activists demonstrate their categorical rejection of all forms of pedophilia and pederasty by denouncing its very obvious presence in gay history (from the ancient Greeks to Harvey Milk), by renouncing all gay attempts to lower (or eliminate) the age of consent, and by agreeing not to sexualize our children’s education.

Will they do that, or will they attack the messenger? We shall see.

The Pedophile Elephant in the Gay Activist Closet - Voice of Revolution


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:
> 
> “But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up. I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.”
> 
> This fails as a slippery slope fallacy, and in fact is a lie.



False.

Recognizing the present slope is slippery is not fallacious.  

And there is no more glaring demonstration of a present and slippery slope as the slope of lowering the standards of sexual propriety.

I've already covered the specifics of this slippery slope on this thread, so I won't repeat them here, but the culture is presently in free fall after jumping off the sexual standard cliff.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

GreenBean said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This fails as a straw man fallacy.
> 
> This issue concerns only two consenting adults eligible to enter into a marriage contract who are disallowed from doing so in violation of the Constitution.
> 
> To attempt to reference children is irrelevant demagoguery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?*  Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up.  I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No there isn't.  This is the typical slippery slope fallacy that you guys employ.
> 
> A person does not have the right to harm another person and that is what "shagging" a child does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ..... the great majority of homosexual men also deplore Sandusky’s alleged acts. At the same time, there is a very large pedophile elephant that is hiding in the gay activist closet. Dare we expose it?
> 
> Let’s start with our children’s schools, where GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight, Education Network, has long advocated for the celebration of homosexual history, using tools like “North American History Game Cards,” where elementary school children learn that famous Americans like Allen Ginsberg and Walt Whitman were gay.
> 
> What the children don’t learn is that if Whitman was a homosexual, he was also a pederast, that Ginsberg was a defender of NAMBLA, the notorious North American Man Boy Love Association, and that he (in)famously said, “*Attacks on NAMBLA stink of politics, witchhunting for profit, humorlessness, vanity, anger and ignorance. . . . I’m a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too — everybody does, who has a little humanity.”   ......................*............
> 
> From 2001-2006, Yale University’s LGBT program was greatly helped by the Larry Kramer Initiative for Lesbian and Gay Studies, named after the famous gay activist and author. *Kramer too was a NAMBLA supporter*, and in a 2004 speech in New York City, he spoke of a “sweet young boy who didn’t know anything and was in awe of me.* I was the first man who [had sex with] him. I think I murdered him*” (meaning, by infecting him with AIDS). Where is the gay outcry over this? ..............................
> 
> ....*gay activist attempts to reduce (or repeal!) the age of consent in different countries, including America *(see, for example, the 1972 Gay Rights Platform), but the inescapable truth is clear: The gay activist closet has been opened, and the pedophile elephant is there.
> 
> Let gay activists demonstrate their categorical rejection of all forms of pedophilia and pederasty by denouncing its very obvious presence in gay history (from the ancient Greeks to Harvey Milk), by renouncing all gay attempts to lower (or eliminate) the age of consent, and by agreeing not to sexualize our children’s education.
> 
> Will they do that, or will they attack the messenger? We shall see.
> 
> The Pedophile Elephant in the Gay Activist Closet - Voice of Revolution
Click to expand...

Hey dumbass, the Age of Consent is unrelated to faggot marriage.  Clear now?


----------



## Coyote

GreenBean said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This fails as a straw man fallacy.
> 
> This issue concerns only two consenting adults eligible to enter into a marriage contract who are disallowed from doing so in violation of the Constitution.
> 
> To attempt to reference children is irrelevant demagoguery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?*  Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up.  I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No there isn't.  This is the typical slippery slope fallacy that you guys employ.
> 
> A person does not have the right to harm another person and that is what "shagging" a child does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ..... the great majority of homosexual men also deplore Sandusky’s alleged acts. At the same time, there is a very large pedophile elephant that is hiding in the gay activist closet. Dare we expose it?
> 
> Let’s start with our children’s schools, where GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight, Education Network, has long advocated for the celebration of homosexual history, using tools like “North American History Game Cards,” where elementary school children learn that famous Americans like Allen Ginsberg and Walt Whitman were gay.
> 
> What the children don’t learn is that if Whitman was a homosexual, he was also a pederast, that Ginsberg was a defender of NAMBLA, the notorious North American Man Boy Love Association, and that he (in)famously said, “*Attacks on NAMBLA stink of politics, witchhunting for profit, humorlessness, vanity, anger and ignorance. . . . I’m a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too — everybody does, who has a little humanity.”   ......................*............
> 
> From 2001-2006, Yale University’s LGBT program was greatly helped by the Larry Kramer Initiative for Lesbian and Gay Studies, named after the famous gay activist and author. *Kramer too was a NAMBLA supporter*, and in a 2004 speech in New York City, he spoke of a “sweet young boy who didn’t know anything and was in awe of me.* I was the first man who [had sex with] him. I think I murdered him*” (meaning, by infecting him with AIDS). Where is the gay outcry over this? ..............................
> 
> ....*gay activist attempts to reduce (or repeal!) the age of consent in different countries, including America *(see, for example, the 1972 Gay Rights Platform), but the inescapable truth is clear: The gay activist closet has been opened, and the pedophile elephant is there.
> 
> Let gay activists demonstrate their categorical rejection of all forms of pedophilia and pederasty by denouncing its very obvious presence in gay history (from the ancient Greeks to Harvey Milk), by renouncing all gay attempts to lower (or eliminate) the age of consent, and by agreeing not to sexualize our children’s education.
> 
> Will they do that, or will they attack the messenger? We shall see.
> 
> The Pedophile Elephant in the Gay Activist Closet - Voice of Revolution
Click to expand...


None of his anything to do with same sex marriage.  Nice red herring though.


----------



## Carib Gyal

Coyote said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> "the person they love"  seriously?
> 
> Give me another law that changes based on what someone wants.
> 
> 
> 
> He's already argued that there are loveless hetero marriages.
> 
> *Here's the dealio: For every single point made in arguing for gay marriage, the exact same argument can be made for unlimited plural marriage.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come to think of it...all those arguments apply to hetero marriage too - OMG - why have ANY marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what keys has been saying.
> 
> And yet...and yet. If the government doesn't have the right to deny two people equal rights, how then does it have the right to deny millions, or billions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality.
> 
> We can take anything - any law - to the point of absurbity.  But the chances of it happening are virtually nil.  So because of that do you have no laws?
> 
> I don't have an issue with polygamy if people want it. But that's also another argument.  If people want polygamy then they need to make a compelling case for it on it's own merits.  The case for same sex marriage is being argued on it's own merits - not alongside polygamy.
Click to expand...

Hey it's YOUR argument. You're the one who wants to apply equal rights to everyone. It turns out you don't want that at all, because your arbitrary limitations only desire your political....and possibly personal....cause. You are either advocating for the equal rights of everyone, or you are advocating for the extremely limited rights of two people to engage in a false agreement that you would deny to the rest of the world. Certainly the rest of America.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are limiting consent to two people. Hundreds, thousands of consenting humans should all be allowed to marry each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. We are redefining the meaning of the word. Let's redefine it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage has only recently (in terms of human history) been *redefined *as  one woman/one man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the enlightenment was fairly recent, so that serves reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What enlightenment?  It's still pretty dark in here.
Click to expand...


You're being facetious... .

But as a courtesy to the Idiots in Ignore, the enlightenment was the period during which humanity clawed its way out of the dark ages, which had come as a result of the Islamic crusades having burned civilization to the ground... humanity re-discovered reason and that essential element of truth known as objectivity; through which we came to recognize the laws of nature which govern human behavior, not the least of which are human rights, that such are sustained through correlating responsibilities... and so forth.

Through these self evident truths, we came to recognize that Nature designed the species with certain, self evident traits and that it follows that these traits served essential purposes and that happiness and success are found consistent in recognizing and adhering to those correlations.


----------



## GreenBean

Coyote said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> This fails as a straw man fallacy.
> 
> This issue concerns only two consenting adults eligible to enter into a marriage contract who are disallowed from doing so in violation of the Constitution.
> 
> To attempt to reference children is irrelevant demagoguery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?*  Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up.  I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No there isn't.  This is the typical slippery slope fallacy that you guys employ.
> 
> A person does not have the right to harm another person and that is what "shagging" a child does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ..... the great majority of homosexual men also deplore Sandusky’s alleged acts. At the same time, there is a very large pedophile elephant that is hiding in the gay activist closet. Dare we expose it?
> 
> Let’s start with our children’s schools, where GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight, Education Network, has long advocated for the celebration of homosexual history, using tools like “North American History Game Cards,” where elementary school children learn that famous Americans like Allen Ginsberg and Walt Whitman were gay.
> 
> What the children don’t learn is that if Whitman was a homosexual, he was also a pederast, that Ginsberg was a defender of NAMBLA, the notorious North American Man Boy Love Association, and that he (in)famously said, “*Attacks on NAMBLA stink of politics, witchhunting for profit, humorlessness, vanity, anger and ignorance. . . . I’m a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too — everybody does, who has a little humanity.”   ......................*............
> 
> From 2001-2006, Yale University’s LGBT program was greatly helped by the Larry Kramer Initiative for Lesbian and Gay Studies, named after the famous gay activist and author. *Kramer too was a NAMBLA supporter*, and in a 2004 speech in New York City, he spoke of a “sweet young boy who didn’t know anything and was in awe of me.* I was the first man who [had sex with] him. I think I murdered him*” (meaning, by infecting him with AIDS). Where is the gay outcry over this? ..............................
> 
> ....*gay activist attempts to reduce (or repeal!) the age of consent in different countries, including America *(see, for example, the 1972 Gay Rights Platform), but the inescapable truth is clear: The gay activist closet has been opened, and the pedophile elephant is there.
> 
> Let gay activists demonstrate their categorical rejection of all forms of pedophilia and pederasty by denouncing its very obvious presence in gay history (from the ancient Greeks to Harvey Milk), by renouncing all gay attempts to lower (or eliminate) the age of consent, and by agreeing not to sexualize our children’s education.
> 
> Will they do that, or will they attack the messenger? We shall see.
> 
> The Pedophile Elephant in the Gay Activist Closet - Voice of Revolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of his anything to do with same sex marriage.  Nice red herring though.
Click to expand...


Yeah it does -but that's not the entire content of the last dozen posts -which dealt with NAMBLA and "Shagging a Child" and slippery slopes etc....  Nice try at deflecting though -somehow I thought you were above that .


----------



## Coyote

GreenBean said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> This fails as a straw man fallacy.
> 
> This issue concerns only two consenting adults eligible to enter into a marriage contract who are disallowed from doing so in violation of the Constitution.
> 
> To attempt to reference children is irrelevant demagoguery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?*  Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up.  I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No there isn't.  This is the typical slippery slope fallacy that you guys employ.
> 
> A person does not have the right to harm another person and that is what "shagging" a child does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ..... the great majority of homosexual men also deplore Sandusky’s alleged acts. At the same time, there is a very large pedophile elephant that is hiding in the gay activist closet. Dare we expose it?
> 
> Let’s start with our children’s schools, where GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight, Education Network, has long advocated for the celebration of homosexual history, using tools like “North American History Game Cards,” where elementary school children learn that famous Americans like Allen Ginsberg and Walt Whitman were gay.
> 
> What the children don’t learn is that if Whitman was a homosexual, he was also a pederast, that Ginsberg was a defender of NAMBLA, the notorious North American Man Boy Love Association, and that he (in)famously said, “*Attacks on NAMBLA stink of politics, witchhunting for profit, humorlessness, vanity, anger and ignorance. . . . I’m a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too — everybody does, who has a little humanity.”   ......................*............
> 
> From 2001-2006, Yale University’s LGBT program was greatly helped by the Larry Kramer Initiative for Lesbian and Gay Studies, named after the famous gay activist and author. *Kramer too was a NAMBLA supporter*, and in a 2004 speech in New York City, he spoke of a “sweet young boy who didn’t know anything and was in awe of me.* I was the first man who [had sex with] him. I think I murdered him*” (meaning, by infecting him with AIDS). Where is the gay outcry over this? ..............................
> 
> ....*gay activist attempts to reduce (or repeal!) the age of consent in different countries, including America *(see, for example, the 1972 Gay Rights Platform), but the inescapable truth is clear: The gay activist closet has been opened, and the pedophile elephant is there.
> 
> Let gay activists demonstrate their categorical rejection of all forms of pedophilia and pederasty by denouncing its very obvious presence in gay history (from the ancient Greeks to Harvey Milk), by renouncing all gay attempts to lower (or eliminate) the age of consent, and by agreeing not to sexualize our children’s education.
> 
> Will they do that, or will they attack the messenger? We shall see.
> 
> The Pedophile Elephant in the Gay Activist Closet - Voice of Revolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of his anything to do with same sex marriage.  Nice red herring though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah it does -but that's not the entire content of the last dozen posts -which dealt with NAMBLA and "Shagging a Child" and slippery slopes etc....  Nice try at deflecting though -somehow I thought you were above that .
Click to expand...


It really doesn't.  It's that slippery slope fallacy attempting to tie in gay rights with pedophihlia.  NAMBLA, in case you haven't realized it, is not an "elephant" but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand.  Gay actovists don't have to demonstrate a "categorical rejection" of pedophilia any more than heterosexuals do.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> This fails as a straw man fallacy.
> 
> This issue concerns only two consenting adults eligible to enter into a marriage contract who are disallowed from doing so in violation of the Constitution.
> 
> To attempt to reference children is irrelevant demagoguery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?*  Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up.  I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No there isn't.  This is the typical slippery slope fallacy that you guys employ.
> 
> A person does not have the right to harm another person and that is what "shagging" a child does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ..... the great majority of homosexual men also deplore Sandusky’s alleged acts. At the same time, there is a very large pedophile elephant that is hiding in the gay activist closet. Dare we expose it?
> 
> Let’s start with our children’s schools, where GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight, Education Network, has long advocated for the celebration of homosexual history, using tools like “North American History Game Cards,” where elementary school children learn that famous Americans like Allen Ginsberg and Walt Whitman were gay.
> 
> What the children don’t learn is that if Whitman was a homosexual, he was also a pederast, that Ginsberg was a defender of NAMBLA, the notorious North American Man Boy Love Association, and that he (in)famously said, “*Attacks on NAMBLA stink of politics, witchhunting for profit, humorlessness, vanity, anger and ignorance. . . . I’m a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too — everybody does, who has a little humanity.”   ......................*............
> 
> From 2001-2006, Yale University’s LGBT program was greatly helped by the Larry Kramer Initiative for Lesbian and Gay Studies, named after the famous gay activist and author. *Kramer too was a NAMBLA supporter*, and in a 2004 speech in New York City, he spoke of a “sweet young boy who didn’t know anything and was in awe of me.* I was the first man who [had sex with] him. I think I murdered him*” (meaning, by infecting him with AIDS). Where is the gay outcry over this? ..............................
> 
> ....*gay activist attempts to reduce (or repeal!) the age of consent in different countries, including America *(see, for example, the 1972 Gay Rights Platform), but the inescapable truth is clear: The gay activist closet has been opened, and the pedophile elephant is there.
> 
> Let gay activists demonstrate their categorical rejection of all forms of pedophilia and pederasty by denouncing its very obvious presence in gay history (from the ancient Greeks to Harvey Milk), by renouncing all gay attempts to lower (or eliminate) the age of consent, and by agreeing not to sexualize our children’s education.
> 
> Will they do that, or will they attack the messenger? We shall see.
> 
> The Pedophile Elephant in the Gay Activist Closet - Voice of Revolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of his anything to do with same sex marriage.  Nice red herring though.
Click to expand...


They actually do, because they demonstrate the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality as a movement, thus demonstrating the nature of the slippery slope, as well as how the slope more closely resembles a cliff.


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> This fails as a straw man fallacy.
> 
> This issue concerns only two consenting adults eligible to enter into a marriage contract who are disallowed from doing so in violation of the Constitution.
> 
> To attempt to reference children is irrelevant demagoguery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?*  Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up.  I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No there isn't.  This is the typical slippery slope fallacy that you guys employ.
> 
> A person does not have the right to harm another person and that is what "shagging" a child does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ..... the great majority of homosexual men also deplore Sandusky’s alleged acts. At the same time, there is a very large pedophile elephant that is hiding in the gay activist closet. Dare we expose it?
> 
> Let’s start with our children’s schools, where GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight, Education Network, has long advocated for the celebration of homosexual history, using tools like “North American History Game Cards,” where elementary school children learn that famous Americans like Allen Ginsberg and Walt Whitman were gay.
> 
> What the children don’t learn is that if Whitman was a homosexual, he was also a pederast, that Ginsberg was a defender of NAMBLA, the notorious North American Man Boy Love Association, and that he (in)famously said, “*Attacks on NAMBLA stink of politics, witchhunting for profit, humorlessness, vanity, anger and ignorance. . . . I’m a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too — everybody does, who has a little humanity.”   ......................*............
> 
> From 2001-2006, Yale University’s LGBT program was greatly helped by the Larry Kramer Initiative for Lesbian and Gay Studies, named after the famous gay activist and author. *Kramer too was a NAMBLA supporter*, and in a 2004 speech in New York City, he spoke of a “sweet young boy who didn’t know anything and was in awe of me.* I was the first man who [had sex with] him. I think I murdered him*” (meaning, by infecting him with AIDS). Where is the gay outcry over this? ..............................
> 
> ....*gay activist attempts to reduce (or repeal!) the age of consent in different countries, including America *(see, for example, the 1972 Gay Rights Platform), but the inescapable truth is clear: The gay activist closet has been opened, and the pedophile elephant is there.
> 
> Let gay activists demonstrate their categorical rejection of all forms of pedophilia and pederasty by denouncing its very obvious presence in gay history (from the ancient Greeks to Harvey Milk), by renouncing all gay attempts to lower (or eliminate) the age of consent, and by agreeing not to sexualize our children’s education.
> 
> Will they do that, or will they attack the messenger? We shall see.
> 
> The Pedophile Elephant in the Gay Activist Closet - Voice of Revolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of his anything to do with same sex marriage.  Nice red herring though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They actually do, because they demonstrate the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality as a movement, thus demonstrating the nature of the slippery slope, as well as how the slope more closely resembles a cliff.
Click to expand...

Fathers, step-fathers, and family friends in heterosexual relationships are the biggest danger to children sexually.   And girls are victims way more....shall you blame that on gays too?


----------



## Wildman

PaintMyHouse said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chaffing the Bishop is illegal only in Vatican City, and I live in America.
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to finger yourself into eternity. Bless you, my son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I jerk off, ****, you finger yourself.  Rub it out as you desire.
Click to expand...

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
you are a disgusting motherfucker.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> They actually do, because they demonstrate the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality as a movement, thus demonstrating the nature of the slippery slope, as well as how the slope more closely resembles a cliff.


The wife blowing me and me licking her snatch used to be abnormal, not to mention fucking her ass.  Times change as we learn more, grow up.


----------



## GreenBean

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> This fails as a straw man fallacy.
> 
> This issue concerns only two consenting adults eligible to enter into a marriage contract who are disallowed from doing so in violation of the Constitution.
> 
> To attempt to reference children is irrelevant demagoguery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?*  Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up.  I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No there isn't.  This is the typical slippery slope fallacy that you guys employ.
> 
> A person does not have the right to harm another person and that is what "shagging" a child does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ..... the great majority of homosexual men also deplore Sandusky’s alleged acts. At the same time, there is a very large pedophile elephant that is hiding in the gay activist closet. Dare we expose it?
> 
> Let’s start with our children’s schools, where GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight, Education Network, has long advocated for the celebration of homosexual history, using tools like “North American History Game Cards,” where elementary school children learn that famous Americans like Allen Ginsberg and Walt Whitman were gay.
> 
> What the children don’t learn is that if Whitman was a homosexual, he was also a pederast, that Ginsberg was a defender of NAMBLA, the notorious North American Man Boy Love Association, and that he (in)famously said, “*Attacks on NAMBLA stink of politics, witchhunting for profit, humorlessness, vanity, anger and ignorance. . . . I’m a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too — everybody does, who has a little humanity.”   ......................*............
> 
> From 2001-2006, Yale University’s LGBT program was greatly helped by the Larry Kramer Initiative for Lesbian and Gay Studies, named after the famous gay activist and author. *Kramer too was a NAMBLA supporter*, and in a 2004 speech in New York City, he spoke of a “sweet young boy who didn’t know anything and was in awe of me.* I was the first man who [had sex with] him. I think I murdered him*” (meaning, by infecting him with AIDS). Where is the gay outcry over this? ..............................
> 
> ....*gay activist attempts to reduce (or repeal!) the age of consent in different countries, including America *(see, for example, the 1972 Gay Rights Platform), but the inescapable truth is clear: The gay activist closet has been opened, and the pedophile elephant is there.
> 
> Let gay activists demonstrate their categorical rejection of all forms of pedophilia and pederasty by denouncing its very obvious presence in gay history (from the ancient Greeks to Harvey Milk), by renouncing all gay attempts to lower (or eliminate) the age of consent, and by agreeing not to sexualize our children’s education.
> 
> Will they do that, or will they attack the messenger? We shall see.
> 
> The Pedophile Elephant in the Gay Activist Closet - Voice of Revolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> None of his anything to do with same sex marriage.  Nice red herring though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They actually do, because they demonstrate the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality as a movement, thus demonstrating the nature of the slippery slope, as well as how the slope more closely resembles a cliff.
Click to expand...


*Exactly* -  Which is a long term goal of the Perverts Agenda - Gay Marriage being just one stepping stone on this so called "slippery slope" - Gay Adoption and Inter generational intimacy - which are closely intertwined as well.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?*  Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up.  I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No there isn't.  This is the typical slippery slope fallacy that you guys employ.
> 
> A person does not have the right to harm another person and that is what "shagging" a child does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ..... the great majority of homosexual men also deplore Sandusky’s alleged acts. At the same time, there is a very large pedophile elephant that is hiding in the gay activist closet. Dare we expose it?
> 
> Let’s start with our children’s schools, where GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight, Education Network, has long advocated for the celebration of homosexual history, using tools like “North American History Game Cards,” where elementary school children learn that famous Americans like Allen Ginsberg and Walt Whitman were gay.
> 
> What the children don’t learn is that if Whitman was a homosexual, he was also a pederast, that Ginsberg was a defender of NAMBLA, the notorious North American Man Boy Love Association, and that he (in)famously said, “*Attacks on NAMBLA stink of politics, witchhunting for profit, humorlessness, vanity, anger and ignorance. . . . I’m a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too — everybody does, who has a little humanity.”   ......................*............
> 
> From 2001-2006, Yale University’s LGBT program was greatly helped by the Larry Kramer Initiative for Lesbian and Gay Studies, named after the famous gay activist and author. *Kramer too was a NAMBLA supporter*, and in a 2004 speech in New York City, he spoke of a “sweet young boy who didn’t know anything and was in awe of me.* I was the first man who [had sex with] him. I think I murdered him*” (meaning, by infecting him with AIDS). Where is the gay outcry over this? ..............................
> 
> ....*gay activist attempts to reduce (or repeal!) the age of consent in different countries, including America *(see, for example, the 1972 Gay Rights Platform), but the inescapable truth is clear: The gay activist closet has been opened, and the pedophile elephant is there.
> 
> Let gay activists demonstrate their categorical rejection of all forms of pedophilia and pederasty by denouncing its very obvious presence in gay history (from the ancient Greeks to Harvey Milk), by renouncing all gay attempts to lower (or eliminate) the age of consent, and by agreeing not to sexualize our children’s education.
> 
> Will they do that, or will they attack the messenger? We shall see.
> 
> The Pedophile Elephant in the Gay Activist Closet - Voice of Revolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of his anything to do with same sex marriage.  Nice red herring though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah it does -but that's not the entire content of the last dozen posts -which dealt with NAMBLA and "Shagging a Child" and slippery slopes etc....  Nice try at deflecting though -somehow I thought you were above that .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really doesn't.  It's that slippery slope fallacy attempting to tie in gay rights with pedophihlia.  NAMBLA, in case you haven't realized it, is not an "elephant" but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand.  Gay actovists don't have to demonstrate a "categorical rejection" of pedophilia any more than heterosexuals do.
Click to expand...


There is no fallacy, when the appeal to the slope is present... and as you pointed out, the evidence GreenBean produced, irrefutably demonstrates WHY the slope exists, that it is a creation of those whose intentions are to drive all standards of sexual propriety over the cliff they have created.

It's evil personified.  And it can no longer be tolerated and it will no longer be tolerated.  

What the Advocacy is about to discover is that they pushed themselves back into the closet.


----------



## Coyote

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> This fails as a straw man fallacy.
> 
> This issue concerns only two consenting adults eligible to enter into a marriage contract who are disallowed from doing so in violation of the Constitution.
> 
> To attempt to reference children is irrelevant demagoguery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?*  Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up.  I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No there isn't.  This is the typical slippery slope fallacy that you guys employ.
> 
> A person does not have the right to harm another person and that is what "shagging" a child does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ..... the great majority of homosexual men also deplore Sandusky’s alleged acts. At the same time, there is a very large pedophile elephant that is hiding in the gay activist closet. Dare we expose it?
> 
> Let’s start with our children’s schools, where GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight, Education Network, has long advocated for the celebration of homosexual history, using tools like “North American History Game Cards,” where elementary school children learn that famous Americans like Allen Ginsberg and Walt Whitman were gay.
> 
> What the children don’t learn is that if Whitman was a homosexual, he was also a pederast, that Ginsberg was a defender of NAMBLA, the notorious North American Man Boy Love Association, and that he (in)famously said, “*Attacks on NAMBLA stink of politics, witchhunting for profit, humorlessness, vanity, anger and ignorance. . . . I’m a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too — everybody does, who has a little humanity.”   ......................*............
> 
> From 2001-2006, Yale University’s LGBT program was greatly helped by the Larry Kramer Initiative for Lesbian and Gay Studies, named after the famous gay activist and author. *Kramer too was a NAMBLA supporter*, and in a 2004 speech in New York City, he spoke of a “sweet young boy who didn’t know anything and was in awe of me.* I was the first man who [had sex with] him. I think I murdered him*” (meaning, by infecting him with AIDS). Where is the gay outcry over this? ..............................
> 
> ....*gay activist attempts to reduce (or repeal!) the age of consent in different countries, including America *(see, for example, the 1972 Gay Rights Platform), but the inescapable truth is clear: The gay activist closet has been opened, and the pedophile elephant is there.
> 
> Let gay activists demonstrate their categorical rejection of all forms of pedophilia and pederasty by denouncing its very obvious presence in gay history (from the ancient Greeks to Harvey Milk), by renouncing all gay attempts to lower (or eliminate) the age of consent, and by agreeing not to sexualize our children’s education.
> 
> Will they do that, or will they attack the messenger? We shall see.
> 
> The Pedophile Elephant in the Gay Activist Closet - Voice of Revolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of his anything to do with same sex marriage.  Nice red herring though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They actually do, because they demonstrate the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality as a movement, thus demonstrating the nature of the slippery slope, as well as how the slope more closely resembles a cliff.
Click to expand...


A tiny group does.  A minority does not a slippery slope make.  Westboro Baptists anyone?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> This fails as a straw man fallacy.
> 
> This issue concerns only two consenting adults eligible to enter into a marriage contract who are disallowed from doing so in violation of the Constitution.
> 
> To attempt to reference children is irrelevant demagoguery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?*  Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up.  I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No there isn't.  This is the typical slippery slope fallacy that you guys employ.
> 
> A person does not have the right to harm another person and that is what "shagging" a child does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ..... the great majority of homosexual men also deplore Sandusky’s alleged acts. At the same time, there is a very large pedophile elephant that is hiding in the gay activist closet. Dare we expose it?
> 
> Let’s start with our children’s schools, where GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight, Education Network, has long advocated for the celebration of homosexual history, using tools like “North American History Game Cards,” where elementary school children learn that famous Americans like Allen Ginsberg and Walt Whitman were gay.
> 
> What the children don’t learn is that if Whitman was a homosexual, he was also a pederast, that Ginsberg was a defender of NAMBLA, the notorious North American Man Boy Love Association, and that he (in)famously said, “*Attacks on NAMBLA stink of politics, witchhunting for profit, humorlessness, vanity, anger and ignorance. . . . I’m a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too — everybody does, who has a little humanity.”   ......................*............
> 
> From 2001-2006, Yale University’s LGBT program was greatly helped by the Larry Kramer Initiative for Lesbian and Gay Studies, named after the famous gay activist and author. *Kramer too was a NAMBLA supporter*, and in a 2004 speech in New York City, he spoke of a “sweet young boy who didn’t know anything and was in awe of me.* I was the first man who [had sex with] him. I think I murdered him*” (meaning, by infecting him with AIDS). Where is the gay outcry over this? ..............................
> 
> ....*gay activist attempts to reduce (or repeal!) the age of consent in different countries, including America *(see, for example, the 1972 Gay Rights Platform), but the inescapable truth is clear: The gay activist closet has been opened, and the pedophile elephant is there.
> 
> Let gay activists demonstrate their categorical rejection of all forms of pedophilia and pederasty by denouncing its very obvious presence in gay history (from the ancient Greeks to Harvey Milk), by renouncing all gay attempts to lower (or eliminate) the age of consent, and by agreeing not to sexualize our children’s education.
> 
> Will they do that, or will they attack the messenger? We shall see.
> 
> The Pedophile Elephant in the Gay Activist Closet - Voice of Revolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of his anything to do with same sex marriage.  Nice red herring though.
Click to expand...


The thread isn't just about same sex marriage.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?*  Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up.  I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No there isn't.  This is the typical slippery slope fallacy that you guys employ.
> 
> A person does not have the right to harm another person and that is what "shagging" a child does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ..... the great majority of homosexual men also deplore Sandusky’s alleged acts. At the same time, there is a very large pedophile elephant that is hiding in the gay activist closet. Dare we expose it?
> 
> Let’s start with our children’s schools, where GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight, Education Network, has long advocated for the celebration of homosexual history, using tools like “North American History Game Cards,” where elementary school children learn that famous Americans like Allen Ginsberg and Walt Whitman were gay.
> 
> What the children don’t learn is that if Whitman was a homosexual, he was also a pederast, that Ginsberg was a defender of NAMBLA, the notorious North American Man Boy Love Association, and that he (in)famously said, “*Attacks on NAMBLA stink of politics, witchhunting for profit, humorlessness, vanity, anger and ignorance. . . . I’m a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too — everybody does, who has a little humanity.”   ......................*............
> 
> From 2001-2006, Yale University’s LGBT program was greatly helped by the Larry Kramer Initiative for Lesbian and Gay Studies, named after the famous gay activist and author. *Kramer too was a NAMBLA supporter*, and in a 2004 speech in New York City, he spoke of a “sweet young boy who didn’t know anything and was in awe of me.* I was the first man who [had sex with] him. I think I murdered him*” (meaning, by infecting him with AIDS). Where is the gay outcry over this? ..............................
> 
> ....*gay activist attempts to reduce (or repeal!) the age of consent in different countries, including America *(see, for example, the 1972 Gay Rights Platform), but the inescapable truth is clear: The gay activist closet has been opened, and the pedophile elephant is there.
> 
> Let gay activists demonstrate their categorical rejection of all forms of pedophilia and pederasty by denouncing its very obvious presence in gay history (from the ancient Greeks to Harvey Milk), by renouncing all gay attempts to lower (or eliminate) the age of consent, and by agreeing not to sexualize our children’s education.
> 
> Will they do that, or will they attack the messenger? We shall see.
> 
> The Pedophile Elephant in the Gay Activist Closet - Voice of Revolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of his anything to do with same sex marriage.  Nice red herring though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah it does -but that's not the entire content of the last dozen posts -which dealt with NAMBLA and "Shagging a Child" and slippery slopes etc....  Nice try at deflecting though -somehow I thought you were above that .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really doesn't.  It's that slippery slope fallacy attempting to tie in gay rights with pedophihlia.  NAMBLA, in case you haven't realized it, is not an "elephant" but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand.  Gay actovists don't have to demonstrate a "categorical rejection" of pedophilia any more than heterosexuals do.
Click to expand...


I wonder if the first pro gay organizations were "but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand".  I'm inspired to recall the famous saying, "Don't despise small beginnings."


----------



## bodecea

bodecea said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?*  Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up.  I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No there isn't.  This is the typical slippery slope fallacy that you guys employ.
> 
> A person does not have the right to harm another person and that is what "shagging" a child does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ..... the great majority of homosexual men also deplore Sandusky’s alleged acts. At the same time, there is a very large pedophile elephant that is hiding in the gay activist closet. Dare we expose it?
> 
> Let’s start with our children’s schools, where GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight, Education Network, has long advocated for the celebration of homosexual history, using tools like “North American History Game Cards,” where elementary school children learn that famous Americans like Allen Ginsberg and Walt Whitman were gay.
> 
> What the children don’t learn is that if Whitman was a homosexual, he was also a pederast, that Ginsberg was a defender of NAMBLA, the notorious North American Man Boy Love Association, and that he (in)famously said, “*Attacks on NAMBLA stink of politics, witchhunting for profit, humorlessness, vanity, anger and ignorance. . . . I’m a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too — everybody does, who has a little humanity.”   ......................*............
> 
> From 2001-2006, Yale University’s LGBT program was greatly helped by the Larry Kramer Initiative for Lesbian and Gay Studies, named after the famous gay activist and author. *Kramer too was a NAMBLA supporter*, and in a 2004 speech in New York City, he spoke of a “sweet young boy who didn’t know anything and was in awe of me.* I was the first man who [had sex with] him. I think I murdered him*” (meaning, by infecting him with AIDS). Where is the gay outcry over this? ..............................
> 
> ....*gay activist attempts to reduce (or repeal!) the age of consent in different countries, including America *(see, for example, the 1972 Gay Rights Platform), but the inescapable truth is clear: The gay activist closet has been opened, and the pedophile elephant is there.
> 
> Let gay activists demonstrate their categorical rejection of all forms of pedophilia and pederasty by denouncing its very obvious presence in gay history (from the ancient Greeks to Harvey Milk), by renouncing all gay attempts to lower (or eliminate) the age of consent, and by agreeing not to sexualize our children’s education.
> 
> Will they do that, or will they attack the messenger? We shall see.
> 
> The Pedophile Elephant in the Gay Activist Closet - Voice of Revolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of his anything to do with same sex marriage.  Nice red herring though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They actually do, because they demonstrate the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality as a movement, thus demonstrating the nature of the slippery slope, as well as how the slope more closely resembles a cliff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fathers, step-fathers, and family friends in heterosexual relationships are the biggest danger to children sexually.   And girls are victims way more....shall you blame that on gays too?
Click to expand...

Furthermore, children are in much greater danger of being either physically or sexually assaulted by a hetero male family member or friend than any stranger.


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No there isn't.  This is the typical slippery slope fallacy that you guys employ.
> 
> A person does not have the right to harm another person and that is what "shagging" a child does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..... the great majority of homosexual men also deplore Sandusky’s alleged acts. At the same time, there is a very large pedophile elephant that is hiding in the gay activist closet. Dare we expose it?
> 
> Let’s start with our children’s schools, where GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight, Education Network, has long advocated for the celebration of homosexual history, using tools like “North American History Game Cards,” where elementary school children learn that famous Americans like Allen Ginsberg and Walt Whitman were gay.
> 
> What the children don’t learn is that if Whitman was a homosexual, he was also a pederast, that Ginsberg was a defender of NAMBLA, the notorious North American Man Boy Love Association, and that he (in)famously said, “*Attacks on NAMBLA stink of politics, witchhunting for profit, humorlessness, vanity, anger and ignorance. . . . I’m a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too — everybody does, who has a little humanity.”   ......................*............
> 
> From 2001-2006, Yale University’s LGBT program was greatly helped by the Larry Kramer Initiative for Lesbian and Gay Studies, named after the famous gay activist and author. *Kramer too was a NAMBLA supporter*, and in a 2004 speech in New York City, he spoke of a “sweet young boy who didn’t know anything and was in awe of me.* I was the first man who [had sex with] him. I think I murdered him*” (meaning, by infecting him with AIDS). Where is the gay outcry over this? ..............................
> 
> ....*gay activist attempts to reduce (or repeal!) the age of consent in different countries, including America *(see, for example, the 1972 Gay Rights Platform), but the inescapable truth is clear: The gay activist closet has been opened, and the pedophile elephant is there.
> 
> Let gay activists demonstrate their categorical rejection of all forms of pedophilia and pederasty by denouncing its very obvious presence in gay history (from the ancient Greeks to Harvey Milk), by renouncing all gay attempts to lower (or eliminate) the age of consent, and by agreeing not to sexualize our children’s education.
> 
> Will they do that, or will they attack the messenger? We shall see.
> 
> The Pedophile Elephant in the Gay Activist Closet - Voice of Revolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of his anything to do with same sex marriage.  Nice red herring though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah it does -but that's not the entire content of the last dozen posts -which dealt with NAMBLA and "Shagging a Child" and slippery slopes etc....  Nice try at deflecting though -somehow I thought you were above that .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really doesn't.  It's that slippery slope fallacy attempting to tie in gay rights with pedophihlia.  NAMBLA, in case you haven't realized it, is not an "elephant" but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand.  Gay actovists don't have to demonstrate a "categorical rejection" of pedophilia any more than heterosexuals do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder if the first pro gay organizations were "but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand".  I'm inspired to recall the famous saying, "Don't despise small beginnings."
Click to expand...


NAMBLA is not new, yet it remains a few thousand, at most, marginalized and unsupported by the mainstream movement.  The movement for gay rights and same sex marriage has grown exponentially into the mainstream over the past 30 or more years.  NAMBLA has not.


----------



## bodecea

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... the great majority of homosexual men also deplore Sandusky’s alleged acts. At the same time, there is a very large pedophile elephant that is hiding in the gay activist closet. Dare we expose it?
> 
> Let’s start with our children’s schools, where GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight, Education Network, has long advocated for the celebration of homosexual history, using tools like “North American History Game Cards,” where elementary school children learn that famous Americans like Allen Ginsberg and Walt Whitman were gay.
> 
> What the children don’t learn is that if Whitman was a homosexual, he was also a pederast, that Ginsberg was a defender of NAMBLA, the notorious North American Man Boy Love Association, and that he (in)famously said, “*Attacks on NAMBLA stink of politics, witchhunting for profit, humorlessness, vanity, anger and ignorance. . . . I’m a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too — everybody does, who has a little humanity.”   ......................*............
> 
> From 2001-2006, Yale University’s LGBT program was greatly helped by the Larry Kramer Initiative for Lesbian and Gay Studies, named after the famous gay activist and author. *Kramer too was a NAMBLA supporter*, and in a 2004 speech in New York City, he spoke of a “sweet young boy who didn’t know anything and was in awe of me.* I was the first man who [had sex with] him. I think I murdered him*” (meaning, by infecting him with AIDS). Where is the gay outcry over this? ..............................
> 
> ....*gay activist attempts to reduce (or repeal!) the age of consent in different countries, including America *(see, for example, the 1972 Gay Rights Platform), but the inescapable truth is clear: The gay activist closet has been opened, and the pedophile elephant is there.
> 
> Let gay activists demonstrate their categorical rejection of all forms of pedophilia and pederasty by denouncing its very obvious presence in gay history (from the ancient Greeks to Harvey Milk), by renouncing all gay attempts to lower (or eliminate) the age of consent, and by agreeing not to sexualize our children’s education.
> 
> Will they do that, or will they attack the messenger? We shall see.
> 
> The Pedophile Elephant in the Gay Activist Closet - Voice of Revolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of his anything to do with same sex marriage.  Nice red herring though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah it does -but that's not the entire content of the last dozen posts -which dealt with NAMBLA and "Shagging a Child" and slippery slopes etc....  Nice try at deflecting though -somehow I thought you were above that .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really doesn't.  It's that slippery slope fallacy attempting to tie in gay rights with pedophihlia.  NAMBLA, in case you haven't realized it, is not an "elephant" but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand.  Gay actovists don't have to demonstrate a "categorical rejection" of pedophilia any more than heterosexuals do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder if the first pro gay organizations were "but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand".  I'm inspired to recall the famous saying, "Don't despise small beginnings."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NAMBLA is not new, yet it remains a few thousand, at most, marginalized and unsupported by the mainstream movement.  The movement for gay rights and same sex marriage has grown exponentially into the mainstream over the past 30 or more years.  NAMBLA has not.
Click to expand...

It seems we have to go to our hetero "anti-gay marriage" members to find out info about NAMBLA.  I sure as hell don't look up anything about that group.


----------



## GreenBean

Coyote -Gay Rights and Pedophile rights are all part of the same ball of wax.  The so called "slippery slope" you keep referring to began back in the 70s when the perverts infiltrated the APA - and they have been steadily gaining ground ever since .  They basically own the entertainment industry and there is nothing you are permitted to watch on the movies or TV that doesn't contain some element of Gay or leftist propaganda - they are weaseling their ways into the school system under devious guises and frames such as "Bullying"  which has been always been a fact of life - but framed properly it's a foot into the door and an opportunity to further indoctrinate children -you don't believe Gays want to indoctrinate Children - here's a quote from a mainstream gay publication - there are many many more - but this one suits the current issue ....

Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids Queerty

 " The younger generation doesn’t fear homosexuality as much because they’re exposed to fags on TV, online, and at school. And I don’t know a single lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender person who wants that to stop. I for one certainly want tons of school children to learn that it’s OK to be gay, that people of the same sex should be allowed to legally marry each other, and that anyone can kiss a person of the same sex without feeling like a freak. A*nd I would very much like for many of these young boys to grow up and start fucking men. I want lots of young ladies to develop into young women who voraciously munch box*."


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just said that the age of consent is a social overlay, so who's to say our culture is right and the culture in Saudi Arabia is wrong? What if children are ready for sex by the age of 12?  Who are you to stand in the way of their love and their civil rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm arguing from a * scientific viewpoint* that recognizes that sexual exploitation of prebuscent children is very damaging to the child.  In addition, child marriages in areas that do allow it are often very damaging to the girl - physically (because she is not mature enough for child birth), educationally (because her education stops) and she is frequently a victim of abuse.  "Age of consent" is cultural  in that it spans an age from 12-18 (a few have no minimum) but child advocate groups are trying to make it at least 16.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *But why aren't we letting HER decide when she's mature enough?  *If she's old enough to have a constitutional right to an abortion without her parents' permission, isn't she old enough to decide when she's ready for sex with a 30 year old man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because by legal definition she isn't.
> 
> The other is an attempt to side track this into another argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, right. The "social overlay" again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, this one is the legal overlay since we are, after all, arguing law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that subjective and therefore an insufficient reason to deny that 12 year old girl her 14th Amendment rights to sex with an adult?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Children have never had the same rights as adults.
Click to expand...


And there was a time when women and blacks didn't have the same rights as men and white people.  Amazing how all the Leftist arguments are backfiring.  Maybe children and their adult lovers are the new Selma and Alice Paul that you're oppressing.  Why are you to say their love is wrong?  Why aren't their constitutional rights to asymmetrical sex being respected?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> A tiny group does.  A minority does not a slippery slope make.  Westboro Baptists anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It literally does... because the minority is pushing the agenda.
> 
> There is no Christian acceptance of Westboro, unanimously the Christian community rejects them OVERTLY.
> 
> Such is not the case with the mouthy, would-be minority of the Militant sect of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality cult.
> 
> In thread after thread, I have set forth the the request for the professed homosexuals participating in such, IF they rejected the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... to this moment, I have not had a single one stand up against it.
> 
> You included...
> 
> But I sense that you're desirous to separate yourself from the pack...
> 
> Do you accept or reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification?
> 
> If no, why not?
> 
> If so, on what basis do you reject it?
Click to expand...


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm arguing from a * scientific viewpoint* that recognizes that sexual exploitation of prebuscent children is very damaging to the child.  In addition, child marriages in areas that do allow it are often very damaging to the girl - physically (because she is not mature enough for child birth), educationally (because her education stops) and she is frequently a victim of abuse.  "Age of consent" is cultural  in that it spans an age from 12-18 (a few have no minimum) but child advocate groups are trying to make it at least 16.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *But why aren't we letting HER decide when she's mature enough?  *If she's old enough to have a constitutional right to an abortion without her parents' permission, isn't she old enough to decide when she's ready for sex with a 30 year old man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because by legal definition she isn't.
> 
> The other is an attempt to side track this into another argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, right. The "social overlay" again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, this one is the legal overlay since we are, after all, arguing law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that subjective and therefore an insufficient reason to deny that 12 year old girl her 14th Amendment rights to sex with an adult?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Children have never had the same rights as adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there was a time when women and blacks didn't have the same rights as men and white people.  Amazing how all the Leftist arguments are backfiring.  Maybe children and their adult lovers are the new Selma and Alice Paul that you're oppressing.  Why are you to say their love is wrong?  Why aren't their constitutional rights to asymmetrical sex being respected?
Click to expand...

Are you another one of those posters who cannot tell the difference between adult consent and minors not having that ability to legally consent?


----------



## GreenBean

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... the great majority of homosexual men also deplore Sandusky’s alleged acts. At the same time, there is a very large pedophile elephant that is hiding in the gay activist closet. Dare we expose it?
> 
> Let’s start with our children’s schools, where GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight, Education Network, has long advocated for the celebration of homosexual history, using tools like “North American History Game Cards,” where elementary school children learn that famous Americans like Allen Ginsberg and Walt Whitman were gay.
> 
> What the children don’t learn is that if Whitman was a homosexual, he was also a pederast, that Ginsberg was a defender of NAMBLA, the notorious North American Man Boy Love Association, and that he (in)famously said, “*Attacks on NAMBLA stink of politics, witchhunting for profit, humorlessness, vanity, anger and ignorance. . . . I’m a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too — everybody does, who has a little humanity.”   ......................*............
> 
> From 2001-2006, Yale University’s LGBT program was greatly helped by the Larry Kramer Initiative for Lesbian and Gay Studies, named after the famous gay activist and author. *Kramer too was a NAMBLA supporter*, and in a 2004 speech in New York City, he spoke of a “sweet young boy who didn’t know anything and was in awe of me.* I was the first man who [had sex with] him. I think I murdered him*” (meaning, by infecting him with AIDS). Where is the gay outcry over this? ..............................
> 
> ....*gay activist attempts to reduce (or repeal!) the age of consent in different countries, including America *(see, for example, the 1972 Gay Rights Platform), but the inescapable truth is clear: The gay activist closet has been opened, and the pedophile elephant is there.
> 
> Let gay activists demonstrate their categorical rejection of all forms of pedophilia and pederasty by denouncing its very obvious presence in gay history (from the ancient Greeks to Harvey Milk), by renouncing all gay attempts to lower (or eliminate) the age of consent, and by agreeing not to sexualize our children’s education.
> 
> Will they do that, or will they attack the messenger? We shall see.
> 
> The Pedophile Elephant in the Gay Activist Closet - Voice of Revolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of his anything to do with same sex marriage.  Nice red herring though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah it does -but that's not the entire content of the last dozen posts -which dealt with NAMBLA and "Shagging a Child" and slippery slopes etc....  Nice try at deflecting though -somehow I thought you were above that .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really doesn't.  It's that slippery slope fallacy attempting to tie in gay rights with pedophihlia.  NAMBLA, in case you haven't realized it, is not an "elephant" but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand.  Gay actovists don't have to demonstrate a "categorical rejection" of pedophilia any more than heterosexuals do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder if the first pro gay organizations were "but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand".  I'm inspired to recall the famous saying, "Don't despise small beginnings."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NAMBLA is not new, yet it remains a few thousand, at most, marginalized and unsupported by the mainstream movement.  The movement for gay rights and same sex marriage has grown exponentially into the mainstream over the past 30 or more years.  NAMBLA has not.
Click to expand...



NAMBLA is just one small group , and the most well known one, and the most outspoken - there are others who engage in kiddie porn and varying phases of child molestation - all proponents of gay marriage - all who applaud your defense of them .  Pederasty  and homosexuality are different aspects of the same class of dementia  / sexual dysphoria and pederasts are predominantly prone to homosexuality  just as a disproportionate amount of homos are prone to pederasty - so why not let them get their hands on the kids - I mean wtf even pederasts have rights .


----------



## hipeter924

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what if a child did consent to it?  Who are you to tell that child their love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't love, it is taking advantage of a child below the age of consent (which is 16-18 in most states). Children below that age have underdeveloped brains, and can easily be taken advantage of or abused by adults - children can be conditioned to view their abusers behavior as normal or even acceptable but that doesn't make it right.
> 
> Then there is always Stockholm syndrome: Stockholm syndrome - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Stockholm syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of _Kreditbanken_ at Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm, Sweden, in which several bank employees were held hostage in a bank vault from August 23 to 28, 1973, while their captors negotiated with police. *During this standoff, the victims became emotionally attached to their captors, rejected assistance from government officials at one point, and even defended their captors after they were freed from their six-day ordeal.*[6] The term was coined by the criminologist and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot as "Norrmalmstorgssyndromet" (Swedish), directly translated as The Norrmalmstorg Syndrome, but then later became known abroad as the Stockholm syndrome.[7] It was originally defined by psychiatrist Frank Ochberg to aid the management of hostage situations.[8]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you saying that children wanting to have sex with an adult is a mental disorder?  Do you think that NAMBLA might succeed in getting that reference dropped by the APA like you guys did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all child molesters are pedophiles, and even if they are pedophiles they can still be attracted to other adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what are you saying..that if there's dual sexualities that's good reason to deny someone their rights?
Click to expand...

Child abuse isn't a human right, even if the child 'likes it'.


----------



## GreenBean

bodecea said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of his anything to do with same sex marriage.  Nice red herring though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah it does -but that's not the entire content of the last dozen posts -which dealt with NAMBLA and "Shagging a Child" and slippery slopes etc....  Nice try at deflecting though -somehow I thought you were above that .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really doesn't.  It's that slippery slope fallacy attempting to tie in gay rights with pedophihlia.  NAMBLA, in case you haven't realized it, is not an "elephant" but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand.  Gay actovists don't have to demonstrate a "categorical rejection" of pedophilia any more than heterosexuals do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder if the first pro gay organizations were "but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand".  I'm inspired to recall the famous saying, "Don't despise small beginnings."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NAMBLA is not new, yet it remains a few thousand, at most, marginalized and unsupported by the mainstream movement.  The movement for gay rights and same sex marriage has grown exponentially into the mainstream over the past 30 or more years.  NAMBLA has not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems we have to go to our hetero "anti-gay marriage" members to find out info about NAMBLA.  I sure as hell don't look up anything about that group.
Click to expand...


Bodecea  - long time no see - How ya been ya slimy little shitsack ?


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm arguing from a * scientific viewpoint* that recognizes that sexual exploitation of prebuscent children is very damaging to the child.  In addition, child marriages in areas that do allow it are often very damaging to the girl - physically (because she is not mature enough for child birth), educationally (because her education stops) and she is frequently a victim of abuse.  "Age of consent" is cultural  in that it spans an age from 12-18 (a few have no minimum) but child advocate groups are trying to make it at least 16.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *But why aren't we letting HER decide when she's mature enough?  *If she's old enough to have a constitutional right to an abortion without her parents' permission, isn't she old enough to decide when she's ready for sex with a 30 year old man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because by legal definition she isn't.
> 
> The other is an attempt to side track this into another argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, right. The "social overlay" again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, this one is the legal overlay since we are, after all, arguing law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that subjective and therefore an insufficient reason to deny that 12 year old girl her 14th Amendment rights to sex with an adult?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Children have never had the same rights as adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there was a time when women and blacks didn't have the same rights as men and white people.  Amazing how all the Leftist arguments are backfiring.  Maybe children and their adult lovers are the new Selma and Alice Paul that you're oppressing.  Why are you to say their love is wrong?  Why aren't their constitutional rights to asymmetrical sex being respected?
Click to expand...


Children have never constitutionally had the same rights as adults.  Why is that?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... the great majority of homosexual men also deplore Sandusky’s alleged acts. At the same time, there is a very large pedophile elephant that is hiding in the gay activist closet. Dare we expose it?
> 
> Let’s start with our children’s schools, where GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight, Education Network, has long advocated for the celebration of homosexual history, using tools like “North American History Game Cards,” where elementary school children learn that famous Americans like Allen Ginsberg and Walt Whitman were gay.
> 
> What the children don’t learn is that if Whitman was a homosexual, he was also a pederast, that Ginsberg was a defender of NAMBLA, the notorious North American Man Boy Love Association, and that he (in)famously said, “*Attacks on NAMBLA stink of politics, witchhunting for profit, humorlessness, vanity, anger and ignorance. . . . I’m a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too — everybody does, who has a little humanity.”   ......................*............
> 
> From 2001-2006, Yale University’s LGBT program was greatly helped by the Larry Kramer Initiative for Lesbian and Gay Studies, named after the famous gay activist and author. *Kramer too was a NAMBLA supporter*, and in a 2004 speech in New York City, he spoke of a “sweet young boy who didn’t know anything and was in awe of me.* I was the first man who [had sex with] him. I think I murdered him*” (meaning, by infecting him with AIDS). Where is the gay outcry over this? ..............................
> 
> ....*gay activist attempts to reduce (or repeal!) the age of consent in different countries, including America *(see, for example, the 1972 Gay Rights Platform), but the inescapable truth is clear: The gay activist closet has been opened, and the pedophile elephant is there.
> 
> Let gay activists demonstrate their categorical rejection of all forms of pedophilia and pederasty by denouncing its very obvious presence in gay history (from the ancient Greeks to Harvey Milk), by renouncing all gay attempts to lower (or eliminate) the age of consent, and by agreeing not to sexualize our children’s education.
> 
> Will they do that, or will they attack the messenger? We shall see.
> 
> The Pedophile Elephant in the Gay Activist Closet - Voice of Revolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of his anything to do with same sex marriage.  Nice red herring though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah it does -but that's not the entire content of the last dozen posts -which dealt with NAMBLA and "Shagging a Child" and slippery slopes etc....  Nice try at deflecting though -somehow I thought you were above that .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really doesn't.  It's that slippery slope fallacy attempting to tie in gay rights with pedophihlia.  NAMBLA, in case you haven't realized it, is not an "elephant" but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand.  Gay actovists don't have to demonstrate a "categorical rejection" of pedophilia any more than heterosexuals do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder if the first pro gay organizations were "but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand".  I'm inspired to recall the famous saying, "Don't despise small beginnings."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NAMBLA is not new, yet it remains a few thousand, at most, marginalized and unsupported by the mainstream movement.  The movement for gay rights and same sex marriage has grown exponentially into the mainstream over the past 30 or more years.  NAMBLA has not.
Click to expand...


So they're not the popular movement right now and have to wait their turn in line.  Who's to say they can't use the same convoluted arguments the Left has used to find gay marriage "rights" in the Constitution?  Why is their love so wrong?  Maybe someday pedophobes will be the new haters, people like you who want to decide who can love who and who can marry who.  What puritanical bigotry is it that drives your hate and your narrow view of morality?


----------



## Carib Gyal

There is no argument for gay marriage that doesn't apply to global plural marriage. What would be the limit on plural marriage, 20, 100, 2,000? That's as blatantly discriminatory as 2. If the government can limit marriage to mean between 2 people, it can also limit it to 2 people of the same race, and we're back to where we started.


----------



## Coyote

GreenBean said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of his anything to do with same sex marriage.  Nice red herring though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah it does -but that's not the entire content of the last dozen posts -which dealt with NAMBLA and "Shagging a Child" and slippery slopes etc....  Nice try at deflecting though -somehow I thought you were above that .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really doesn't.  It's that slippery slope fallacy attempting to tie in gay rights with pedophihlia.  NAMBLA, in case you haven't realized it, is not an "elephant" but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand.  Gay actovists don't have to demonstrate a "categorical rejection" of pedophilia any more than heterosexuals do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder if the first pro gay organizations were "but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand".  I'm inspired to recall the famous saying, "Don't despise small beginnings."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NAMBLA is not new, yet it remains a few thousand, at most, marginalized and unsupported by the mainstream movement.  The movement for gay rights and same sex marriage has grown exponentially into the mainstream over the past 30 or more years.  NAMBLA has not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NAMBLA is just one small group , and the most well known one, and the most outspoken - there are others who engage in kiddie porn and varying phases of child molestation - all proponents of gay marriage - all who applaud your defense of them .  Pederasty  and homosexuality are different aspects of the same class of dementia  / sexual dysphoria and pederasts are predominantly prone to homosexuality  just as a disproportionate amount of homos are prone to pederasty - so why not let them get their hands on the kids - I mean wtf even pederasts have rights .
Click to expand...


Sure.  Pederasts have rights.  But as another pointed out - child abuse is not one of those rights.

Homosexuality is not classified as dementia.

 A "disproportionate" number of homos are prone to pederasty yet a disproportionate number of "heteros" are prone to pedophilia (far more girls are victims then boys)...is child abuse a fundamental right in your view?


----------



## bodecea

hipeter924 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what if a child did consent to it?  Who are you to tell that child their love is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't love, it is taking advantage of a child below the age of consent (which is 16-18 in most states). Children below that age have underdeveloped brains, and can easily be taken advantage of or abused by adults - children can be conditioned to view their abusers behavior as normal or even acceptable but that doesn't make it right.
> 
> Then there is always Stockholm syndrome: Stockholm syndrome - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Stockholm syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of _Kreditbanken_ at Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm, Sweden, in which several bank employees were held hostage in a bank vault from August 23 to 28, 1973, while their captors negotiated with police. *During this standoff, the victims became emotionally attached to their captors, rejected assistance from government officials at one point, and even defended their captors after they were freed from their six-day ordeal.*[6] The term was coined by the criminologist and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot as "Norrmalmstorgssyndromet" (Swedish), directly translated as The Norrmalmstorg Syndrome, but then later became known abroad as the Stockholm syndrome.[7] It was originally defined by psychiatrist Frank Ochberg to aid the management of hostage situations.[8]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you saying that children wanting to have sex with an adult is a mental disorder?  Do you think that NAMBLA might succeed in getting that reference dropped by the APA like you guys did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all child molesters are pedophiles, and even if they are pedophiles they can still be attracted to other adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what are you saying..that if there's dual sexualities that's good reason to deny someone their rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Child abuse isn't a human right, even if the child 'likes it'.
Click to expand...

Exactly....that's what statutory rape is about.  And I'm glad to see the age of consent going UP, not down.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

hipeter924 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what if a child did consent to it?  Who are you to tell that child their love is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't love, it is taking advantage of a child below the age of consent (which is 16-18 in most states). Children below that age have underdeveloped brains, and can easily be taken advantage of or abused by adults - children can be conditioned to view their abusers behavior as normal or even acceptable but that doesn't make it right.
> 
> Then there is always Stockholm syndrome: Stockholm syndrome - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Stockholm syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of _Kreditbanken_ at Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm, Sweden, in which several bank employees were held hostage in a bank vault from August 23 to 28, 1973, while their captors negotiated with police. *During this standoff, the victims became emotionally attached to their captors, rejected assistance from government officials at one point, and even defended their captors after they were freed from their six-day ordeal.*[6] The term was coined by the criminologist and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot as "Norrmalmstorgssyndromet" (Swedish), directly translated as The Norrmalmstorg Syndrome, but then later became known abroad as the Stockholm syndrome.[7] It was originally defined by psychiatrist Frank Ochberg to aid the management of hostage situations.[8]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you saying that children wanting to have sex with an adult is a mental disorder?  Do you think that NAMBLA might succeed in getting that reference dropped by the APA like you guys did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all child molesters are pedophiles, and even if they are pedophiles they can still be attracted to other adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what are you saying..that if there's dual sexualities that's good reason to deny someone their rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Child abuse isn't a human right, even if the child 'likes it'.
Click to expand...


Your backward, narrow, religiously dogmatic views of morality will have to give way to love.  Who are you to decide their love is wrong?  Aren't you the guys telling us that there are different kinds of love and they're all equal? What happened that you became such a repressed pedophobe?


----------



## bodecea

GreenBean said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah it does -but that's not the entire content of the last dozen posts -which dealt with NAMBLA and "Shagging a Child" and slippery slopes etc....  Nice try at deflecting though -somehow I thought you were above that .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It really doesn't.  It's that slippery slope fallacy attempting to tie in gay rights with pedophihlia.  NAMBLA, in case you haven't realized it, is not an "elephant" but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand.  Gay actovists don't have to demonstrate a "categorical rejection" of pedophilia any more than heterosexuals do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder if the first pro gay organizations were "but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand".  I'm inspired to recall the famous saying, "Don't despise small beginnings."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NAMBLA is not new, yet it remains a few thousand, at most, marginalized and unsupported by the mainstream movement.  The movement for gay rights and same sex marriage has grown exponentially into the mainstream over the past 30 or more years.  NAMBLA has not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems we have to go to our hetero "anti-gay marriage" members to find out info about NAMBLA.  I sure as hell don't look up anything about that group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bodecea  - long time no see - How ya been ya slimy little shitsack ?
Click to expand...

I'm doing just fine.  My wife, daughter and I had a lovely holiday.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But why aren't we letting HER decide when she's mature enough?  *If she's old enough to have a constitutional right to an abortion without her parents' permission, isn't she old enough to decide when she's ready for sex with a 30 year old man?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because by legal definition she isn't.
> 
> The other is an attempt to side track this into another argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, right. The "social overlay" again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, this one is the legal overlay since we are, after all, arguing law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that subjective and therefore an insufficient reason to deny that 12 year old girl her 14th Amendment rights to sex with an adult?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Children have never had the same rights as adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there was a time when women and blacks didn't have the same rights as men and white people.  Amazing how all the Leftist arguments are backfiring.  Maybe children and their adult lovers are the new Selma and Alice Paul that you're oppressing.  Why are you to say their love is wrong?  Why aren't their constitutional rights to asymmetrical sex being respected?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you another one of those posters who cannot tell the difference between adult consent and minors not having that ability to legally consent?
Click to expand...

He's one of those demagogues who attempts to cloud the issue as a consequence of having lost the argument.


----------



## Coyote

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of his anything to do with same sex marriage.  Nice red herring though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah it does -but that's not the entire content of the last dozen posts -which dealt with NAMBLA and "Shagging a Child" and slippery slopes etc....  Nice try at deflecting though -somehow I thought you were above that .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really doesn't.  It's that slippery slope fallacy attempting to tie in gay rights with pedophihlia.  NAMBLA, in case you haven't realized it, is not an "elephant" but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand.  Gay actovists don't have to demonstrate a "categorical rejection" of pedophilia any more than heterosexuals do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder if the first pro gay organizations were "but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand".  I'm inspired to recall the famous saying, "Don't despise small beginnings."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NAMBLA is not new, yet it remains a few thousand, at most, marginalized and unsupported by the mainstream movement.  The movement for gay rights and same sex marriage has grown exponentially into the mainstream over the past 30 or more years.  NAMBLA has not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So they're not the popular movement right now and have to wait their turn in line.  Who's to say they can't use the same convoluted arguments the Left has used to find gay marriage "rights" in the Constitution?  Why is their love so wrong?  Maybe someday pedophobes will be the new haters, people like you who want to decide who can love who and who can marry who.  What puritanical bigotry is it that drives your hate and your narrow view of morality?
Click to expand...


Actually, NAMBLA is apparently defunct now.  It couldn't even maintain it's thousand.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't love, it is taking advantage of a child below the age of consent (which is 16-18 in most states). Children below that age have underdeveloped brains, and can easily be taken advantage of or abused by adults - children can be conditioned to view their abusers behavior as normal or even acceptable but that doesn't make it right.
> 
> Then there is always Stockholm syndrome: Stockholm syndrome - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying that children wanting to have sex with an adult is a mental disorder?  Do you think that NAMBLA might succeed in getting that reference dropped by the APA like you guys did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all child molesters are pedophiles, and even if they are pedophiles they can still be attracted to other adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what are you saying..that if there's dual sexualities that's good reason to deny someone their rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Child abuse isn't a human right, even if the child 'likes it'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your backward, narrow, religiously dogmatic views of morality will have to give way to love.  Who are you to decide their love is wrong?  Aren't you the guys telling us that there are different kinds of love and they're all equal? What happened that you became such a repressed pedophobe?
Click to expand...

Well now.  Now we know.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> A tiny group does.  A minority does not a slippery slope make.  Westboro Baptists anyone?



It literally does... because the minority is pushing the agenda.

There is no Christian acceptance of Westboro, unanimously the Christian community rejects them OVERTLY.

Such is not the case with the mouthy, would-be minority of the Militant sect of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality cult.

In thread after thread, I have set forth the the request for the professed homosexuals participating in such, IF they rejected the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... to this moment, I have not had a single one stand up against it.

You included...

But I sense that you're desirous to separate yourself from the pack...

Do you accept or reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification?

If no, why not?

If so, on what basis do you reject it?


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation.  It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that depends. Every other generation didn't celebrate it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet here it is. Now the question you have to ask yourself is.....so what?
> 
> There are certain things that are wrong because they cause genuine harm (rape, murder, theft) and certain things that are wrong because someone believes the are (pork, gays, cheeseburgers, working on sunday). We're rational enough in this day and age to glean that homosexuality is clearly in that latter camp.
> 
> Which begs the question, why should we give a fuck? They're just people. Treat them like people and be done with it. Generally speaking, how a person gets their nut is about the least interesting thing about them.
Click to expand...


I posted this before. The left has cheapened marriage and family by the relaxation of societal rules concerning divorce, welfare, and single motherhood. In fact, the left HAS HARMED the family unit. Will  gay marriage add another nail to the coffin? I don't know, but based on the past history of change, you have no basis to state that is will cause no harm. And again, based on past history, it is highly likely that homosexual marriage will fall in the former camp of your post.

Mark


----------



## GreenBean

Coyote said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... the great majority of homosexual men also deplore Sandusky’s alleged acts. At the same time, there is a very large pedophile elephant that is hiding in the gay activist closet. Dare we expose it?
> 
> Let’s start with our children’s schools, where GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight, Education Network, has long advocated for the celebration of homosexual history, using tools like “North American History Game Cards,” where elementary school children learn that famous Americans like Allen Ginsberg and Walt Whitman were gay.
> 
> What the children don’t learn is that if Whitman was a homosexual, he was also a pederast, that Ginsberg was a defender of NAMBLA, the notorious North American Man Boy Love Association, and that he (in)famously said, “*Attacks on NAMBLA stink of politics, witchhunting for profit, humorlessness, vanity, anger and ignorance. . . . I’m a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too — everybody does, who has a little humanity.”   ......................*............
> 
> From 2001-2006, Yale University’s LGBT program was greatly helped by the Larry Kramer Initiative for Lesbian and Gay Studies, named after the famous gay activist and author. *Kramer too was a NAMBLA supporter*, and in a 2004 speech in New York City, he spoke of a “sweet young boy who didn’t know anything and was in awe of me.* I was the first man who [had sex with] him. I think I murdered him*” (meaning, by infecting him with AIDS). Where is the gay outcry over this? ..............................
> 
> ....*gay activist attempts to reduce (or repeal!) the age of consent in different countries, including America *(see, for example, the 1972 Gay Rights Platform), but the inescapable truth is clear: The gay activist closet has been opened, and the pedophile elephant is there.
> 
> Let gay activists demonstrate their categorical rejection of all forms of pedophilia and pederasty by denouncing its very obvious presence in gay history (from the ancient Greeks to Harvey Milk), by renouncing all gay attempts to lower (or eliminate) the age of consent, and by agreeing not to sexualize our children’s education.
> 
> Will they do that, or will they attack the messenger? We shall see.
> 
> The Pedophile Elephant in the Gay Activist Closet - Voice of Revolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of his anything to do with same sex marriage.  Nice red herring though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They actually do, because they demonstrate the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality as a movement, thus demonstrating the nature of the slippery slope, as well as how the slope more closely resembles a cliff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fathers, step-fathers, and family friends in heterosexual relationships are the biggest danger to children sexually.   And girls are victims way more....shall you blame that on gays too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Furthermore, children are in much greater danger of being either physically or sexually assaulted by a hetero male family member or friend than any stranger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those damn heteros....
> 
> Here's something interesting: List of pedophile activist organizations - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> *USA*
> 
> [1]
> Childhood Sesuality Circle (CSC). Founded in 1971 in San Diego (California) by a student of Wilhelm Reich.[3] CSC closed down in the mid-1980s, when Valida Davila became too frail to continue with it.
> North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). 1978–present. Largely defunct.
> Pedophile Information Society. Defunct?
> Project Truth. One of the organizations which was expulsed from ILGA in 1994 as a pedophile organization.[14] Defunct.
> B4U-ACT Established in 2003 as a 501(c)(3) organization in Westminster, MD. Co-founder and Board Chair, Russell A. Dick. Website, B4U-ACT
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But why aren't we letting HER decide when she's mature enough?  *If she's old enough to have a constitutional right to an abortion without her parents' permission, isn't she old enough to decide when she's ready for sex with a 30 year old man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because by legal definition she isn't.
> 
> The other is an attempt to side track this into another argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, right. The "social overlay" again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, this one is the legal overlay since we are, after all, arguing law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that subjective and therefore an insufficient reason to deny that 12 year old girl her 14th Amendment rights to sex with an adult?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Children have never had the same rights as adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there was a time when women and blacks didn't have the same rights as men and white people.  Amazing how all the Leftist arguments are backfiring.  Maybe children and their adult lovers are the new Selma and Alice Paul that you're oppressing.  Why are you to say their love is wrong?  Why aren't their constitutional rights to asymmetrical sex being respected?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children have never constitutionally had the same rights as adults.  Why is that?
Click to expand...


You forgot all the groups who don't advertise the fact that they are pro-pedophile.  Such as GLSEN for starters 

You may also recall that Mr. Obama appointed Kevin Jennings, founder of the “Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network,” or GLSEN, to the post of “safe schools czar.” The position is now defunct, ostensibly due to national outrage over Jennings’ appointment.

In keeping with the thinly veiled goals of B4U-ACT, GLSEN seems to be “running interference” for pedophiles,* having tacitly advocated adult-child sex through its “recommended reading list” for kids.


Ref:  The homosexual Left 8217 s new crusade Normalizing adult-child sex Opinion LifeSite*


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying that children wanting to have sex with an adult is a mental disorder?  Do you think that NAMBLA might succeed in getting that reference dropped by the APA like you guys did?
> 
> 
> 
> Not all child molesters are pedophiles, and even if they are pedophiles they can still be attracted to other adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what are you saying..that if there's dual sexualities that's good reason to deny someone their rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Child abuse isn't a human right, even if the child 'likes it'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your backward, narrow, religiously dogmatic views of morality will have to give way to love.  Who are you to decide their love is wrong?  Aren't you the guys telling us that there are different kinds of love and they're all equal? What happened that you became such a repressed pedophobe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well now.  Now we know.
Click to expand...


That homosexuality is inextricably linked to pederasty?  Yes, that's been known for many centuries.


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> A tiny group does.  A minority does not a slippery slope make.  Westboro Baptists anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It literally does... because the minority is pushing the agenda.
> 
> There is no Christian acceptance of Westboro, unanimously the Christian community rejects them OVERTLY.
> 
> Such is not the case with the mouthy, would-be minority of the Militant sect of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality cult.
> 
> *In thread after thread, I have set forth the the request for the professed homosexuals participating in such, IF they rejected the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... to this moment, I have not had a single one stand up against it.*
> 
> You included...
> 
> But I sense that you're desirous to separate yourself from the pack...
> 
> Do you accept or reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification?
> 
> If no, why not?
> 
> If so, on what basis do you reject it?
Click to expand...

I don't recall you asking me.  But as I've already said....I am glad to see the age of consent trending UP and not down (except for in the bible belt).   Of course I reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification....and if you paid attention to my posting history, you would already have known that.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

GreenBean said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of his anything to do with same sex marriage.  Nice red herring though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They actually do, because they demonstrate the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality as a movement, thus demonstrating the nature of the slippery slope, as well as how the slope more closely resembles a cliff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fathers, step-fathers, and family friends in heterosexual relationships are the biggest danger to children sexually.   And girls are victims way more....shall you blame that on gays too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Furthermore, children are in much greater danger of being either physically or sexually assaulted by a hetero male family member or friend than any stranger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those damn heteros....
> 
> Here's something interesting: List of pedophile activist organizations - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> *USA*
> 
> [1]
> Childhood Sesuality Circle (CSC). Founded in 1971 in San Diego (California) by a student of Wilhelm Reich.[3] CSC closed down in the mid-1980s, when Valida Davila became too frail to continue with it.
> North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). 1978–present. Largely defunct.
> Pedophile Information Society. Defunct?
> Project Truth. One of the organizations which was expulsed from ILGA in 1994 as a pedophile organization.[14] Defunct.
> B4U-ACT Established in 2003 as a 501(c)(3) organization in Westminster, MD. Co-founder and Board Chair, Russell A. Dick. Website, B4U-ACT
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because by legal definition she isn't.
> 
> The other is an attempt to side track this into another argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, right. The "social overlay" again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, this one is the legal overlay since we are, after all, arguing law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that subjective and therefore an insufficient reason to deny that 12 year old girl her 14th Amendment rights to sex with an adult?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Children have never had the same rights as adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there was a time when women and blacks didn't have the same rights as men and white people.  Amazing how all the Leftist arguments are backfiring.  Maybe children and their adult lovers are the new Selma and Alice Paul that you're oppressing.  Why are you to say their love is wrong?  Why aren't their constitutional rights to asymmetrical sex being respected?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children have never constitutionally had the same rights as adults.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot all the groups who don't advertise the fact that they are pro-pedophile.  Such as GLSEN for starters
> 
> You may also recall that Mr. Obama appointed Kevin Jennings, founder of the “Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network,” or GLSEN, to the post of “safe schools czar.” The position is now defunct, ostensibly due to national outrage over Jennings’ appointment.
> 
> In keeping with the thinly veiled goals of B4U-ACT, GLSEN seems to be “running interference” for pedophiles,* having tacitly advocated adult-child sex through its “recommended reading list” for kids.
> 
> 
> Ref:  The homosexual Left 8217 s new crusade Normalizing adult-child sex Opinion LifeSite*
Click to expand...



NAMBLA is the tip of the child lover ice berg, a huge underground movement of pedophiles and pederasts that finds sanctuary in the fertile soil of the gay movement.


----------



## GreenBean

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah it does -but that's not the entire content of the last dozen posts -which dealt with NAMBLA and "Shagging a Child" and slippery slopes etc....  Nice try at deflecting though -somehow I thought you were above that .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It really doesn't.  It's that slippery slope fallacy attempting to tie in gay rights with pedophihlia.  NAMBLA, in case you haven't realized it, is not an "elephant" but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand.  Gay actovists don't have to demonstrate a "categorical rejection" of pedophilia any more than heterosexuals do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder if the first pro gay organizations were "but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand".  I'm inspired to recall the famous saying, "Don't despise small beginnings."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NAMBLA is not new, yet it remains a few thousand, at most, marginalized and unsupported by the mainstream movement.  The movement for gay rights and same sex marriage has grown exponentially into the mainstream over the past 30 or more years.  NAMBLA has not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So they're not the popular movement right now and have to wait their turn in line.  Who's to say they can't use the same convoluted arguments the Left has used to find gay marriage "rights" in the Constitution?  Why is their love so wrong?  Maybe someday pedophobes will be the new haters, people like you who want to decide who can love who and who can marry who.  What puritanical bigotry is it that drives your hate and your narrow view of morality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, NAMBLA is apparently defunct now.  It couldn't even maintain it's thousand.
Click to expand...


Get Real Coyote - Howe many Pedophiles do you think will actually walk around with a target on their back saying I'm a NAMBLA member.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not all child molesters are pedophiles, and even if they are pedophiles they can still be attracted to other adults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what are you saying..that if there's dual sexualities that's good reason to deny someone their rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Child abuse isn't a human right, even if the child 'likes it'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your backward, narrow, religiously dogmatic views of morality will have to give way to love.  Who are you to decide their love is wrong?  Aren't you the guys telling us that there are different kinds of love and they're all equal? What happened that you became such a repressed pedophobe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well now.  Now we know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That homosexuality is inextricably linked to pederasty?  Yes, that's been known for many centuries.
Click to expand...

Actually, hetero adult male family members and friends are more closely related to pederasty.   That's why when there is such a crime, fathers, step-fathers, grandfathers, uncles, cousins, brothers and family friends are suspects before all others.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> A tiny group does.  A minority does not a slippery slope make.  Westboro Baptists anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It literally does... because the minority is pushing the agenda.
> 
> There is no Christian acceptance of Westboro, unanimously the Christian community rejects them OVERTLY.
> 
> Such is not the case with the mouthy, would-be minority of the Militant sect of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality cult.
> 
> *In thread after thread, I have set forth the the request for the professed homosexuals participating in such, IF they rejected the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... to this moment, I have not had a single one stand up against it.*
> 
> You included...
> 
> But I sense that you're desirous to separate yourself from the pack...
> 
> Do you accept or reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification?
> 
> If no, why not?
> 
> If so, on what basis do you reject it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't recall you asking me.  But as I've already said....I am glad to see the age of consent trending UP and not down (except for in the bible belt).   Of course I reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification....and if you paid attention to my posting history, you would already have known that.
Click to expand...


How long will the "age of consent" line hold sway against a waxing tide of depravity?

We could start a betting pool on that.


----------



## bodecea

GreenBean said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> It really doesn't.  It's that slippery slope fallacy attempting to tie in gay rights with pedophihlia.  NAMBLA, in case you haven't realized it, is not an "elephant" but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand.  Gay actovists don't have to demonstrate a "categorical rejection" of pedophilia any more than heterosexuals do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the first pro gay organizations were "but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand".  I'm inspired to recall the famous saying, "Don't despise small beginnings."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NAMBLA is not new, yet it remains a few thousand, at most, marginalized and unsupported by the mainstream movement.  The movement for gay rights and same sex marriage has grown exponentially into the mainstream over the past 30 or more years.  NAMBLA has not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So they're not the popular movement right now and have to wait their turn in line.  Who's to say they can't use the same convoluted arguments the Left has used to find gay marriage "rights" in the Constitution?  Why is their love so wrong?  Maybe someday pedophobes will be the new haters, people like you who want to decide who can love who and who can marry who.  What puritanical bigotry is it that drives your hate and your narrow view of morality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, NAMBLA is apparently defunct now.  It couldn't even maintain it's thousand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get Real Coyote - Howe many Pedophiles do you think will actually walk around with a target on their back saying I'm a NAMBLA member.
Click to expand...

How many fathers actually walk around with a target on their back saying I molest my daughters?


----------



## 80zephyr

Dogmaphobe said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are certain things that are wrong because they cause genuine harm (rape, murder, theft) and certain things that are wrong because someone believes the are (pork, gays, cheeseburgers, working on sunday). We're rational enough in this day and age to glean that homosexuality is clearly in that latter camp.
> 
> Which begs the question, why should we give fuck? They're just people. Treat them like people and be done with it. Generally speaking, how a person gets their nut is about the least interesting thing about them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many people seem incapable of distinguishing between morality and social mores, and so accept the arbitrary social mores as representing morality even when they don't.
> 
> Morality is a product of reason,  established from a baseline akin to the golden rule, whereas social mores are simply customs that have been passed down through the generations and accepted with no analysis.
> 
> I would refer people to Kohlberg's work in regards to moral reasoning here, as arbitrary taboos represent what he calls a "preconventional" morality, which is the most unevolved moral state.
Click to expand...


Hey, great!! Now that you have showed us how an "enlightened" person faces these arbitrary taboos, maybe you can now tell me if you favor allowing pedophilia? I mean, it certainly is arbitrary, right?

Mark


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> A tiny group does.  A minority does not a slippery slope make.  Westboro Baptists anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It literally does... because the minority is pushing the agenda.
> 
> There is no Christian acceptance of Westboro, unanimously the Christian community rejects them OVERTLY.
> 
> Such is not the case with the mouthy, would-be minority of the Militant sect of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality cult.
> 
> *In thread after thread, I have set forth the the request for the professed homosexuals participating in such, IF they rejected the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... to this moment, I have not had a single one stand up against it.*
> 
> You included...
> 
> But I sense that you're desirous to separate yourself from the pack...
> 
> Do you accept or reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification?
> 
> If no, why not?
> 
> If so, on what basis do you reject it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't recall you asking me.  But as I've already said....I am glad to see the age of consent trending UP and not down (except for in the bible belt).   Of course I reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification....and if you paid attention to my posting history, you would already have known that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long will the "age of consent" line hold sway against a waxing tide of depravity?
> 
> We could start a betting pool on that.
Click to expand...

It's going UP at the same time that gays are gaining more rights.   Except for in the bible belt of course.


----------



## Coyote

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> It literally does... because the minority is pushing the agenda.
> 
> There is no Christian acceptance of Westboro, unanimously the Christian community rejects them OVERTLY.



Not true.  They are not unanimously rejected, they and the Koran burning whacko minister and a few others are all marginalized by the mainstream but still maintain a small amount of support.



> Such is not the case with the mouthy, would-be minority of the Militant sect of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality cult.



Like the Westboro's - they are a fringe group with little support.



> In thread after thread, I have set forth the the request for the professed homosexuals participating in such, IF they rejected the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... to this moment, I have not had a single one stand up against it.
> 
> You included...



That might be because no one has seen your purported thread after thread request (including myself).

I will however staight outright (just in case my obvious posts have not made it obvious) that I do not support child abuse or pedophilia in any way shape or form.

I am concerned though, given the disproportionate number of "hetero's" engaged in pedophilia (far more girls are attacked then boys) and involved in pedophilia activist groups (per the list on wikipedia) - that I have yet to see you take a stand against it.



> But I sense that you're desirous to separate yourself from the pack...
> 
> Do you accept or reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification?



Read my posts.



> If no, why not?
> 
> *If so, on what basis do you reject it?*



Read my posts.


----------



## GreenBean

bodecea said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> It really doesn't.  It's that slippery slope fallacy attempting to tie in gay rights with pedophihlia.  NAMBLA, in case you haven't realized it, is not an "elephant" but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand.  Gay actovists don't have to demonstrate a "categorical rejection" of pedophilia any more than heterosexuals do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the first pro gay organizations were "but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand".  I'm inspired to recall the famous saying, "Don't despise small beginnings."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NAMBLA is not new, yet it remains a few thousand, at most, marginalized and unsupported by the mainstream movement.  The movement for gay rights and same sex marriage has grown exponentially into the mainstream over the past 30 or more years.  NAMBLA has not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems we have to go to our hetero "anti-gay marriage" members to find out info about NAMBLA.  I sure as hell don't look up anything about that group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bodecea  - long time no see - How ya been ya slimy little shitsack ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm doing just fine.  My wife, daughter and I had a lovely holiday.
Click to expand...

Aww shucks I'm sorry to hear that - I'd actually hoped she was a widow - but alas ..... _C'est la Vie_


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> Actually, NAMBLA is apparently defunct now.  It couldn't even maintain it's thousand.



Not even close... The Bush Administration took a hard line against NAMBLA, strongly pursuing its membership when much of their 'material' was found in several terrorist enclaves.  (Yes it seems that Islamic piety is gets a little dicey once the tent flap closes.)


80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation.  It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that depends. Every other generation didn't celebrate it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet here it is. Now the question you have to ask yourself is.....so what?
> 
> There are certain things that are wrong because they cause genuine harm (rape, murder, theft) and certain things that are wrong because someone believes the are (pork, gays, cheeseburgers, working on sunday). We're rational enough in this day and age to glean that homosexuality is clearly in that latter camp.
> 
> Which begs the question, why should we give a fuck? They're just people. Treat them like people and be done with it. Generally speaking, how a person gets their nut is about the least interesting thing about them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted this before. The left has cheapened marriage and family by the relaxation of societal rules concerning divorce, welfare, and single motherhood. In fact, the left HAS HARMED the family unit. Will  gay marriage add another nail to the coffin? I don't know, but based on the past history of change, you have no basis to state that is will cause no harm. And again, based on past history, it is highly likely that homosexual marriage will fall in the former camp of your post.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...



Well said Mark... But the evidence, as you noted, presents that the lowering of sexual propriety standards has harmed the culture and lowering them further will further harm the culture.  All that is to be determined is the extent of the injury.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> A tiny group does.  A minority does not a slippery slope make.  Westboro Baptists anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It literally does... because the minority is pushing the agenda.
> 
> There is no Christian acceptance of Westboro, unanimously the Christian community rejects them OVERTLY.
> 
> Such is not the case with the mouthy, would-be minority of the Militant sect of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality cult.
> 
> *In thread after thread, I have set forth the the request for the professed homosexuals participating in such, IF they rejected the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... to this moment, I have not had a single one stand up against it.*
> 
> You included...
> 
> But I sense that you're desirous to separate yourself from the pack...
> 
> Do you accept or reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification?
> 
> If no, why not?
> 
> If so, on what basis do you reject it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't recall you asking me.  But as I've already said....I am glad to see the age of consent trending UP and not down (except for in the bible belt).   Of course I reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification....and if you paid attention to my posting history, you would already have known that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long will the "age of consent" line hold sway against a waxing tide of depravity?
> 
> We could start a betting pool on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's going UP at the same time that gays are gaining more rights.   Except for in the bible belt of course.
Click to expand...


Children are being sexualized more than any other time in history, being literate in all kinds of sexual deviancy that wasn't even whispered about in the days of our grandparents.  Child exposure to your sexual filth is on the increase, not the decrease....maybe less so in the Bible belt.


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are certain things that are wrong because they cause genuine harm (rape, murder, theft) and certain things that are wrong because someone believes the are (pork, gays, cheeseburgers, working on sunday). We're rational enough in this day and age to glean that homosexuality is clearly in that latter camp.
> 
> Which begs the question, why should we give fuck? They're just people. Treat them like people and be done with it. Generally speaking, how a person gets their nut is about the least interesting thing about them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many people seem incapable of distinguishing between morality and social mores, and so accept the arbitrary social mores as representing morality even when they don't.
> 
> Morality is a product of reason,  established from a baseline akin to the golden rule, whereas social mores are simply customs that have been passed down through the generations and accepted with no analysis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It depends on who you talk to. There are many who will argue that the only basis of morality is god. And if you use your reason, you're a relativist who is evil and believes in nothing. And that their faith is objective truth, as it comes directly from god. I'm not joking or inaccurately paraphrasing here. I can show you virtually exact quotes that say as much.
> 
> *They're literally arguing that whatever they feel is objective truth.* Which kinda fucks the concept of 'objective' and 'truth' right in the ass. And they will flat out ignore you if you don't accept their personal beliefs as axiomatic.
> 
> There's really not much you can do with people like that save pat them on the head and put them on a display to demonstrate various fallacies of logic on command.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would refer people to Kohlberg's work in regards to moral reasoning here, as arbitrary taboos represent what he calls a "preconventional" morality, which is the most unevolved moral state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Generally speaking those who follow such 'preconventional' moralities don't really examine them or ask questions about them.
Click to expand...


What morality do you follow? How did you develop it? And what makes you sure that your sense of morality is better than anyone elses?

Mark


----------



## peach174

JakeStarkey said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays would not have to complain about their rights if it wasn't for big government that is taking their rights away in the first place.
> The smaller the government the more rights all of us have.
> Gays have been unfairly taxed with inheritance laws because of bigger government.
> They can't see their loved ones because of hospital rules of only relatives.
> That is not only for Gays rights but for all of us, just recently a littler girl who survived a plane crash wanted the man who helped her when she knocked on his door, to go to the hospital with her, but he couldn't because he was not a relative. Hospitals had to make that rule because of bid government.
> That little girl had just lost her parents and all she wanted was a kind grownup with her for comfort.
> If it wasn't for the stupid rules of big government for marriage licenses, gays could get married how ever they wished.
> The bigger the government the more of all of our rights are being taken away.
> The smaller the government the more rights we have for all of us as Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your conclusion is false, and the material above it does not lead to your conclusion.
> 
> Only through bigger government were the slaves freed, women enfranchised, segregation ended, older teens empowered, and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slaves were freed because of the army run by the government.
> 
> The force by the law of bigger government enforced freedom for the slaves and rights for women, minorities, and older teens.
> 
> "Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens.  If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.
> 
> The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.
Click to expand...



Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
That means forcing Churches to marry gays.


----------



## 80zephyr

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> A tiny group does.  A minority does not a slippery slope make.  Westboro Baptists anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It literally does... because the minority is pushing the agenda.
> 
> There is no Christian acceptance of Westboro, unanimously the Christian community rejects them OVERTLY.
> 
> Such is not the case with the mouthy, would-be minority of the Militant sect of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality cult.
> 
> *In thread after thread, I have set forth the the request for the professed homosexuals participating in such, IF they rejected the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... to this moment, I have not had a single one stand up against it.*
> 
> You included...
> 
> But I sense that you're desirous to separate yourself from the pack...
> 
> Do you accept or reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification?
> 
> If no, why not?
> 
> If so, on what basis do you reject it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't recall you asking me.  But as I've already said....I am glad to see the age of consent trending UP and not down (except for in the bible belt).   Of course I reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification....and if you paid attention to my posting history, you would already have known that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long will the "age of consent" line hold sway against a waxing tide of depravity?
> 
> We could start a betting pool on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's going UP at the same time that gays are gaining more rights.   Except for in the bible belt of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children are being sexualized more than any other time in history, being literate in all kinds of sexual deviancy that wasn't even whispered about in the days of our grandparents.  Child exposure to your sexual filth is on the increase, not the decrease....maybe less so in the Bible belt.
Click to expand...


Absolutely true.

Mark


----------



## Coyote

GreenBean said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> It really doesn't.  It's that slippery slope fallacy attempting to tie in gay rights with pedophihlia.  NAMBLA, in case you haven't realized it, is not an "elephant" but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand.  Gay actovists don't have to demonstrate a "categorical rejection" of pedophilia any more than heterosexuals do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the first pro gay organizations were "but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand".  I'm inspired to recall the famous saying, "Don't despise small beginnings."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NAMBLA is not new, yet it remains a few thousand, at most, marginalized and unsupported by the mainstream movement.  The movement for gay rights and same sex marriage has grown exponentially into the mainstream over the past 30 or more years.  NAMBLA has not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So they're not the popular movement right now and have to wait their turn in line.  Who's to say they can't use the same convoluted arguments the Left has used to find gay marriage "rights" in the Constitution?  Why is their love so wrong?  Maybe someday pedophobes will be the new haters, people like you who want to decide who can love who and who can marry who.  What puritanical bigotry is it that drives your hate and your narrow view of morality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, NAMBLA is apparently defunct now.  It couldn't even maintain it's thousand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get Real Coyote - Howe many Pedophiles do you think will actually walk around with a target on their back saying I'm a NAMBLA member.
Click to expand...


I suspect that law enforcement agencies keep track of these things.


----------



## Coyote

peach174 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays would not have to complain about their rights if it wasn't for big government that is taking their rights away in the first place.
> The smaller the government the more rights all of us have.
> Gays have been unfairly taxed with inheritance laws because of bigger government.
> They can't see their loved ones because of hospital rules of only relatives.
> That is not only for Gays rights but for all of us, just recently a littler girl who survived a plane crash wanted the man who helped her when she knocked on his door, to go to the hospital with her, but he couldn't because he was not a relative. Hospitals had to make that rule because of bid government.
> That little girl had just lost her parents and all she wanted was a kind grownup with her for comfort.
> If it wasn't for the stupid rules of big government for marriage licenses, gays could get married how ever they wished.
> The bigger the government the more of all of our rights are being taken away.
> The smaller the government the more rights we have for all of us as Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your conclusion is false, and the material above it does not lead to your conclusion.
> 
> Only through bigger government were the slaves freed, women enfranchised, segregation ended, older teens empowered, and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slaves were freed because of the army run by the government.
> 
> The force by the law of bigger government enforced freedom for the slaves and rights for women, minorities, and older teens.
> 
> "Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens.  If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.
> 
> The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
> That means forcing Churches to marry gays.
Click to expand...


No.  It doesn't.  Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.


----------



## bodecea

GreenBean said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the first pro gay organizations were "but a tiny organization that at most consisted of a few thousand".  I'm inspired to recall the famous saying, "Don't despise small beginnings."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NAMBLA is not new, yet it remains a few thousand, at most, marginalized and unsupported by the mainstream movement.  The movement for gay rights and same sex marriage has grown exponentially into the mainstream over the past 30 or more years.  NAMBLA has not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems we have to go to our hetero "anti-gay marriage" members to find out info about NAMBLA.  I sure as hell don't look up anything about that group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bodecea  - long time no see - How ya been ya slimy little shitsack ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm doing just fine.  My wife, daughter and I had a lovely holiday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aww shucks I'm sorry to hear that - I'd actually hoped she was a widow - but alas ..... _C'est la Vie_
Click to expand...

That's right...you're one of the christian posters here.


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, NAMBLA is apparently defunct now.  It couldn't even maintain it's thousand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not even close... The Bush Administration took a hard line against NAMBLA, strongly pursuing its membership when much of their 'material' was found in several terrorist enclaves.  (Yes it seems that Islamic piety is gets a little dicey once the tent flap closes.)
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation.  It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that depends. Every other generation didn't celebrate it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet here it is. Now the question you have to ask yourself is.....so what?
> 
> There are certain things that are wrong because they cause genuine harm (rape, murder, theft) and certain things that are wrong because someone believes the are (pork, gays, cheeseburgers, working on sunday). We're rational enough in this day and age to glean that homosexuality is clearly in that latter camp.
> 
> Which begs the question, why should we give a fuck? They're just people. Treat them like people and be done with it. Generally speaking, how a person gets their nut is about the least interesting thing about them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted this before. The left has cheapened marriage and family by the relaxation of societal rules concerning divorce, welfare, and single motherhood. In fact, the left HAS HARMED the family unit. Will  gay marriage add another nail to the coffin? I don't know, but based on the past history of change, you have no basis to state that is will cause no harm. And again, based on past history, it is highly likely that homosexual marriage will fall in the former camp of your post.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well said Mark... But the evidence, as you noted, presents that the lowering of sexual propriety standards has harmed the culture and lowering them further will further harm the culture.  All that is to be determined is the extent of the injury.
Click to expand...

Again, I wouldn't know anything about NAMBLA without posters like you keeping us up to date.


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't say you were, he said you were _*like *_a born again Christian...a Born Again Libertarian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the ultimate one trick pony, every thread turns into a gay thread.  Thanks for that clarification.  It's not like you two geniuses consistently advocate liberalism, what a great point.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save this thread actually is about gays.
> 
> Do try and keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, and my answer, simpleton, is to give gays the greatest protection, the protection of the marketplace.  Let the odd screwball who limits who they do business with harm themselves.  Only government can enforce discrimination.  A free market rewards those who don't discriminate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that no country in the entire world, not a single fucking one, uses his solutions never seems to cross his tiny mind, nor does he wonder why that might be so. Color me shocked.
Click to expand...



And? Every socialist  country has been a disaster. I don't see many leftists admit that it is a failed system.

Mark


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> A tiny group does.  A minority does not a slippery slope make.  Westboro Baptists anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It literally does... because the minority is pushing the agenda.
> 
> There is no Christian acceptance of Westboro, unanimously the Christian community rejects them OVERTLY.
> 
> Such is not the case with the mouthy, would-be minority of the Militant sect of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality cult.
> 
> *In thread after thread, I have set forth the the request for the professed homosexuals participating in such, IF they rejected the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... to this moment, I have not had a single one stand up against it.*
> 
> You included...
> 
> But I sense that you're desirous to separate yourself from the pack...
> 
> Do you accept or reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification?
> 
> If no, why not?
> 
> If so, on what basis do you reject it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't recall you asking me.  But as I've already said....I am glad to see the age of consent trending UP and not down (except for in the bible belt).   Of course I reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification....and if you paid attention to my posting history, you would already have known that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long will the "age of consent" line hold sway against a waxing tide of depravity?
> 
> We could start a betting pool on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's going UP at the same time that gays are gaining more rights.   Except for in the bible belt of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children are being sexualized more than any other time in history, being literate in all kinds of sexual deviancy that wasn't even whispered about in the days of our grandparents.  Child exposure to your sexual filth is on the increase, not the decrease....maybe less so in the Bible belt.
Click to expand...

Don't you have anything to say about the FACT that the age of consent is going UP in most places?   Or doesn't that fit your theme?


----------



## Dogmaphobe

80zephyr said:


> Hey, great!! Now that you have showed us how an "enlightened" person faces these arbitrary taboos, maybe you can now tell me if you favor allowing pedophilia? I mean, it certainly is arbitrary, right?
> 
> Mark



 Pedophilia, as any intelligent person realizes, involves an adult taking advantage of a child, rather than two adults involved in something consensual. 

Are you functionally retarded by any chance?


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd prefer to just skip the entire schtick, and stick with the topic of gay rights and the imaginary 'homosexual dillema'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why don't you address my point if that's what you keep saying you want?  Free markets are the best protection for gay rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In some places they might be...in others not so much. For people living in large metropolitan areas with lots of choices, absolutely...in rural areas with often only one choice in services, not so much.
> 
> And if that were truly the case, ALL PA laws should be abolished, not just the gay ones...but there is no move to end them all is there, Kaz? Okay...one guy, Rand Paul, said something once on Rachel Maddow and has been walking it back ever since.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course all PA laws should be abolished, but expanding them is not a step to accomplishing that.  They are all beyond worthless, they enable government power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hate Ayn Rand kids.  Such worthless little fuckers, and cocky to boot.
Click to expand...


They're cocky? Lol.

Mark


----------



## bodecea

peach174 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays would not have to complain about their rights if it wasn't for big government that is taking their rights away in the first place.
> The smaller the government the more rights all of us have.
> Gays have been unfairly taxed with inheritance laws because of bigger government.
> They can't see their loved ones because of hospital rules of only relatives.
> That is not only for Gays rights but for all of us, just recently a littler girl who survived a plane crash wanted the man who helped her when she knocked on his door, to go to the hospital with her, but he couldn't because he was not a relative. Hospitals had to make that rule because of bid government.
> That little girl had just lost her parents and all she wanted was a kind grownup with her for comfort.
> If it wasn't for the stupid rules of big government for marriage licenses, gays could get married how ever they wished.
> The bigger the government the more of all of our rights are being taken away.
> The smaller the government the more rights we have for all of us as Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your conclusion is false, and the material above it does not lead to your conclusion.
> 
> Only through bigger government were the slaves freed, women enfranchised, segregation ended, older teens empowered, and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slaves were freed because of the army run by the government.
> 
> The force by the law of bigger government enforced freedom for the slaves and rights for women, minorities, and older teens.
> 
> "Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens.  If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.
> 
> The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
> That means forcing Churches to marry gays.
Click to expand...

Just like churches got forced to marry interracial couples.
Just like churches got forced to marry inter-faith couples.
Just like churches got forced to marry previously divorced couples.

Right?


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> It literally does... because the minority is pushing the agenda.
> 
> There is no Christian acceptance of Westboro, unanimously the Christian community rejects them OVERTLY.
> 
> Such is not the case with the mouthy, would-be minority of the Militant sect of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality cult.
> 
> *In thread after thread, I have set forth the the request for the professed homosexuals participating in such, IF they rejected the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... to this moment, I have not had a single one stand up against it.*
> 
> You included...
> 
> But I sense that you're desirous to separate yourself from the pack...
> 
> Do you accept or reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification?
> 
> If no, why not?
> 
> If so, on what basis do you reject it?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall you asking me.  But as I've already said....I am glad to see the age of consent trending UP and not down (except for in the bible belt).   Of course I reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification....and if you paid attention to my posting history, you would already have known that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long will the "age of consent" line hold sway against a waxing tide of depravity?
> 
> We could start a betting pool on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's going UP at the same time that gays are gaining more rights.   Except for in the bible belt of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children are being sexualized more than any other time in history, being literate in all kinds of sexual deviancy that wasn't even whispered about in the days of our grandparents.  Child exposure to your sexual filth is on the increase, not the decrease....maybe less so in the Bible belt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely true.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Yeah...that "Toddlers and Tiaras" stuff is disgusting.  And what some hetero adult did to Jon Benet Ramsey.   Horrible.


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't say you were, he said you were _*like *_a born again Christian...a Born Again Libertarian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the ultimate one trick pony, every thread turns into a gay thread.  Thanks for that clarification.  It's not like you two geniuses consistently advocate liberalism, what a great point.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save this thread actually is about gays.
> 
> Do try and keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, and my answer, simpleton, is to give gays the greatest protection, the protection of the marketplace.  Let the odd screwball who limits who they do business with harm themselves.  Only government can enforce discrimination.  A free market rewards those who don't discriminate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that no country in the entire world, not a single fucking one, uses his solutions never seems to cross his tiny mind, nor does he wonder why that might be so. Color me shocked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And? Every socialist  country has been a disaster. I don't see many leftists admit that it is a failed system.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Israel's a failed country?


----------



## bodecea

Dogmaphobe said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, great!! Now that you have showed us how an "enlightened" person faces these arbitrary taboos, maybe you can now tell me if you favor allowing pedophilia? I mean, it certainly is arbitrary, right?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedophilia, as any intelligent person realizes, involves an adult taking advantage of a child, rather than two adults involved in something consensual.
> 
> Are you functionally retarded by any chance?
Click to expand...

Sadly....80zephyr joins a growing group of posters who seem unable to discern the difference.  It's rather scary.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> A tiny group does.  A minority does not a slippery slope make.  Westboro Baptists anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It literally does... because the minority is pushing the agenda.
> 
> There is no Christian acceptance of Westboro, unanimously the Christian community rejects them OVERTLY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true.  They are not unanimously rejected, they and the Koran burning whacko minister and a few others are all marginalized by the mainstream but still maintain a small amount of support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such is not the case with the mouthy, would-be minority of the Militant sect of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like the Westboro's - they are a fringe group with little support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In thread after thread, I have set forth the the request for the professed homosexuals participating in such, IF they rejected the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... to this moment, I have not had a single one stand up against it.
> 
> You included...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That might be because no one has seen your purported thread after thread request (including myself).
> 
> I will however staight outright (just in case my obvious posts have not made it obvious) that I do not support child abuse or pedophilia in any way shape or form.
> 
> I am concerned though, given the disproportionate number of "hetero's" engaged in pedophilia (far more girls are attacked then boys) and involved in pedophilia activist groups (per the list on wikipedia) - that I have yet to see you take a stand against it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I sense that you're desirous to separate yourself from the pack...
> 
> Do you accept or reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read my posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If no, why not?
> 
> *If so, on what basis do you reject it?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read my posts.
Click to expand...


And to this moment, even as the contributor claims that Pedophilia is a tiny minority with which contributor disagrees... the contributor can't simply come out and reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification and explain the basis for that rejection. 

Here's what that looks like...

_"Children are not small adults.  They are innocent of the world innocent of sexual desire and innocent of all that comes with sex.  As such they've no means to even begin to understand sex, what its good for or any other aspect of it.

To pursue children for sexual gratification is MORALLY wrong, in every instance and there is no science, no rationalization that can change that.

The arguments that "Some children may benefit from a loving sexual relationship by a caring adult" is, from my perspective, evidence for the trial of the individual who makes such a public advocacy.  Upon nothing more than evidence which connects the person to the advocacy is all that should be needed to lock that person into prison for the rest of their natural life.

Adults found having engaged in sex with a child should be executed."  _

See how easy that is?


----------



## peach174

Coyote said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays would not have to complain about their rights if it wasn't for big government that is taking their rights away in the first place.
> The smaller the government the more rights all of us have.
> Gays have been unfairly taxed with inheritance laws because of bigger government.
> They can't see their loved ones because of hospital rules of only relatives.
> That is not only for Gays rights but for all of us, just recently a littler girl who survived a plane crash wanted the man who helped her when she knocked on his door, to go to the hospital with her, but he couldn't because he was not a relative. Hospitals had to make that rule because of bid government.
> That little girl had just lost her parents and all she wanted was a kind grownup with her for comfort.
> If it wasn't for the stupid rules of big government for marriage licenses, gays could get married how ever they wished.
> The bigger the government the more of all of our rights are being taken away.
> The smaller the government the more rights we have for all of us as Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your conclusion is false, and the material above it does not lead to your conclusion.
> 
> Only through bigger government were the slaves freed, women enfranchised, segregation ended, older teens empowered, and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slaves were freed because of the army run by the government.
> 
> The force by the law of bigger government enforced freedom for the slaves and rights for women, minorities, and older teens.
> 
> "Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens.  If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.
> 
> The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
> That means forcing Churches to marry gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It doesn't.  Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.
Click to expand...


Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.


----------



## bodecea

peach174 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conclusion is false, and the material above it does not lead to your conclusion.
> 
> Only through bigger government were the slaves freed, women enfranchised, segregation ended, older teens empowered, and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slaves were freed because of the army run by the government.
> 
> The force by the law of bigger government enforced freedom for the slaves and rights for women, minorities, and older teens.
> 
> "Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens.  If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.
> 
> The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
> That means forcing Churches to marry gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It doesn't.  Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
> Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.
Click to expand...

Actually churches are not ever forced to marry someone they do not want to.   At least on this planet.


----------



## 80zephyr

bodecea said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, NAMBLA is apparently defunct now.  It couldn't even maintain it's thousand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not even close... The Bush Administration took a hard line against NAMBLA, strongly pursuing its membership when much of their 'material' was found in several terrorist enclaves.  (Yes it seems that Islamic piety is gets a little dicey once the tent flap closes.)
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation.  It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that depends. Every other generation didn't celebrate it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet here it is. Now the question you have to ask yourself is.....so what?
> 
> There are certain things that are wrong because they cause genuine harm (rape, murder, theft) and certain things that are wrong because someone believes the are (pork, gays, cheeseburgers, working on sunday). We're rational enough in this day and age to glean that homosexuality is clearly in that latter camp.
> 
> Which begs the question, why should we give a fuck? They're just people. Treat them like people and be done with it. Generally speaking, how a person gets their nut is about the least interesting thing about them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted this before. The left has cheapened marriage and family by the relaxation of societal rules concerning divorce, welfare, and single motherhood. In fact, the left HAS HARMED the family unit. Will  gay marriage add another nail to the coffin? I don't know, but based on the past history of change, you have no basis to state that is will cause no harm. And again, based on past history, it is highly likely that homosexual marriage will fall in the former camp of your post.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well said Mark... But the evidence, as you noted, presents that the lowering of sexual propriety standards has harmed the culture and lowering them further will further harm the culture.  All that is to be determined is the extent of the injury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, I wouldn't know anything about NAMBLA without posters like you keeping us up to date.
Click to expand...


Hmm. Maybe you should look into the history of the homosexual movement and NAMBLA. You could of course choose not to, but it is not fair to believe that others who are aware of the history cannot make the connection.

Amazing that recently a GOP congressman got ran thru a wringer for giving a single speech to a hate group 12 years ago, and the connection between NAMBLA and gays never even makes the paper.

So much for the news being unbiased.

Mark


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> How long will the "age of consent" line hold sway against a waxing tide of depravity?
> 
> We could start a betting pool on that.



If left unchecked, the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality will erase the penalties for the sexual abuse of a child entirely... and establish Adult/Child love as a protected class, with contest of them listed as a hate crime, within the next generation.


----------



## peach174

bodecea said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays would not have to complain about their rights if it wasn't for big government that is taking their rights away in the first place.
> The smaller the government the more rights all of us have.
> Gays have been unfairly taxed with inheritance laws because of bigger government.
> They can't see their loved ones because of hospital rules of only relatives.
> That is not only for Gays rights but for all of us, just recently a littler girl who survived a plane crash wanted the man who helped her when she knocked on his door, to go to the hospital with her, but he couldn't because he was not a relative. Hospitals had to make that rule because of bid government.
> That little girl had just lost her parents and all she wanted was a kind grownup with her for comfort.
> If it wasn't for the stupid rules of big government for marriage licenses, gays could get married how ever they wished.
> The bigger the government the more of all of our rights are being taken away.
> The smaller the government the more rights we have for all of us as Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your conclusion is false, and the material above it does not lead to your conclusion.
> 
> Only through bigger government were the slaves freed, women enfranchised, segregation ended, older teens empowered, and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slaves were freed because of the army run by the government.
> 
> The force by the law of bigger government enforced freedom for the slaves and rights for women, minorities, and older teens.
> 
> "Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens.  If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.
> 
> The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
> That means forcing Churches to marry gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like churches got forced to marry interracial couples.
> Just like churches got forced to marry inter-faith couples.
> Just like churches got forced to marry previously divorced couples.
> 
> Right?
Click to expand...


Wrong


----------



## peach174

bodecea said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slaves were freed because of the army run by the government.
> 
> The force by the law of bigger government enforced freedom for the slaves and rights for women, minorities, and older teens.
> 
> "Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens.  If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.
> 
> The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
> That means forcing Churches to marry gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It doesn't.  Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
> Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually churches are not ever forced to marry someone they do not want to.   At least on this planet.
Click to expand...


You should take a look on the INTERNET how gays are forcing the Churches in Denmark, France and England.
One rich gay couple is suing a Church in England because they refused to marry them.


----------



## hipeter924

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't love, it is taking advantage of a child below the age of consent (which is 16-18 in most states). Children below that age have underdeveloped brains, and can easily be taken advantage of or abused by adults - children can be conditioned to view their abusers behavior as normal or even acceptable but that doesn't make it right.
> 
> Then there is always Stockholm syndrome: Stockholm syndrome - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying that children wanting to have sex with an adult is a mental disorder?  Do you think that NAMBLA might succeed in getting that reference dropped by the APA like you guys did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all child molesters are pedophiles, and even if they are pedophiles they can still be attracted to other adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what are you saying..that if there's dual sexualities that's good reason to deny someone their rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Child abuse isn't a human right, even if the child 'likes it'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your backward, narrow, religiously dogmatic views of morality will have to give way to love.  Who are you to decide their love is wrong?  Aren't you the guys telling us that there are different kinds of love and they're all equal? What happened that you became such a repressed pedophobe?
Click to expand...

Yawn. Pedobear will have to do without. Not going to cry about it.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays would not have to complain about their rights if it wasn't for big government that is taking their rights away in the first place.
> The smaller the government the more rights all of us have.
> Gays have been unfairly taxed with inheritance laws because of bigger government.
> They can't see their loved ones because of hospital rules of only relatives.
> That is not only for Gays rights but for all of us, just recently a littler girl who survived a plane crash wanted the man who helped her when she knocked on his door, to go to the hospital with her, but he couldn't because he was not a relative. Hospitals had to make that rule because of bid government.
> That little girl had just lost her parents and all she wanted was a kind grownup with her for comfort.
> If it wasn't for the stupid rules of big government for marriage licenses, gays could get married how ever they wished.
> The bigger the government the more of all of our rights are being taken away.
> The smaller the government the more rights we have for all of us as Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your conclusion is false, and the material above it does not lead to your conclusion.
> 
> Only through bigger government were the slaves freed, women enfranchised, segregation ended, older teens empowered, and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slaves were freed because of the army run by the government.
> 
> The force by the law of bigger government enforced freedom for the slaves and rights for women, minorities, and older teens.
> 
> "Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens.  If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.
> 
> The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
> That means forcing Churches to marry gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It doesn't.  Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.
Click to expand...


Really?  Even churches right here in Idaho are being threatened if they don't perform same sex marriages.  Coeur d'Alene city officials have told pastors they'll go to jail if they don't marry gays.  If tolerance is what you pride yourself on, you're on the WRONG side.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

hipeter924 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying that children wanting to have sex with an adult is a mental disorder?  Do you think that NAMBLA might succeed in getting that reference dropped by the APA like you guys did?
> 
> 
> 
> Not all child molesters are pedophiles, and even if they are pedophiles they can still be attracted to other adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what are you saying..that if there's dual sexualities that's good reason to deny someone their rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Child abuse isn't a human right, even if the child 'likes it'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your backward, narrow, religiously dogmatic views of morality will have to give way to love.  Who are you to decide their love is wrong?  Aren't you the guys telling us that there are different kinds of love and they're all equal? What happened that you became such a repressed pedophobe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yawn. Pedobear will have to do without. Not going to cry about it.
Click to expand...


Nope. You're just going to be pushed aside by people who are even more "progressive" than you.


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, NAMBLA is apparently defunct now.  It couldn't even maintain it's thousand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not even close... The Bush Administration took a hard line against NAMBLA, strongly pursuing its membership when much of their 'material' was found in several terrorist enclaves.  (Yes it seems that Islamic piety is gets a little dicey once the tent flap closes.)
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that depends. Every other generation didn't celebrate it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet here it is. Now the question you have to ask yourself is.....so what?
> 
> There are certain things that are wrong because they cause genuine harm (rape, murder, theft) and certain things that are wrong because someone believes the are (pork, gays, cheeseburgers, working on sunday). We're rational enough in this day and age to glean that homosexuality is clearly in that latter camp.
> 
> Which begs the question, why should we give a fuck? They're just people. Treat them like people and be done with it. Generally speaking, how a person gets their nut is about the least interesting thing about them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted this before. The left has cheapened marriage and family by the relaxation of societal rules concerning divorce, welfare, and single motherhood. In fact, the left HAS HARMED the family unit. Will  gay marriage add another nail to the coffin? I don't know, but based on the past history of change, you have no basis to state that is will cause no harm. And again, based on past history, it is highly likely that homosexual marriage will fall in the former camp of your post.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well said Mark... But the evidence, as you noted, presents that the lowering of sexual propriety standards has harmed the culture and lowering them further will further harm the culture.  All that is to be determined is the extent of the injury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, I wouldn't know anything about NAMBLA without posters like you keeping us up to date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm. Maybe you should look into the history of the homosexual movement and NAMBLA. You could of course choose not to, but it is not fair to believe that others who are aware of the history cannot make the connection.
> 
> Amazing that recently a GOP congressman got ran thru a wringer for giving a single speech to a hate group 12 years ago, and the connection between NAMBLA and gays never even makes the paper.
> 
> So much for the news being unbiased.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Again, I guess we can always rely on certain posters to keep us up to date on NAMBLA.


----------



## 80zephyr

Dogmaphobe said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, great!! Now that you have showed us how an "enlightened" person faces these arbitrary taboos, maybe you can now tell me if you favor allowing pedophilia? I mean, it certainly is arbitrary, right?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedophilia, as any intelligent person realizes, involves an adult taking advantage of a child, rather than two adults involved in something consensual.
> 
> Are you functionally retarded by any chance?
Click to expand...



Lol. Society sets adulthood. It is an arbitrary number society sets using a code of morals in develops from...nothing. There are no "rules" when setting a moral code. Therefore, all taboos are arbitrary. If a 7 year old girl can marry in a Muslim country, they are now following their own arbitrary moral code. And if they have slaves, it is again their moral code. So it stoning to death a  homosexual.

Your problem is, is that you are so ingrained in your own arbitrary morality that you can claim you need to be an adult to be moral. As I have already pointed out with my examples, that is simply not true.

And for you to state your own moral code is right while a Muslin countries would be wrong has no basis in fact. They are all arbitrary.

We could, as a society, condone murdering each other, and that would become part of our moral code.  

So now tell me, which moral code isn't arbitrary?

Mark


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> How long will the "age of consent" line hold sway against a waxing tide of depravity?
> 
> We could start a betting pool on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If left unchecked, the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality will erase the penalties for the sexual abuse of a child entirely... and establish Adult/Child love as a protected class, with contest of them listed as a hate crime, within the next generation.
Click to expand...

Is that why the current trends are RAISING the age of consent at the same time gays are gaining more rights?   I don't think it's turning out the way you think it is.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, NAMBLA is apparently defunct now.  It couldn't even maintain it's thousand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not even close... The Bush Administration took a hard line against NAMBLA, strongly pursuing its membership when much of their 'material' was found in several terrorist enclaves.  (Yes it seems that Islamic piety is gets a little dicey once the tent flap closes.)
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation.  It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that depends. Every other generation didn't celebrate it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet here it is. Now the question you have to ask yourself is.....so what?
> 
> There are certain things that are wrong because they cause genuine harm (rape, murder, theft) and certain things that are wrong because someone believes the are (pork, gays, cheeseburgers, working on sunday). We're rational enough in this day and age to glean that homosexuality is clearly in that latter camp.
> 
> Which begs the question, why should we give a fuck? They're just people. Treat them like people and be done with it. Generally speaking, how a person gets their nut is about the least interesting thing about them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted this before. The left has cheapened marriage and family by the relaxation of societal rules concerning divorce, welfare, and single motherhood. In fact, the left HAS HARMED the family unit. Will  gay marriage add another nail to the coffin? I don't know, but based on the past history of change, you have no basis to state that is will cause no harm. And again, based on past history, it is highly likely that homosexual marriage will fall in the former camp of your post.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well said Mark... But the evidence, as you noted, presents that the lowering of sexual propriety standards has harmed the culture and lowering them further will further harm the culture.  All that is to be determined is the extent of the injury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, I wouldn't know anything about NAMBLA without posters like you keeping us up to date.
Click to expand...


The question is, if there was a NAMBLA pride parade in your city, could a team of horses keep you from marching in it?


----------



## bodecea

peach174 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conclusion is false, and the material above it does not lead to your conclusion.
> 
> Only through bigger government were the slaves freed, women enfranchised, segregation ended, older teens empowered, and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slaves were freed because of the army run by the government.
> 
> The force by the law of bigger government enforced freedom for the slaves and rights for women, minorities, and older teens.
> 
> "Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens.  If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.
> 
> The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
> That means forcing Churches to marry gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like churches got forced to marry interracial couples.
> Just like churches got forced to marry inter-faith couples.
> Just like churches got forced to marry previously divorced couples.
> 
> Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong
Click to expand...

Exactly.   Churches are not forced to marry anyone or any catagory that they don't wish to.   Glad to see that you agree.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conclusion is false, and the material above it does not lead to your conclusion.
> 
> Only through bigger government were the slaves freed, women enfranchised, segregation ended, older teens empowered, and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slaves were freed because of the army run by the government.
> 
> The force by the law of bigger government enforced freedom for the slaves and rights for women, minorities, and older teens.
> 
> "Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens.  If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.
> 
> The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
> That means forcing Churches to marry gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It doesn't.  Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Even churches right here in Idaho are being threatened if they don't perform same sex marriages.  Coeur d'Alene city officials have told pastors they'll go to jail if they don't marry gays.  If tolerance is what you pride yourself on, you're on the WRONG side.
Click to expand...

You are lying.


----------



## 80zephyr

peach174 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conclusion is false, and the material above it does not lead to your conclusion.
> 
> Only through bigger government were the slaves freed, women enfranchised, segregation ended, older teens empowered, and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slaves were freed because of the army run by the government.
> 
> The force by the law of bigger government enforced freedom for the slaves and rights for women, minorities, and older teens.
> 
> "Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens.  If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.
> 
> The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
> That means forcing Churches to marry gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It doesn't.  Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
> Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.
Click to expand...


Catholic churches require you to be Catholic to marry in a Catholic Church? I guess I'll have to tell my non Catholic future daughter in law that she can't be married in a Catholic church since the date is already set.

Mark


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, NAMBLA is apparently defunct now.  It couldn't even maintain it's thousand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not even close... The Bush Administration took a hard line against NAMBLA, strongly pursuing its membership when much of their 'material' was found in several terrorist enclaves.  (Yes it seems that Islamic piety is gets a little dicey once the tent flap closes.)
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that depends. Every other generation didn't celebrate it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet here it is. Now the question you have to ask yourself is.....so what?
> 
> There are certain things that are wrong because they cause genuine harm (rape, murder, theft) and certain things that are wrong because someone believes the are (pork, gays, cheeseburgers, working on sunday). We're rational enough in this day and age to glean that homosexuality is clearly in that latter camp.
> 
> Which begs the question, why should we give a fuck? They're just people. Treat them like people and be done with it. Generally speaking, how a person gets their nut is about the least interesting thing about them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted this before. The left has cheapened marriage and family by the relaxation of societal rules concerning divorce, welfare, and single motherhood. In fact, the left HAS HARMED the family unit. Will  gay marriage add another nail to the coffin? I don't know, but based on the past history of change, you have no basis to state that is will cause no harm. And again, based on past history, it is highly likely that homosexual marriage will fall in the former camp of your post.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well said Mark... But the evidence, as you noted, presents that the lowering of sexual propriety standards has harmed the culture and lowering them further will further harm the culture.  All that is to be determined is the extent of the injury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, I wouldn't know anything about NAMBLA without posters like you keeping us up to date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question is, if there was a NAMBLA pride parade in your city, could a team of horses keep you from marching in it?
Click to expand...

Well, I wouldn't even know if there was a NAMBLA pride parade in my city.  You'd have to keep us informed.  And then, if you notified us, I'd be the first to turn my back on them.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slaves were freed because of the army run by the government.
> 
> The force by the law of bigger government enforced freedom for the slaves and rights for women, minorities, and older teens.
> 
> "Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens.  If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.
> 
> The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
> That means forcing Churches to marry gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It doesn't.  Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
> Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually churches are not ever forced to marry someone they do not want to.   At least on this planet.
Click to expand...


Bull f*cking shit! Idaho city s ordinance tells pastors to marry gays or go to jail - Washington Times


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens.  If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.
> 
> The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
> That means forcing Churches to marry gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It doesn't.  Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
> Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually churches are not ever forced to marry someone they do not want to.   At least on this planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull f*cking shit! Idaho city s ordinance tells pastors to marry gays or go to jail - Washington Times
Click to expand...

That was a for-profit wedding chapel like those you see in Vegas.   You DID know that, right?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

80zephyr said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slaves were freed because of the army run by the government.
> 
> The force by the law of bigger government enforced freedom for the slaves and rights for women, minorities, and older teens.
> 
> "Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens.  If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.
> 
> The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
> That means forcing Churches to marry gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It doesn't.  Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
> Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Catholic churches require you to be Catholic to marry in a Catholic Church? I guess I'll have to tell my non Catholic future daughter in law that she can't be married in a Catholic church since the date is already set.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Easy with the friendly fire. Peach is one of us.  As a Catholic I can clear that up.  We will marry any baptized Christian of any Christian faith.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not even close... The Bush Administration took a hard line against NAMBLA, strongly pursuing its membership when much of their 'material' was found in several terrorist enclaves.  (Yes it seems that Islamic piety is gets a little dicey once the tent flap closes.)
> Well said Mark... But the evidence, as you noted, presents that the lowering of sexual propriety standards has harmed the culture and lowering them further will further harm the culture.  All that is to be determined is the extent of the injury.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I wouldn't know anything about NAMBLA without posters like you keeping us up to date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question is, if there was a NAMBLA pride parade in your city, could a team of horses keep you from marching in it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I wouldn't even know if there was a NAMBLA pride parade in my city.  You'd have to keep us informed.  And then, if you notified us, I'd be the first to turn my back on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you're on their email list.  You'll have plenty of notice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would I be on their email list?  That doesn't even make any sense.
Click to expand...


Neither are your accusations against me.  Get the point now?


----------



## 80zephyr

bodecea said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slaves were freed because of the army run by the government.
> 
> The force by the law of bigger government enforced freedom for the slaves and rights for women, minorities, and older teens.
> 
> "Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens.  If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.
> 
> The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
> That means forcing Churches to marry gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It doesn't.  Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
> Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually churches are not ever forced to marry someone they do not want to.   At least on this planet.
Click to expand...


Does the Church of England know about this?

Mark


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
> That means forcing Churches to marry gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It doesn't.  Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
> Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually churches are not ever forced to marry someone they do not want to.   At least on this planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull f*cking shit! Idaho city s ordinance tells pastors to marry gays or go to jail - Washington Times
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was a for-profit wedding chapel like those you see in Vegas.   You DID know that, right?
Click to expand...

PASTORS.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I wouldn't know anything about NAMBLA without posters like you keeping us up to date.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question is, if there was a NAMBLA pride parade in your city, could a team of horses keep you from marching in it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I wouldn't even know if there was a NAMBLA pride parade in my city.  You'd have to keep us informed.  And then, if you notified us, I'd be the first to turn my back on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you're on their email list.  You'll have plenty of notice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would I be on their email list?  That doesn't even make any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither are your accusations against me.  Get the point now?
Click to expand...

What accusations against you?


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It doesn't.  Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
> Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually churches are not ever forced to marry someone they do not want to.   At least on this planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull f*cking shit! Idaho city s ordinance tells pastors to marry gays or go to jail - Washington Times
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was a for-profit wedding chapel like those you see in Vegas.   You DID know that, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> PASTORS.
Click to expand...

For Profit Business.


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens.  If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.
> 
> The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
> That means forcing Churches to marry gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It doesn't.  Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
> Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually churches are not ever forced to marry someone they do not want to.   At least on this planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does the Church of England know about this?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

The Church of England is in the U.S.?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

peach174 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conclusion is false, and the material above it does not lead to your conclusion.
> 
> Only through bigger government were the slaves freed, women enfranchised, segregation ended, older teens empowered, and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slaves were freed because of the army run by the government.
> 
> The force by the law of bigger government enforced freedom for the slaves and rights for women, minorities, and older teens.
> 
> "Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens.  If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.
> 
> The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
> That means forcing Churches to marry gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like churches got forced to marry interracial couples.
> Just like churches got forced to marry inter-faith couples.
> Just like churches got forced to marry previously divorced couples.
> 
> Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong
Click to expand...




80zephyr said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, great!! Now that you have showed us how an "enlightened" person faces these arbitrary taboos, maybe you can now tell me if you favor allowing pedophilia? I mean, it certainly is arbitrary, right?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedophilia, as any intelligent person realizes, involves an adult taking advantage of a child, rather than two adults involved in something consensual.
> 
> Are you functionally retarded by any chance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. Society sets adulthood. It is an arbitrary number society sets using a code of morals in develops from...nothing. There are no "rules" when setting a moral code. Therefore, all taboos are arbitrary. If a 7 year old girl can marry in a Muslim country, they are now following their own arbitrary moral code. And if they have slaves, it is again their moral code. So it stoning to death a  homosexual.
> 
> Your problem is, is that you are so ingrained in your own arbitrary morality that you can claim you need to be an adult to be moral. As I have already pointed out with my examples, that is simply not true.
> 
> And for you to state your own moral code is right while a Muslin countries would be wrong has no basis in fact. They are all arbitrary.
> 
> We could, as a society, condone murdering each other, and that would become part of our moral code.
> 
> So now tell me, which moral code isn't arbitrary?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


And therein you respond to the problem...

The Left rejects the objectivity essential to establishing a sound morality, thus they reject morality out of hand... while mouthing that anyone can live a moral life, without any sense of morality... except that cloak it behind their rejection of Religion. 

Therefore, where Morality becomes opinion, who are you to force your opinion onto someone else?  

And brick by brick the foundation of the culture is removed, until the culture has no foundation at which point it collapses under the weight of its own shifting mass.

Again, we cannot fault the Left... when the reason they do what they do, is because we have allowed them to do it.


----------



## 80zephyr

bodecea said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, NAMBLA is apparently defunct now.  It couldn't even maintain it's thousand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not even close... The Bush Administration took a hard line against NAMBLA, strongly pursuing its membership when much of their 'material' was found in several terrorist enclaves.  (Yes it seems that Islamic piety is gets a little dicey once the tent flap closes.)
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet here it is. Now the question you have to ask yourself is.....so what?
> 
> There are certain things that are wrong because they cause genuine harm (rape, murder, theft) and certain things that are wrong because someone believes the are (pork, gays, cheeseburgers, working on sunday). We're rational enough in this day and age to glean that homosexuality is clearly in that latter camp.
> 
> Which begs the question, why should we give a fuck? They're just people. Treat them like people and be done with it. Generally speaking, how a person gets their nut is about the least interesting thing about them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted this before. The left has cheapened marriage and family by the relaxation of societal rules concerning divorce, welfare, and single motherhood. In fact, the left HAS HARMED the family unit. Will  gay marriage add another nail to the coffin? I don't know, but based on the past history of change, you have no basis to state that is will cause no harm. And again, based on past history, it is highly likely that homosexual marriage will fall in the former camp of your post.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well said Mark... But the evidence, as you noted, presents that the lowering of sexual propriety standards has harmed the culture and lowering them further will further harm the culture.  All that is to be determined is the extent of the injury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, I wouldn't know anything about NAMBLA without posters like you keeping us up to date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm. Maybe you should look into the history of the homosexual movement and NAMBLA. You could of course choose not to, but it is not fair to believe that others who are aware of the history cannot make the connection.
> 
> Amazing that recently a GOP congressman got ran thru a wringer for giving a single speech to a hate group 12 years ago, and the connection between NAMBLA and gays never even makes the paper.
> 
> So much for the news being unbiased.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, I guess we can always rely on certain posters to keep us up to date on NAMBLA.
Click to expand...


Translation: I want to bury the past. Anything that brings a bad light to homosexuality must be marginalized and stifled. All that matters is the "cause".

Mark


----------



## Coyote

peach174 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conclusion is false, and the material above it does not lead to your conclusion.
> 
> Only through bigger government were the slaves freed, women enfranchised, segregation ended, older teens empowered, and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slaves were freed because of the army run by the government.
> 
> The force by the law of bigger government enforced freedom for the slaves and rights for women, minorities, and older teens.
> 
> "Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens.  If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.
> 
> The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
> That means forcing Churches to marry gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It doesn't.  Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
> Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.
Click to expand...


Yes, but it's up to the individual church.  No one can FORCE that church to marry if it's against their doctrine.  There is no law that can force a church to marry anyone they don't want to.


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, NAMBLA is apparently defunct now.  It couldn't even maintain it's thousand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not even close... The Bush Administration took a hard line against NAMBLA, strongly pursuing its membership when much of their 'material' was found in several terrorist enclaves.  (Yes it seems that Islamic piety is gets a little dicey once the tent flap closes.)
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I posted this before. The left has cheapened marriage and family by the relaxation of societal rules concerning divorce, welfare, and single motherhood. In fact, the left HAS HARMED the family unit. Will  gay marriage add another nail to the coffin? I don't know, but based on the past history of change, you have no basis to state that is will cause no harm. And again, based on past history, it is highly likely that homosexual marriage will fall in the former camp of your post.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well said Mark... But the evidence, as you noted, presents that the lowering of sexual propriety standards has harmed the culture and lowering them further will further harm the culture.  All that is to be determined is the extent of the injury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, I wouldn't know anything about NAMBLA without posters like you keeping us up to date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm. Maybe you should look into the history of the homosexual movement and NAMBLA. You could of course choose not to, but it is not fair to believe that others who are aware of the history cannot make the connection.
> 
> Amazing that recently a GOP congressman got ran thru a wringer for giving a single speech to a hate group 12 years ago, and the connection between NAMBLA and gays never even makes the paper.
> 
> So much for the news being unbiased.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, I guess we can always rely on certain posters to keep us up to date on NAMBLA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation: I want to bury the past. Anything that brings a bad light to homosexuality must be marginalized and stifled. All that matters is the "cause".
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Actually, Translation:   We can always rely on posters like you keeping us up to date on NAMBLA.


----------



## bodecea

Coyote said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slaves were freed because of the army run by the government.
> 
> The force by the law of bigger government enforced freedom for the slaves and rights for women, minorities, and older teens.
> 
> "Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens.  If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.
> 
> The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
> That means forcing Churches to marry gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It doesn't.  Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
> Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but it's up to the individual church.  No one can FORCE that church to marry if it's against their doctrine.  There is no law that can force a church to marry anyone they don't want to.
Click to expand...

Yeah....I missed all those law-suits forcing churches to marry inter-racial, inter-faith couples that they didn't want to.   I missed all those law-suits forcing synagogues to marry christian couples.


----------



## 80zephyr

bodecea said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
> That means forcing Churches to marry gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It doesn't.  Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
> Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually churches are not ever forced to marry someone they do not want to.   At least on this planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does the Church of England know about this?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Church of England is in the U.S.?
Click to expand...



No. But, your statement said "planet". I am fairly sure that England is on our planet.

Mark


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It doesn't.  Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
> Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually churches are not ever forced to marry someone they do not want to.   At least on this planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does the Church of England know about this?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Church of England is in the U.S.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No. But, your statement said "planet". I am fairly sure that England is on our planet.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

But not under our Constitution nor the 1st Amendment, is it?


----------



## hipeter924

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not all child molesters are pedophiles, and even if they are pedophiles they can still be attracted to other adults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what are you saying..that if there's dual sexualities that's good reason to deny someone their rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Child abuse isn't a human right, even if the child 'likes it'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your backward, narrow, religiously dogmatic views of morality will have to give way to love.  Who are you to decide their love is wrong?  Aren't you the guys telling us that there are different kinds of love and they're all equal? What happened that you became such a repressed pedophobe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yawn. Pedobear will have to do without. Not going to cry about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. You're just going to be pushed aside by people who are even more "progressive" than you.
Click to expand...

I am not a "progressive", a "liberal", or a "conservative". I would prefer it if 'marriage' of any variety was not condoned through special tax status for couples; or that the government dictates LGBT couples can't adopt. But I don't set the rules or the laws. 

If marriage didn't provide incentives for couples, then it would be used ceremonially - instead it sets apart the single person from the couple with a special status (through tax and other things).

The attempts at stopping same-sex marriage are ultimately doomed to fail, as the special status attributed to marriage makes denying same-sex marriage a matter of discrimination rather than purely a issue with religious ceremonial marriages.


----------



## Mr. H.

Damn, I need new glasses. I thought this thread was titled "The Homosexual Obama".


----------



## 80zephyr

bodecea said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not even close... The Bush Administration took a hard line against NAMBLA, strongly pursuing its membership when much of their 'material' was found in several terrorist enclaves.  (Yes it seems that Islamic piety is gets a little dicey once the tent flap closes.)
> Well said Mark... But the evidence, as you noted, presents that the lowering of sexual propriety standards has harmed the culture and lowering them further will further harm the culture.  All that is to be determined is the extent of the injury.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I wouldn't know anything about NAMBLA without posters like you keeping us up to date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm. Maybe you should look into the history of the homosexual movement and NAMBLA. You could of course choose not to, but it is not fair to believe that others who are aware of the history cannot make the connection.
> 
> Amazing that recently a GOP congressman got ran thru a wringer for giving a single speech to a hate group 12 years ago, and the connection between NAMBLA and gays never even makes the paper.
> 
> So much for the news being unbiased.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, I guess we can always rely on certain posters to keep us up to date on NAMBLA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation: I want to bury the past. Anything that brings a bad light to homosexuality must be marginalized and stifled. All that matters is the "cause".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Translation:   We can always rely on posters like you keeping us up to date on NAMBLA.
Click to expand...



I suppose if I were you, I'd be embarrassed by the homosexual past as well. But, with every topic, every scab is scratched.

Its like telling the history of the US, and when the subject of slavery is brought up, you protest discussing it.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Mark


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I wouldn't know anything about NAMBLA without posters like you keeping us up to date.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm. Maybe you should look into the history of the homosexual movement and NAMBLA. You could of course choose not to, but it is not fair to believe that others who are aware of the history cannot make the connection.
> 
> Amazing that recently a GOP congressman got ran thru a wringer for giving a single speech to a hate group 12 years ago, and the connection between NAMBLA and gays never even makes the paper.
> 
> So much for the news being unbiased.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, I guess we can always rely on certain posters to keep us up to date on NAMBLA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation: I want to bury the past. Anything that brings a bad light to homosexuality must be marginalized and stifled. All that matters is the "cause".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Translation:   We can always rely on posters like you keeping us up to date on NAMBLA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose if I were you, I'd be embarrassed by the homosexual past as well. But, with every topic, every scab is scratched.
> 
> Its like telling the history of the US, and when the subject of slavery is brought up, you protest discussing it.
> 
> Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

What is to be embarrassed about the homosexual past?  Besides that it took too long for us to stop putting up with the bashing.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

hipeter924 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what are you saying..that if there's dual sexualities that's good reason to deny someone their rights?
> 
> 
> 
> Child abuse isn't a human right, even if the child 'likes it'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your backward, narrow, religiously dogmatic views of morality will have to give way to love.  Who are you to decide their love is wrong?  Aren't you the guys telling us that there are different kinds of love and they're all equal? What happened that you became such a repressed pedophobe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yawn. Pedobear will have to do without. Not going to cry about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. You're just going to be pushed aside by people who are even more "progressive" than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not a "progressive", a "liberal", or a "conservative". I would prefer it if 'marriage' of any variety was not condoned through special tax status for couples; or that the government dictates LGBT couples can't adopt. But I don't set the rules or the laws.
> 
> If marriage didn't provide incentives for couples, then it would be used ceremonially - instead it sets apart the single person from the couple with a special status (through tax and other things).
> 
> The attempts at stopping same-sex marriage are ultimately doomed to fail, as the special status attributed to marriage makes denying same-sex marriage a matter of discrimination rather than purely a issue with religious ceremonial marriages.
Click to expand...


The tax incentive thing is a joke.

The simple fact is that marriage produces significant benefits to the culture and the culture should encourage it.

Marriage is one thing; The Joining of one man and one woman.   Therefore, if homosexuals want the federal reductions in tax liability 'advantage' of being married, they should find someone of the opposite gender to marry, or shut the fuck up.  

They're not entitled to such... until they meet the requirements the standard FOR SUCH ESTABLISHES.

They're not being punished because they're queer and they're not being FORCED to BE QUEER.  So they have no legitimate bitch about anything.

Of course if they keep pushin', then they probably WILL have something to bitch about... but at the end of the day, they'll have no one to blame but themselves.


----------



## peach174

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens.  If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.
> 
> The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
> That means forcing Churches to marry gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It doesn't.  Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
> Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Catholic churches require you to be Catholic to marry in a Catholic Church? I guess I'll have to tell my non Catholic future daughter in law that she can't be married in a Catholic church since the date is already set.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy with the friendly fire. Peach is one of us.  As a Catholic I can clear that up.  We will marry any baptized Christian of any Christian faith.
Click to expand...



Thank you for clearing that up.
When I married my first husband, in the early 70's I had to join his Church which was Catholic,  but I was not baptized at that time,so we got married in a Baptist Church.
His Church never said that I had to be baptized though, they said that I needed to join.
So I don't know.


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Child abuse isn't a human right, even if the child 'likes it'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your backward, narrow, religiously dogmatic views of morality will have to give way to love.  Who are you to decide their love is wrong?  Aren't you the guys telling us that there are different kinds of love and they're all equal? What happened that you became such a repressed pedophobe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yawn. Pedobear will have to do without. Not going to cry about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. You're just going to be pushed aside by people who are even more "progressive" than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not a "progressive", a "liberal", or a "conservative". I would prefer it if 'marriage' of any variety was not condoned through special tax status for couples; or that the government dictates LGBT couples can't adopt. But I don't set the rules or the laws.
> 
> If marriage didn't provide incentives for couples, then it would be used ceremonially - instead it sets apart the single person from the couple with a special status (through tax and other things).
> 
> The attempts at stopping same-sex marriage are ultimately doomed to fail, as the special status attributed to marriage makes denying same-sex marriage a matter of discrimination rather than purely a issue with religious ceremonial marriages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tax incentive thing is a joke.
> 
> The simple fact is that marriage produces significant benefits to the culture and the culture should encourage it.
> 
> Marriage is one thing; The Joining of one man and one woman.   Therefore, if homosexuals want the federal reductions in tax liability 'advantage' of being married,* they should find someone of the opposite gender to marry, or shut the fuck up.  *
> 
> They're not entitled to such... until they meet the requirements the standard FOR SUCH ESTABLISHES.
> 
> They're not being punished because they're queer and they're not being FORCED to BE QUEER.  So they have no legitimate bitch about anything.
> 
> Of course if they keep pushin', then they probably WILL have something to bitch about... but at the end of the day, they'll have no one to blame but themselves.
Click to expand...

Fascinating.   Encouraging people to have marriages not of love and attraction...but built of lies and financial convenience.   Hmmmmmmmmmm.


----------



## hipeter924

bodecea said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your backward, narrow, religiously dogmatic views of morality will have to give way to love.  Who are you to decide their love is wrong?  Aren't you the guys telling us that there are different kinds of love and they're all equal? What happened that you became such a repressed pedophobe?
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn. Pedobear will have to do without. Not going to cry about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. You're just going to be pushed aside by people who are even more "progressive" than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not a "progressive", a "liberal", or a "conservative". I would prefer it if 'marriage' of any variety was not condoned through special tax status for couples; or that the government dictates LGBT couples can't adopt. But I don't set the rules or the laws.
> 
> If marriage didn't provide incentives for couples, then it would be used ceremonially - instead it sets apart the single person from the couple with a special status (through tax and other things).
> 
> The attempts at stopping same-sex marriage are ultimately doomed to fail, as the special status attributed to marriage makes denying same-sex marriage a matter of discrimination rather than purely a issue with religious ceremonial marriages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tax incentive thing is a joke.
> 
> The simple fact is that marriage produces significant benefits to the culture and the culture should encourage it.
> 
> Marriage is one thing; The Joining of one man and one woman.   Therefore, if homosexuals want the federal reductions in tax liability 'advantage' of being married,* they should find someone of the opposite gender to marry, or shut the fuck up.  *
> 
> They're not entitled to such... until they meet the requirements the standard FOR SUCH ESTABLISHES.
> 
> They're not being punished because they're queer and they're not being FORCED to BE QUEER.  So they have no legitimate bitch about anything.
> 
> Of course if they keep pushin', then they probably WILL have something to bitch about... but at the end of the day, they'll have no one to blame but themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fascinating.   Encouraging people to have marriages not of love and attraction...but built of lies and financial convenience.   Hmmmmmmmmmm.
Click to expand...

I know of one of those marriages, it ended badly with a divorce and court battle.


----------



## bodecea

hipeter924 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn. Pedobear will have to do without. Not going to cry about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. You're just going to be pushed aside by people who are even more "progressive" than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not a "progressive", a "liberal", or a "conservative". I would prefer it if 'marriage' of any variety was not condoned through special tax status for couples; or that the government dictates LGBT couples can't adopt. But I don't set the rules or the laws.
> 
> If marriage didn't provide incentives for couples, then it would be used ceremonially - instead it sets apart the single person from the couple with a special status (through tax and other things).
> 
> The attempts at stopping same-sex marriage are ultimately doomed to fail, as the special status attributed to marriage makes denying same-sex marriage a matter of discrimination rather than purely a issue with religious ceremonial marriages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tax incentive thing is a joke.
> 
> The simple fact is that marriage produces significant benefits to the culture and the culture should encourage it.
> 
> Marriage is one thing; The Joining of one man and one woman.   Therefore, if homosexuals want the federal reductions in tax liability 'advantage' of being married,* they should find someone of the opposite gender to marry, or shut the fuck up.  *
> 
> They're not entitled to such... until they meet the requirements the standard FOR SUCH ESTABLISHES.
> 
> They're not being punished because they're queer and they're not being FORCED to BE QUEER.  So they have no legitimate bitch about anything.
> 
> Of course if they keep pushin', then they probably WILL have something to bitch about... but at the end of the day, they'll have no one to blame but themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fascinating.   Encouraging people to have marriages not of love and attraction...but built of lies and financial convenience.   Hmmmmmmmmmm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know of one of those marriages, it ended badly with a divorce and court battle.
Click to expand...

I knew a few like that too....and one member here who I believe is on the verge of such a disaster....tho I warned him about being in the closet and all.


----------



## 80zephyr

Dogmaphobe said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on who you talk to. There are many who will argue that the only basis of morality is god. And if you use your reason, you're a relativist who is evil and believes in nothing. And that their faith is objective truth, as it comes directly from god. I'm not joking or inaccurately paraphrasing here. I can show you virtually exact quotes that say as much.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My observation is that for ever person who deals in arbitrary moral absolutes on the right, there is, in fact, a practitioner of moral relativism on the left.  Just looking at the large number of leftists who defend Islamism, rationalize acts of terror, or defend grossly misogynistic practices as long as they arise in any part of the world other than what we consider our own, I would say that there are plenty of people who do embody these charges.  Just as the right can have a tendency to argue from a position of moral absolutes, the left can get so caught up in trying to distance themselves from morality that they take on positions that are nearly nihilistic. Instead of articulating a superior morality that IS based upon reason, far too many avoid the very notion altogether.
> 
> Instead of arguing from the position "does this action cause harm?",  "Is it oppressive?" or "does it involve one person denying the rights of another", far too many on BOTH sides of an issue merely respond in terms of "what am I expected to say?", "what do all those who share my chosen ideology say?" or "what is the politically correct response?".
Click to expand...


Good post.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

JakeStarkey said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the experts don't agree with the far right on this Board.
> 
> Amazing.  The weirds start taking same sex attraction and these voyeurs start gabbling excitingly about bestiality, group sex, and other behavior that fascinates them.  No connection at all but they do get excited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. The APA is discussing classifying pedophilia in the same way they do homosexuality. If you all were truthful, you would understand that any sexual proclivity can(and should be if applied fairly) be classified exactly as homosexuality is. One sexual deviancy is really no different than another.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think anything other than male female penis in vagina is sexual deviancy- and that they are all the same as pedophilia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foreplay and masturbation are integral parts of sex. It is what makes it "fun", and that leads to pro creation.
> 
> So, let me turn your question around. Is there anything you consider a deviancy?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your behavior here is deviant, Mark: it is cruel, dark, and unnecessary.
Click to expand...


My question is valid. And there is nothing cruel about it. When debating a subject, any avenue to enlightenment is on the table.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

JakeStarkey said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I choose not to be attracted to men.
> 
> I find a lot of things repugnant.  Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are probably bisexual.
> 
> As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.
> 
> I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.
> 
> If you think you could chose to be turned on by a photo of Clooney in a bathing suit- then you  are probably bisexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could choose to be a criminal.  Does that make me one?
> 
> I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't choose your attraction, only whether to act on them or not. If you are not attracted to men, you can't make yourself attracted to men, trust me on this. (It's why reparative "therapy" has such a high failure rate)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be interesting to know what other psychiatric problems have a "high failure rate" and if we simply gave up because of it.
> 
> Did you ever stop to think that this "high failure rate" is because we haven't been been trying reparative therapy that long?
> 
> I mean fuck, we have been trying to cure cancer, diabetes, and heart disease forever.
> 
> Maybe you think we should stop trying?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reparative therapy has a high failure rate, Mark.  Your suggestion from that fact is useless, meaningless.
Click to expand...


Why? I have proven that gays can change. Are you really going to deny those that want to try to change the right to these treatments?

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could choose to be a criminal.  Does that make me one?
> 
> I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So with a mere choice you could find a man's hairy ass as sexually attractive as a woman's shapely backside?
> 
> Then Sy's right. You're probably bi already. For most of us, its not a choice. Its just an attribute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:
> 
> Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News
> 
> Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.
> 
> Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
Click to expand...


Finish answering the rest of my post:

*My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.

Mark*


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. The APA is discussing classifying pedophilia in the same way they do homosexuality. If you all were truthful, you would understand that any sexual proclivity can(and should be if applied fairly) be classified exactly as homosexuality is. One sexual deviancy is really no different than another.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think anything other than male female penis in vagina is sexual deviancy- and that they are all the same as pedophilia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foreplay and masturbation are integral parts of sex. It is what makes it "fun", and that leads to pro creation.
> 
> So, let me turn your question around. Is there anything you consider a deviancy?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you come. And I know plenty of guys that like them blowjobs to completion. So....abnormal and illogical?
> 
> How about masterbation? Old people having sex? The celibate? All 'abnormal and illogical' too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you read what I write? Why do I have to answer this yet again?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could you direct me to that answer then. Because I've never seen it.
> 
> I've seen you run from my question. I've seen you dodge it. I've never actually seen you answer it.
Click to expand...


We have over 1000 posts on this thread, why should I spend my time looking for it? And, I have never dodged an answer in my life.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation.  It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? In every species, natures way is reproduction. If a body does not reproduce, it kills off its lineage. That is why, in nature, homosexuality has to be considered abnormal.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nature is a complex and wondrous thing. Did you know that some species are a-sexual? Did you know some could change their gender? How about when animals intentionally sterilize themselves due to over population?
> 
> Since Homosexuality exists in over a thousand animals species and has existed in the human animal since the beginning of recorded history, it's pretty safe to assume that we're supposed to be here. Rest easy, scientists have some theories.
> 
> *The evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality
> 
> The genes that code for homosexuality do other things too*
> The allele - or group of genes - that sometimes codes for homosexual orientation may at other times have a strong reproductive benefit. This would compensate for gay people's lack of reproduction and ensure the continuation of the trait, as non-gay carriers of the gene pass it down.
> 
> *Gay people were 'helpers in the nest'*
> Paul Vasey's research in Samoa has focused on a theory called kin selection or the "helper in the nest" hypothesis. The idea is that gay people compensate for their lack of children by promoting the reproductive fitness of brothers or sisters, contributing money or performing other uncle-like activities such as babysitting or tutoring. Some of the gay person's genetic code is shared with nieces and nephews and so, the theory goes, the genes which code for sexual orientation still get passed down.[...]
> 
> *Gay people do have children*
> In the US, around 37% of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people have a child, about 60% of which are biological. According to the Williams Institute, gay couples that have children have an average of two.
> 
> These figures may not be high enough to sustain genetic traits specific to this group, but the evolutionary biologist Jeremy Yoder points out in a blog post that for much of modern history gay people haven't been living openly gay lives. Compelled by society to enter marriages and have children, their reproduction rates may have been higher than they are now.
> 
> *It's not all in the DNA*
> Qazi Rahman says that alleles coding for same sex attraction only explain some of the variety in human sexuality. Other, naturally varying biological factors come into play, with about one in seven gay men, he says, owing their sexuality to the "big brother effect".
> 
> This has nothing to do with George Orwell, but describes the observation that boys with older brothers are significantly more likely to become gay - with every older brother the chance of homosexuality increases by about a third. No-one knows why this is, but one theory is that with each male pregnancy, a woman's body forms an immune reaction to proteins that have a role in the development of the male brain. Since this only comes into play after several siblings have been born - most of whom are heterosexual and go on to have children - this pre-natal quirk hasn't been selected away by evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, after all of this, my statement still stands:
> 
> *In every species, natures way is reproduction. If a body does not reproduce, it kills off its lineage. That is why, in nature, homosexuality has to be considered abnormal.*
> 
> Humans are born with many types of problems. While these conditions are natural, they most assuredly are abnormal.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of things are 'abnormal'- oral sex is abnormal by your definition- yet the majority of Americans experience it at some time in their life- some of us more than others.
> 
> Abnormal doesn't mean bad.
> 
> Except in the case of homophobes- homosexuals=abnormal-= bad.
Click to expand...


Who said oral sex was abnormal? I said it is a mechanism used by nature to simulate humans to have sex to procreate.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

JakeStarkey said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]It all boils down to what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - so why does the Gay machine insist on getting into everybody else faces ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the far right social cons want to dictate what grown adults do sexually.
> 
> That's over and done with. You've lost.
Click to expand...



Who said that? I don't care if gay men want to fuck each other, or a goat for that matter. I DO CARE that by normalizing homosexual marriage by force of law will harm society and the family unit.

Mark


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation.  It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? In every species, natures way is reproduction. If a body does not reproduce, it kills off its lineage. That is why, in nature, homosexuality has to be considered abnormal.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nature is a complex and wondrous thing. Did you know that some species are a-sexual? Did you know some could change their gender? How about when animals intentionally sterilize themselves due to over population?
> 
> Since Homosexuality exists in over a thousand animals species and has existed in the human animal since the beginning of recorded history, it's pretty safe to assume that we're supposed to be here. Rest easy, scientists have some theories.
> 
> *The evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality
> 
> The genes that code for homosexuality do other things too*
> The allele - or group of genes - that sometimes codes for homosexual orientation may at other times have a strong reproductive benefit. This would compensate for gay people's lack of reproduction and ensure the continuation of the trait, as non-gay carriers of the gene pass it down.
> 
> *Gay people were 'helpers in the nest'*
> Paul Vasey's research in Samoa has focused on a theory called kin selection or the "helper in the nest" hypothesis. The idea is that gay people compensate for their lack of children by promoting the reproductive fitness of brothers or sisters, contributing money or performing other uncle-like activities such as babysitting or tutoring. Some of the gay person's genetic code is shared with nieces and nephews and so, the theory goes, the genes which code for sexual orientation still get passed down.[...]
> 
> *Gay people do have children*
> In the US, around 37% of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people have a child, about 60% of which are biological. According to the Williams Institute, gay couples that have children have an average of two.
> 
> These figures may not be high enough to sustain genetic traits specific to this group, but the evolutionary biologist Jeremy Yoder points out in a blog post that for much of modern history gay people haven't been living openly gay lives. Compelled by society to enter marriages and have children, their reproduction rates may have been higher than they are now.
> 
> *It's not all in the DNA*
> Qazi Rahman says that alleles coding for same sex attraction only explain some of the variety in human sexuality. Other, naturally varying biological factors come into play, with about one in seven gay men, he says, owing their sexuality to the "big brother effect".
> 
> This has nothing to do with George Orwell, but describes the observation that boys with older brothers are significantly more likely to become gay - with every older brother the chance of homosexuality increases by about a third. No-one knows why this is, but one theory is that with each male pregnancy, a woman's body forms an immune reaction to proteins that have a role in the development of the male brain. Since this only comes into play after several siblings have been born - most of whom are heterosexual and go on to have children - this pre-natal quirk hasn't been selected away by evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, after all of this, my statement still stands:
> 
> *In every species, natures way is reproduction. If a body does not reproduce, it kills off its lineage. That is why, in nature, homosexuality has to be considered abnormal.*
> 
> Humans are born with many types of problems. While these conditions are natural, they most assuredly are abnormal.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of things are 'abnormal'- oral sex is abnormal by your definition- yet the majority of Americans experience it at some time in their life- some of us more than others.
> 
> Abnormal doesn't mean bad.
> 
> Except in the case of homophobes- homosexuals=abnormal-= bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said oral sex was abnormal? I said it is a mechanism used by nature to simulate humans to have sex to procreate.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Oral sex is 'abnormal' in that until recently it was not normal. 

IF oral sex that does not lead to procreation is bad then every man who enjoys a blowjob should be as much a deviant in your mind as every homosexual act of sex. 

But heck- we are just haggling over the words- we all know you just are rationalizing as to why you don't like homosexuals.


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]It all boils down to what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - so why does the Gay machine insist on getting into everybody else faces ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the far right social cons want to dictate what grown adults do sexually.
> 
> That's over and done with. You've lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that? I don't care if gay men want to fuck each other, or a goat for that matter. I DO CARE that by normalizing homosexual marriage by force of law will harm society and the family unit.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


I have been married for over 20 years to my wife. I have a wonderful child. 

My family unit is not harmed in the least by allowing two persons of the same gender to marry.
Nor will it harm society at all.

As someone else so succintly put it- if your marriage will be harmed by gay marriage- then the problem is with your marriage.


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the experts don't agree with the far right on this Board.
> 
> Amazing.  The weirds start taking same sex attraction and these voyeurs start gabbling excitingly about bestiality, group sex, and other behavior that fascinates them.  No connection at all but they do get excited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. The APA is discussing classifying pedophilia in the same way they do homosexuality. If you all were truthful, you would understand that any sexual proclivity can(and should be if applied fairly) be classified exactly as homosexuality is. One sexual deviancy is really no different than another.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think anything other than male female penis in vagina is sexual deviancy- and that they are all the same as pedophilia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foreplay and masturbation are integral parts of sex. It is what makes it "fun", and that leads to pro creation.
> 
> So, let me turn your question around. Is there anything you consider a deviancy?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question- do you equate anything other than male female penis in vagina as deviancy- just like pedophilia?
Click to expand...


No. Like I pointed out in my answer.

Mark


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So with a mere choice you could find a man's hairy ass as sexually attractive as a woman's shapely backside?
> 
> Then Sy's right. You're probably bi already. For most of us, its not a choice. Its just an attribute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:
> 
> Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News
> 
> Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.
> 
> Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finish answering the rest of my post:
> 
> *My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Mark*
Click to expand...


I think i have answered you just fine.

People can choose who to have sex with.

There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.

Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.

No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are probably bisexual.
> 
> As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.
> 
> I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.
> 
> If you think you could chose to be turned on by a photo of Clooney in a bathing suit- then you  are probably bisexual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could choose to be a criminal.  Does that make me one?
> 
> I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't choose your attraction, only whether to act on them or not. If you are not attracted to men, you can't make yourself attracted to men, trust me on this. (It's why reparative "therapy" has such a high failure rate)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be interesting to know what other psychiatric problems have a "high failure rate" and if we simply gave up because of it.
> 
> Did you ever stop to think that this "high failure rate" is because we haven't been been trying reparative therapy that long?
> 
> I mean fuck, we have been trying to cure cancer, diabetes, and heart disease forever.
> 
> Maybe you think we should stop trying?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reparative therapy has a high failure rate, Mark.  Your suggestion from that fact is useless, meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? I have proven that gays can change. Are you really going to deny those that want to try to change the right to these treatments?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


You have just proven that some persons have changed who they have sex with.

There is no evidence that reparative therapy changes sexual attraction.


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation.  It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that depends. Every other generation didn't celebrate it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most don't "celebrate it".  Wanting to not be forced to hide it is not "celebrating" it.  They want to be treated the same way you are - like people.
Click to expand...


By allowing gays to marry, it is normalizing a deviant behavior. It is condoning it. That would be a better term.

Mark


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Child abuse isn't a human right, even if the child 'likes it'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your backward, narrow, religiously dogmatic views of morality will have to give way to love.  Who are you to decide their love is wrong?  Aren't you the guys telling us that there are different kinds of love and they're all equal? What happened that you became such a repressed pedophobe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yawn. Pedobear will have to do without. Not going to cry about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. You're just going to be pushed aside by people who are even more "progressive" than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not a "progressive", a "liberal", or a "conservative". I would prefer it if 'marriage' of any variety was not condoned through special tax status for couples; or that the government dictates LGBT couples can't adopt. But I don't set the rules or the laws.
> 
> If marriage didn't provide incentives for couples, then it would be used ceremonially - instead it sets apart the single person from the couple with a special status (through tax and other things).
> 
> The attempts at stopping same-sex marriage are ultimately doomed to fail, as the special status attributed to marriage makes denying same-sex marriage a matter of discrimination rather than purely a issue with religious ceremonial marriages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tax incentive thing is a joke.
> 
> The simple fact is that marriage produces significant benefits to the culture and the culture should encourage it.
> .
Click to expand...


That is exactly why I encourage same gender couples to marry.


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation.  It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that depends. Every other generation didn't celebrate it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most don't "celebrate it".  Wanting to not be forced to hide it is not "celebrating" it.  They want to be treated the same way you are - like people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By allowing gays to marry, it is normalizing a deviant behavior. It is condoning it. That would be a better term.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


No more than allowing heterosexuals who enjoy oral sex to marry is. 

Do you know that up until just about 20 years ago- mixed race relationships were considered deviant behavior by most Americans?

I have as much respect for your condemnation of gay sex as deviant as I do those who think mixed race sex is deviant.


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? In every species, natures way is reproduction. If a body does not reproduce, it kills off its lineage. That is why, in nature, homosexuality has to be considered abnormal.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nature is a complex and wondrous thing. Did you know that some species are a-sexual? Did you know some could change their gender? How about when animals intentionally sterilize themselves due to over population?
> 
> Since Homosexuality exists in over a thousand animals species and has existed in the human animal since the beginning of recorded history, it's pretty safe to assume that we're supposed to be here. Rest easy, scientists have some theories.
> 
> *The evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality
> 
> The genes that code for homosexuality do other things too*
> The allele - or group of genes - that sometimes codes for homosexual orientation may at other times have a strong reproductive benefit. This would compensate for gay people's lack of reproduction and ensure the continuation of the trait, as non-gay carriers of the gene pass it down.
> 
> *Gay people were 'helpers in the nest'*
> Paul Vasey's research in Samoa has focused on a theory called kin selection or the "helper in the nest" hypothesis. The idea is that gay people compensate for their lack of children by promoting the reproductive fitness of brothers or sisters, contributing money or performing other uncle-like activities such as babysitting or tutoring. Some of the gay person's genetic code is shared with nieces and nephews and so, the theory goes, the genes which code for sexual orientation still get passed down.[...]
> 
> *Gay people do have children*
> In the US, around 37% of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people have a child, about 60% of which are biological. According to the Williams Institute, gay couples that have children have an average of two.
> 
> These figures may not be high enough to sustain genetic traits specific to this group, but the evolutionary biologist Jeremy Yoder points out in a blog post that for much of modern history gay people haven't been living openly gay lives. Compelled by society to enter marriages and have children, their reproduction rates may have been higher than they are now.
> 
> *It's not all in the DNA*
> Qazi Rahman says that alleles coding for same sex attraction only explain some of the variety in human sexuality. Other, naturally varying biological factors come into play, with about one in seven gay men, he says, owing their sexuality to the "big brother effect".
> 
> This has nothing to do with George Orwell, but describes the observation that boys with older brothers are significantly more likely to become gay - with every older brother the chance of homosexuality increases by about a third. No-one knows why this is, but one theory is that with each male pregnancy, a woman's body forms an immune reaction to proteins that have a role in the development of the male brain. Since this only comes into play after several siblings have been born - most of whom are heterosexual and go on to have children - this pre-natal quirk hasn't been selected away by evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, after all of this, my statement still stands:
> 
> *In every species, natures way is reproduction. If a body does not reproduce, it kills off its lineage. That is why, in nature, homosexuality has to be considered abnormal.*
> 
> Humans are born with many types of problems. While these conditions are natural, they most assuredly are abnormal.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of things are 'abnormal'- oral sex is abnormal by your definition- yet the majority of Americans experience it at some time in their life- some of us more than others.
> 
> Abnormal doesn't mean bad.
> 
> Except in the case of homophobes- homosexuals=abnormal-= bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said oral sex was abnormal? I said it is a mechanism used by nature to simulate humans to have sex to procreate.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oral sex is 'abnormal' in that until recently it was not normal.
> 
> IF oral sex that does not lead to procreation is bad then every man who enjoys a blowjob should be as much a deviant in your mind as every homosexual act of sex.
> 
> But heck- we are just haggling over the words- we all know you just are rationalizing as to why you don't like homosexuals.
Click to expand...


Sigh. The mechanism of oral sex is part of nature to promote sexual activity to reproduce. That humans don't use it for that purpose during every sexual encounter doesn't change that fact.

And who said I don't like homosexuals?

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]It all boils down to what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - so why does the Gay machine insist on getting into everybody else faces ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the far right social cons want to dictate what grown adults do sexually.
> 
> That's over and done with. You've lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that? I don't care if gay men want to fuck each other, or a goat for that matter. I DO CARE that by normalizing homosexual marriage by force of law will harm society and the family unit.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have been married for over 20 years to my wife. I have a wonderful child.
> 
> My family unit is not harmed in the least by allowing two persons of the same gender to marry.
> Nor will it harm society at all.
> 
> As someone else so succintly put it- if your marriage will be harmed by gay marriage- then the problem is with your marriage.
Click to expand...


I am sure that people said the same thing about divorce. Suddenly, people found a "problem" with their marriage when divorce became easy to get, and the state would subsidize the womans expenses.

The result? Divorce skyrocketed. Personally, I'm not worried about my marriage, but everyone elses.

Mark


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation.  It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that depends. Every other generation didn't celebrate it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet here it is. Now the question you have to ask yourself is.....so what?
> 
> There are certain things that are wrong because they cause genuine harm (rape, murder, theft) and certain things that are wrong because someone believes the are (pork, gays, cheeseburgers, working on sunday). We're rational enough in this day and age to glean that homosexuality is clearly in that latter camp.
> 
> Which begs the question, why should we give a fuck? They're just people. Treat them like people and be done with it. Generally speaking, how a person gets their nut is about the least interesting thing about them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted this before. The left has cheapened marriage and family by the relaxation of societal rules concerning divorce, welfare, and single motherhoodk
Click to expand...


No one enjoys the divorce more than Conservatives- the states with the highest rates of divorce tend to be Conservative- and your fellow Conservatives- Reagan- Gingrich and others have all taken advantage of divorce. 

Single motherhood? What were the 'societal rules' about single motherhood- my great grandmother raised her kids as a single mom through the depths of the depression.

Like many Conservatives- you just cherry pick what you don't like- and blame it all on liberals. 

Just the effect of wearing partisan goggles.


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:
> 
> Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News
> 
> Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.
> 
> Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finish answering the rest of my post:
> 
> *My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Mark*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think i have answered you just fine.
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
Click to expand...


So, are you afraid to answer the blue bolded part?

Mark


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature is a complex and wondrous thing. Did you know that some species are a-sexual? Did you know some could change their gender? How about when animals intentionally sterilize themselves due to over population?
> 
> Since Homosexuality exists in over a thousand animals species and has existed in the human animal since the beginning of recorded history, it's pretty safe to assume that we're supposed to be here. Rest easy, scientists have some theories.
> 
> *The evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality
> 
> The genes that code for homosexuality do other things too*
> The allele - or group of genes - that sometimes codes for homosexual orientation may at other times have a strong reproductive benefit. This would compensate for gay people's lack of reproduction and ensure the continuation of the trait, as non-gay carriers of the gene pass it down.
> 
> *Gay people were 'helpers in the nest'*
> Paul Vasey's research in Samoa has focused on a theory called kin selection or the "helper in the nest" hypothesis. The idea is that gay people compensate for their lack of children by promoting the reproductive fitness of brothers or sisters, contributing money or performing other uncle-like activities such as babysitting or tutoring. Some of the gay person's genetic code is shared with nieces and nephews and so, the theory goes, the genes which code for sexual orientation still get passed down.[...]
> 
> *Gay people do have children*
> In the US, around 37% of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people have a child, about 60% of which are biological. According to the Williams Institute, gay couples that have children have an average of two.
> 
> These figures may not be high enough to sustain genetic traits specific to this group, but the evolutionary biologist Jeremy Yoder points out in a blog post that for much of modern history gay people haven't been living openly gay lives. Compelled by society to enter marriages and have children, their reproduction rates may have been higher than they are now.
> 
> *It's not all in the DNA*
> Qazi Rahman says that alleles coding for same sex attraction only explain some of the variety in human sexuality. Other, naturally varying biological factors come into play, with about one in seven gay men, he says, owing their sexuality to the "big brother effect".
> 
> This has nothing to do with George Orwell, but describes the observation that boys with older brothers are significantly more likely to become gay - with every older brother the chance of homosexuality increases by about a third. No-one knows why this is, but one theory is that with each male pregnancy, a woman's body forms an immune reaction to proteins that have a role in the development of the male brain. Since this only comes into play after several siblings have been born - most of whom are heterosexual and go on to have children - this pre-natal quirk hasn't been selected away by evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, after all of this, my statement still stands:
> 
> *In every species, natures way is reproduction. If a body does not reproduce, it kills off its lineage. That is why, in nature, homosexuality has to be considered abnormal.*
> 
> Humans are born with many types of problems. While these conditions are natural, they most assuredly are abnormal.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of things are 'abnormal'- oral sex is abnormal by your definition- yet the majority of Americans experience it at some time in their life- some of us more than others.
> 
> Abnormal doesn't mean bad.
> 
> Except in the case of homophobes- homosexuals=abnormal-= bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said oral sex was abnormal? I said it is a mechanism used by nature to simulate humans to have sex to procreate.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oral sex is 'abnormal' in that until recently it was not normal.
> 
> IF oral sex that does not lead to procreation is bad then every man who enjoys a blowjob should be as much a deviant in your mind as every homosexual act of sex.
> 
> But heck- we are just haggling over the words- we all know you just are rationalizing as to why you don't like homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh. The mechanism of oral sex is part of nature to promote sexual activity to reproduce. That humans don't use it for that purpose during every sexual encounter doesn't change that fact.
> 
> And who said I don't like homosexuals?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


If you are trying to prevent two people from marrying simply because you do not approve of them having homosexual sex- yes- you don't like homosexuals. 

Sex serves more than one purpose- certainly sex is necessary for reproduction and most of us are hardwired to enjoy penis-vagina sex. 

But most of the sex we have not only is not for reproduction- we actively seek to prevent it most of our adult lives. 

Whether that is through oral sex, through anal sex, or through contraception- most of us have 'deviant' sex- in that we have it intending not to reproduce. 

And none of that sex has anything to do with why we have marriage.


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finish answering the rest of my post:
> 
> *My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Mark*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think i have answered you just fine.
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, are you afraid to answer the blue bolded part?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Who said I am afraid- like I said- I am comfortable with my answer

People can choose who to have sex with.

There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.

Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.

No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could choose to be a criminal.  Does that make me one?
> 
> I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't choose your attraction, only whether to act on them or not. If you are not attracted to men, you can't make yourself attracted to men, trust me on this. (It's why reparative "therapy" has such a high failure rate)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be interesting to know what other psychiatric problems have a "high failure rate" and if we simply gave up because of it.
> 
> Did you ever stop to think that this "high failure rate" is because we haven't been been trying reparative therapy that long?
> 
> I mean fuck, we have been trying to cure cancer, diabetes, and heart disease forever.
> 
> Maybe you think we should stop trying?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reparative therapy has a high failure rate, Mark.  Your suggestion from that fact is useless, meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? I have proven that gays can change. Are you really going to deny those that want to try to change the right to these treatments?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have just proven that some persons have changed who they have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that reparative therapy changes sexual attraction.
Click to expand...


So, if they "changed who they had sex with", it boils down to two reasons:

1) They were simply "confused" about their sexuality. If true, we have to ask how many more are "Confused".

2) They really did change. You are asserting they did not. Now you should provide a link to back up that claim.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation.  It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that depends. Every other generation didn't celebrate it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most don't "celebrate it".  Wanting to not be forced to hide it is not "celebrating" it.  They want to be treated the same way you are - like people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By allowing gays to marry, it is normalizing a deviant behavior. It is condoning it. That would be a better term.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No more than allowing heterosexuals who enjoy oral sex to marry is.
> 
> Do you know that up until just about 20 years ago- mixed race relationships were considered deviant behavior by most Americans?
> 
> I have as much respect for your condemnation of gay sex as deviant as I do those who think mixed race sex is deviant.
Click to expand...


Who is condemning gay sex? Like I stated earlier, I could care less.

Mark


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not all child molesters are pedophiles, and even if they are pedophiles they can still be attracted to other adults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what are you saying..that if there's dual sexualities that's good reason to deny someone their rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Child abuse isn't a human right, even if the child 'likes it'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your backward, narrow, religiously dogmatic views of morality will have to give way to love.  Who are you to decide their love is wrong?  Aren't you the guys telling us that there are different kinds of love and they're all equal? What happened that you became such a repressed pedophobe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well now.  Now we know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That homosexuality is inextricably linked to pederasty?  Yes, that's been known for many centuries.
Click to expand...


That bigots are inextricably linked to trying to call homosexuals pedophiles- yes thats been known for decades.


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finish answering the rest of my post:
> 
> *My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Mark*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think i have answered you just fine.
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, are you afraid to answer the blue bolded part?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said I am afraid- like I said- I am comfortable with my answer
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
Click to expand...


Lol. What you are comfortable with is your non answer. To answer my question truthfully puts your entire stance squarely behind the eight ball.

I understand your reluctance to answer my question.

Mark


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't choose your attraction, only whether to act on them or not. If you are not attracted to men, you can't make yourself attracted to men, trust me on this. (It's why reparative "therapy" has such a high failure rate)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be interesting to know what other psychiatric problems have a "high failure rate" and if we simply gave up because of it.
> 
> Did you ever stop to think that this "high failure rate" is because we haven't been been trying reparative therapy that long?
> 
> I mean fuck, we have been trying to cure cancer, diabetes, and heart disease forever.
> 
> Maybe you think we should stop trying?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reparative therapy has a high failure rate, Mark.  Your suggestion from that fact is useless, meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? I have proven that gays can change. Are you really going to deny those that want to try to change the right to these treatments?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have just proven that some persons have changed who they have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that reparative therapy changes sexual attraction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if they "changed who they had sex with", it boils down to two reasons:
> 
> 1) They were simply "confused" about their sexuality. If true, we have to ask how many more are "Confused".
> 
> 2) They really did change. You are asserting they did not. Now you should provide a link to back up that claim.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


People choose to have sex for many reasons. 

I have known persons who were attracted to the same gender but had sex with the opposite gender for years because they were terrified what their family or church would say. 

Reading the accounts of reparative therapy, I think that a similar effect is in place- homosexuals are offered an accepting environment that is safer than going through life as part of a minority that is discriminated against often by their own family.

Personally- I don't care whether a persons sexuality is immutable or not. If a person is attracted to the same gender- and is miserable about that- and can find some way they are happy dealing with that- that is fine with me.

But if a person is attracted to the same gender- and finds someone of the same gender who they love and want to marry- I am fine with that also. 

Two gay men or two gay women marrying doesnt' threaten my marriage or my family.


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finish answering the rest of my post:
> 
> *My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Mark*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think i have answered you just fine.
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, are you afraid to answer the blue bolded part?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said I am afraid- like I said- I am comfortable with my answer
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. What you are comfortable with is your non answer. To answer my question truthfully puts your entire stance squarely behind the eight ball.
> 
> I understand your reluctance to answer my question.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


The question is why do you have any issues with my post. Here once again:

*People can choose who to have sex with.

There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.

Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.

No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.*


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what are you saying..that if there's dual sexualities that's good reason to deny someone their rights?
> 
> 
> 
> Child abuse isn't a human right, even if the child 'likes it'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your backward, narrow, religiously dogmatic views of morality will have to give way to love.  Who are you to decide their love is wrong?  Aren't you the guys telling us that there are different kinds of love and they're all equal? What happened that you became such a repressed pedophobe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well now.  Now we know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That homosexuality is inextricably linked to pederasty?  Yes, that's been known for many centuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That bigots are inextricably linked to trying to call homosexuals pedophiles- yes thats been known for decades.
Click to expand...


Actually, it was the homosexuals themselves that linked themselves to pedophilia. Read up on the history of the gay movement.

Mark


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of his anything to do with same sex marriage.  Nice red herring though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They actually do, because they demonstrate the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality as a movement, thus demonstrating the nature of the slippery slope, as well as how the slope more closely resembles a cliff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fathers, step-fathers, and family friends in heterosexual relationships are the biggest danger to children sexually.   And girls are victims way more....shall you blame that on gays too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Furthermore, children are in much greater danger of being either physically or sexually assaulted by a hetero male family member or friend than any stranger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those damn heteros....
> 
> Here's something interesting: List of pedophile activist organizations - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> *USA*
> 
> [1]
> Childhood Sesuality Circle (CSC). Founded in 1971 in San Diego (California) by a student of Wilhelm Reich.[3] CSC closed down in the mid-1980s, when Valida Davila became too frail to continue with it.
> North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). 1978–present. Largely defunct.
> Pedophile Information Society. Defunct?
> Project Truth. One of the organizations which was expulsed from ILGA in 1994 as a pedophile organization.[14] Defunct.
> B4U-ACT Established in 2003 as a 501(c)(3) organization in Westminster, MD. Co-founder and Board Chair, Russell A. Dick. Website, B4U-ACT
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because by legal definition she isn't.
> 
> The other is an attempt to side track this into another argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, right. The "social overlay" again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, this one is the legal overlay since we are, after all, arguing law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that subjective and therefore an insufficient reason to deny that 12 year old girl her 14th Amendment rights to sex with an adult?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Children have never had the same rights as adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there was a time when women and blacks didn't have the same rights as men and white people.  Amazing how all the Leftist arguments are backfiring.  Maybe children and their adult lovers are the new Selma and Alice Paul that you're oppressing.  Why are you to say their love is wrong?  Why aren't their constitutional rights to asymmetrical sex being respected?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children have never constitutionally had the same rights as adults.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot all the groups who don't advertise the fact that they are pro-pedophile.  Such as GLSEN for starters
> 
> You may also recall that Mr. Obama appointed Kevin Jennings, founder of the “Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network,” or GLSEN, to the post of “safe schools czar.” The position is now defunct, ostensibly due to national outrage over Jennings’ appointment.
> 
> In keeping with the thinly veiled goals of B4U-ACT, GLSEN seems to be “running interference” for pedophiles,* having tacitly advocated adult-child sex through its “recommended reading list” for kids.
> 
> 
> Ref:  The homosexual Left 8217 s new crusade Normalizing adult-child sex Opinion LifeSite*
Click to expand...


And I will say once again- bigots like yourself who attempt to equate homosexuals to pedophiles put children at risk.

And you don't care.


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finish answering the rest of my post:
> 
> *My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Mark*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think i have answered you just fine.
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, are you afraid to answer the blue bolded part?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said I am afraid- like I said- I am comfortable with my answer
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. What you are comfortable with is your non answer. To answer my question truthfully puts your entire stance squarely behind the eight ball.
> 
> I understand your reluctance to answer my question.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question is why do you have any issues with my post. Here once again:
> 
> *People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.*
Click to expand...


Maybe I'll answer your question when you answer mine.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> They actually do, because they demonstrate the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality as a movement, thus demonstrating the nature of the slippery slope, as well as how the slope more closely resembles a cliff.
> 
> 
> 
> Fathers, step-fathers, and family friends in heterosexual relationships are the biggest danger to children sexually.   And girls are victims way more....shall you blame that on gays too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Furthermore, children are in much greater danger of being either physically or sexually assaulted by a hetero male family member or friend than any stranger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those damn heteros....
> 
> Here's something interesting: List of pedophile activist organizations - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> *USA*
> 
> [1]
> Childhood Sesuality Circle (CSC). Founded in 1971 in San Diego (California) by a student of Wilhelm Reich.[3] CSC closed down in the mid-1980s, when Valida Davila became too frail to continue with it.
> North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). 1978–present. Largely defunct.
> Pedophile Information Society. Defunct?
> Project Truth. One of the organizations which was expulsed from ILGA in 1994 as a pedophile organization.[14] Defunct.
> B4U-ACT Established in 2003 as a 501(c)(3) organization in Westminster, MD. Co-founder and Board Chair, Russell A. Dick. Website, B4U-ACT
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, right. The "social overlay" again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, this one is the legal overlay since we are, after all, arguing law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that subjective and therefore an insufficient reason to deny that 12 year old girl her 14th Amendment rights to sex with an adult?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Children have never had the same rights as adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there was a time when women and blacks didn't have the same rights as men and white people.  Amazing how all the Leftist arguments are backfiring.  Maybe children and their adult lovers are the new Selma and Alice Paul that you're oppressing.  Why are you to say their love is wrong?  Why aren't their constitutional rights to asymmetrical sex being respected?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children have never constitutionally had the same rights as adults.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot all the groups who don't advertise the fact that they are pro-pedophile.  Such as GLSEN for starters
> 
> You may also recall that Mr. Obama appointed Kevin Jennings, founder of the “Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network,” or GLSEN, to the post of “safe schools czar.” The position is now defunct, ostensibly due to national outrage over Jennings’ appointment.
> 
> In keeping with the thinly veiled goals of B4U-ACT, GLSEN seems to be “running interference” for pedophiles,* having tacitly advocated adult-child sex through its “recommended reading list” for kids.
> 
> 
> Ref:  The homosexual Left 8217 s new crusade Normalizing adult-child sex Opinion LifeSite*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I will say once again- bigots like yourself who attempt to equate homosexuals to pedophiles put children at risk.
> 
> And you don't care.
Click to expand...


I didn't link them to pedophiles. They linked themselves. I am simply stating historical fact, And you would hide that association to make it easier for them to succeed.

Would you rather I lie?

BTW, why call me a bigot? I am arguing my points in a logical and factual manner? When people start to name call, it is evidence they are losing the debate.

Is that how you feel?

Mark


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Child abuse isn't a human right, even if the child 'likes it'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your backward, narrow, religiously dogmatic views of morality will have to give way to love.  Who are you to decide their love is wrong?  Aren't you the guys telling us that there are different kinds of love and they're all equal? What happened that you became such a repressed pedophobe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well now.  Now we know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That homosexuality is inextricably linked to pederasty?  Yes, that's been known for many centuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That bigots are inextricably linked to trying to call homosexuals pedophiles- yes thats been known for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it was the homosexuals themselves that linked themselves to pedophilia. Read up on the history of the gay movement.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


No Mark,

There are a very 'special' subset of bigots- homophobes- who always try to spread the message homosexual= pedophile.

if you want to read up on the complicated subject that is pedophilia- there is an excellent article by Dr Hall and Dr. Hall that Silhouette regularly misquotes and misidentifies. 

http://www.abusewatch.net/pedophiles.pdf

Bottom line is something like this:
Pedophilia is technically not the same thing as child sex abuse- but we call child sex abuse pedophilia also.
Almost all pedophiles are men. 
Pedophiles tend to molest either boys- they are then called homosexual pedophiles- or girls- they are then called heterosexual pedophiles.

There is no relationship between an adult male's sexual interest in other adults and his sexual attraction to children- a sizeable number of pedophiles have no sexual relationships with adults. 

Efforts by bigots like Greenboy to tell people that homosexuals= pedophiles leaves children at risk from pedophiles.

Because child molesters don't go around with labels on themselves- and most child molesters who molest boys consider themselves heterosexuals- which is why you end up with an openly heterosexual husband and father like Jerry Sandusky also happening to be a monster who raped little boys. 

As far as I am concerned- the bigots who try to claim that homosexuals are pedophiles are no different from the bigots who claim that Negroes are rapists.

Both sets of bigots put people at risk in order to further their own bigotry.


----------



## 80zephyr

JakeStarkey said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation.  It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that depends. Every other generation didn't celebrate it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most don't "celebrate it".  Wanting to not be forced to hide it is not "celebrating" it.  They want to be treated the same way you are - like people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The militiant straights want to "celebrate" their sexuality.  Of course.  So do gays.
> 
> The straights do not want gays to have the same rights under law.
> 
> That is deviant.
Click to expand...


Deviancy is away from the norm. You are using the term in the wrong context. But, I figure you know that already.

Mark


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fathers, step-fathers, and family friends in heterosexual relationships are the biggest danger to children sexually.   And girls are victims way more....shall you blame that on gays too?
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, children are in much greater danger of being either physically or sexually assaulted by a hetero male family member or friend than any stranger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those damn heteros....
> 
> Here's something interesting: List of pedophile activist organizations - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> *USA*
> 
> [1]
> Childhood Sesuality Circle (CSC). Founded in 1971 in San Diego (California) by a student of Wilhelm Reich.[3] CSC closed down in the mid-1980s, when Valida Davila became too frail to continue with it.
> North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). 1978–present. Largely defunct.
> Pedophile Information Society. Defunct?
> Project Truth. One of the organizations which was expulsed from ILGA in 1994 as a pedophile organization.[14] Defunct.
> B4U-ACT Established in 2003 as a 501(c)(3) organization in Westminster, MD. Co-founder and Board Chair, Russell A. Dick. Website, B4U-ACT
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, this one is the legal overlay since we are, after all, arguing law
> 
> Nope.  Children have never had the same rights as adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there was a time when women and blacks didn't have the same rights as men and white people.  Amazing how all the Leftist arguments are backfiring.  Maybe children and their adult lovers are the new Selma and Alice Paul that you're oppressing.  Why are you to say their love is wrong?  Why aren't their constitutional rights to asymmetrical sex being respected?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children have never constitutionally had the same rights as adults.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot all the groups who don't advertise the fact that they are pro-pedophile.  Such as GLSEN for starters
> 
> You may also recall that Mr. Obama appointed Kevin Jennings, founder of the “Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network,” or GLSEN, to the post of “safe schools czar.” The position is now defunct, ostensibly due to national outrage over Jennings’ appointment.
> 
> In keeping with the thinly veiled goals of B4U-ACT, GLSEN seems to be “running interference” for pedophiles,* having tacitly advocated adult-child sex through its “recommended reading list” for kids.
> 
> 
> Ref:  The homosexual Left 8217 s new crusade Normalizing adult-child sex Opinion LifeSite*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I will say once again- bigots like yourself who attempt to equate homosexuals to pedophiles put children at risk.
> 
> And you don't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't link them to pedophiles. They linked themselves. I am simply stating historical fact, And you would hide that association to make it easier for them to succeed.
> 
> Would you rather I lie?
> 
> BTW, why call me a bigot? I am arguing my points in a logical and factual manner? When people start to name call, it is evidence they are losing the debate.
> 
> Is that how you feel?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


I was responding to the post by Greenboy- not a post by you- quoting 
Ref: The homosexual Left 8217 s new crusade Normalizing adult-child sex Opinion LifeSite


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> A tiny group does.  A minority does not a slippery slope make.  Westboro Baptists anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It literally does... because the minority is pushing the agenda.
> 
> There is no Christian acceptance of Westboro, unanimously the Christian community rejects them OVERTLY.
> 
> Such is not the case with the mouthy, would-be minority of the Militant sect of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality cult.
> 
> *In thread after thread, I have set forth the the request for the professed homosexuals participating in such, IF they rejected the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... to this moment, I have not had a single one stand up against it.*
> 
> You included...
> 
> But I sense that you're desirous to separate yourself from the pack...
> 
> Do you accept or reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification?
> 
> If no, why not?
> 
> If so, on what basis do you reject it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't recall you asking me.  But as I've already said....I am glad to see the age of consent trending UP and not down (except for in the bible belt).   Of course I reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification....and if you paid attention to my posting history, you would already have known that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long will the "age of consent" line hold sway against a waxing tide of depravity?
> 
> We could start a betting pool on that.
Click to expand...


I am sure that Conservatives will be trying to lower the age of Consent any time now.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> A tiny group does.  A minority does not a slippery slope make.  Westboro Baptists anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It literally does... because the minority is pushing the agenda.
> 
> There is no Christian acceptance of Westboro, unanimously the Christian community rejects them OVERTLY.
> 
> Such is not the case with the mouthy, would-be minority of the Militant sect of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality cult.
> 
> *In thread after thread, I have set forth the the request for the professed homosexuals participating in such, IF they rejected the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... to this moment, I have not had a single one stand up against it.*
> 
> You included...
> 
> But I sense that you're desirous to separate yourself from the pack...
> 
> Do you accept or reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification?
> 
> If no, why not?
> 
> If so, on what basis do you reject it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't recall you asking me.  But as I've already said....I am glad to see the age of consent trending UP and not down (except for in the bible belt).   Of course I reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification....and if you paid attention to my posting history, you would already have known that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long will the "age of consent" line hold sway against a waxing tide of depravity?
> 
> We could start a betting pool on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's going UP at the same time that gays are gaining more rights.   Except for in the bible belt of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children are being sexualized more than any other time in history, being literate in all kinds of sexual deviancy that wasn't even whispered about in the days of our grandparents.  Child exposure to your sexual filth is on the increase, not the decrease....maybe less so in the Bible belt.
Click to expand...


Children are being sexualized more- by their heterosexual parents. 

The sex that children are most exposed to is again- heterosexual. 

And back on topic- the age of consent has been going up.


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]It all boils down to what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - so why does the Gay machine insist on getting into everybody else faces ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the far right social cons want to dictate what grown adults do sexually.
> 
> That's over and done with. You've lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that? I don't care if gay men want to fuck each other, or a goat for that matter. I DO CARE that by normalizing homosexual marriage by force of law will harm society and the family unit.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have been married for over 20 years to my wife. I have a wonderful child.
> 
> My family unit is not harmed in the least by allowing two persons of the same gender to marry.
> Nor will it harm society at all.
> 
> As someone else so succintly put it- if your marriage will be harmed by gay marriage- then the problem is with your marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure that people said the same thing about divorce. Suddenly, people found a "problem" with their marriage when divorce became easy to get, and the state would subsidize the womans expenses.
> 
> The result? Divorce skyrocketed. Personally, I'm not worried about my marriage, but everyone elses.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


And again- how does the marriage between two persons of the same gender change any of that- other than there will now be homosexuals who divorce each other also?


----------



## JakeStarkey

80zephyr said:


> The result? Divorce skyrocketed. Personally, I'm not worried about my marriage, but everyone elses.
> 
> Mark


You need to worry about your ilk, not the marriage equality folks.

1_0 poorest States are Red States
7 obesity States are Red States
8 of the top 10 States for *internet porn* are Red States
9 of the top 10 States for *divorce *are Red States
12 of the top 15 States for HS drop out rates are Red States
9 of the top 10 States for women's health are Red States
The top 7 States for te*en pregnancy*'s are Red States
9 of the top 10 States for overall health are Red States, including; 8 of the top 10 for Diabetes, childhood poverty, cancer deaths, infant mortality,public assistance, and drug abuse
Top 10 States that are *most religious* are Red States
By statistics we know the Red States loves Jesus and Internet Porn, but they seem to not care about reality!_


----------



## JakeStarkey

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation.  It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that depends. Every other generation didn't celebrate it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most don't "celebrate it".  Wanting to not be forced to hide it is not "celebrating" it.  They want to be treated the same way you are - like people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By allowing gays to marry, it is normalizing a deviant behavior. It is condoning it. That would be a better term.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No more than allowing heterosexuals who enjoy oral sex to marry is.
> 
> Do you know that up until just about 20 years ago- mixed race relationships were considered deviant behavior by most Americans?
> 
> I have as much respect for your condemnation of gay sex as deviant as I do those who think mixed race sex is deviant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is condemning gay sex? Like I stated earlier, I could care less.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

  If you oppose marriage equality, then you are lying above.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Heterosexuality has always been inextricably linked to pederasty and pedophilia. The dolts on the far social con right should read up on that history.


----------



## JakeStarkey

80zephyr said:


> [Deviancy is away from the norm. You are using the term in the wrong context. But, I figure you know that already.
> 
> Mark


  The norm is to approve marriage equality, and you, deviantly, oppose it.  It is the norm for heterosexuality to be linked to pederasty and pedophilia and other child abuse.  But you already know that.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The failure in mores overall in America can be found in the evangelical, fundamentalist, and Pentecostal households of America.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could choose to be a criminal.  Does that make me one?
> 
> I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't choose your attraction, only whether to act on them or not. If you are not attracted to men, you can't make yourself attracted to men, trust me on this. (It's why reparative "therapy" has such a high failure rate)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be interesting to know what other psychiatric problems have a "high failure rate" and if we simply gave up because of it.
> 
> Did you ever stop to think that this "high failure rate" is because we haven't been been trying reparative therapy that long?
> 
> I mean fuck, we have been trying to cure cancer, diabetes, and heart disease forever.
> 
> Maybe you think we should stop trying?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reparative therapy has a high failure rate, Mark.  Your suggestion from that fact is useless, meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? I have proven that gays can change. Are you really going to deny those that want to try to change the right to these treatments?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have just proven that some persons have changed who they have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that reparative therapy changes sexual attraction.
Click to expand...

That's why  dickheads like you asking for proof isn't worth providing.  When it's shown, if you don't agree, you discount it.  Typical of your lowlife existence.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation.  It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that depends. Every other generation didn't celebrate it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet here it is. Now the question you have to ask yourself is.....so what?
> 
> There are certain things that are wrong because they cause genuine harm (rape, murder, theft) and certain things that are wrong because someone believes the are (pork, gays, cheeseburgers, working on sunday). We're rational enough in this day and age to glean that homosexuality is clearly in that latter camp.
> 
> Which begs the question, why should we give a fuck? They're just people. Treat them like people and be done with it. Generally speaking, how a person gets their nut is about the least interesting thing about them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted this before. The left has cheapened marriage and family by the relaxation of societal rules concerning divorce, welfare, and single motherhoodk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one enjoys the divorce more than Conservatives- the states with the highest rates of divorce tend to be Conservative- and your fellow Conservatives- Reagan- Gingrich and others have all taken advantage of divorce.
> 
> Single motherhood? What were the 'societal rules' about single motherhood- my great grandmother raised her kids as a single mom through the depths of the depression.
> 
> Like many Conservatives- you just cherry pick what you don't like- and blame it all on liberals.
> 
> Just the effect of wearing partisan goggles.
Click to expand...

Does that mean it's Conservatives divorcing?  Where's your proof?


----------



## Conservative65

JakeStarkey said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Deviancy is away from the norm. You are using the term in the wrong context. But, I figure you know that already.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> The norm is to approve marriage equality, and you, deviantly, oppose it.  It is the norm for heterosexuality to be linked to pederasty and pedophilia and other child abuse.  But you already know that.
Click to expand...

So you approve of a brother/ sister marriage?


----------



## Conservative65

Coyote said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  It is about science and how different conlcusions can come from the same research.
> 
> People Are Not Born Gay Affirms Royal College of Psychiatrists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that's not what happened. What happened was an anti gay group misinterpreted the study.
> 
> UK ‘gay cure’ group red-faced as psychiatrists point out they are wrong
> 
> _Speaking to Gay Star News, a Royal College of Psychiatrists spokeswoman said it was a clear ‘misinterpretation’ of their actual statement.
> 
> ‘Homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder,’ it reads. ‘The College believes strongly in evidence-based treatment. There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.
> 
> ‘The College would not support a therapy for converting people from homosexuality any more than we would do so from heterosexuality.
> 
> ‘Psychiatrists should be committed to reducing inequalities, not supporting practices that are explicitly based on pathologizing homosexuality. As such, the College remains in favor of legislative efforts to ban such conversion therapies.’_​
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  Gay West New York cop claims in lawsuit he was harassed intimidated by police director NJ.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a lot more than just "saying something" in that case. Also, you can't "say anything" at work, you know that right? Your "free speech" goes only as far as your employer allows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tebow's action of praying got media attention.  However, had he not scored a toughdown, etc. there would have been no attention because he wouldn't have Tebowed.  For Sam, the attention came before ever stepping foot on an NFL field.  Tebow also had high school accomplishments.  You don't start at Florida and win the Heisman if you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't pretend Michael Sam didn't have accomplishments prior to coming out. He was SEC defensive player of the year and I think would be on a roster right now if he hadn't come out as gay.
> 
> Do you think role models are important? You obviously see Tebow as a role model for Christians and have no problem with that. Why can't Michael Sam be a role model for gay athletes? You may not realize it, but it is important for the gay High School football player in Iowa to see that there are others like him and it's okay to be athletic and gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  Define equal.  It doens't mean you get to do exactly the same things I do or vice versa.
> 
> Just ask them about polygamy or a sibling marriage.  They are quicker to say no to it coming up with why equality should be denied than they are about bending over and taking one in the ass for the homos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Polygamy and incest are both illegal so bringing them up is what is referred to in polite circles as a "slippery slope fallacy". They are completely unrelated to gays having equal access to civil marriage, and would either have a valid argument for legalization or they would not regardless of gays civilly marrying.
> 
> Quite a few countries have been marrying the gays for a while now. Even more countries perform legal polygamist marriages. None do both. There is no slippery slope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a slippery slope. It started with the leftists instituting welfare, easy divorce, and single motherhood to destroy families.
> 
> Gay marriage is simply the latest step in that direction.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is such a thing as a "slippery slope fallacy".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is a slippery slope fallacy...  however, that fallacy only exists where the appeal is to a slippery slope that does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the second to the last line of his post: an appeal to a slippery slope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Slope relevant to the Normalizing of Sexual Abnormality is steep and makes wet ice look like a well treated drag strip (They're covered in adhesive, thus incredibly sticky.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for awesome imagery.
> 
> HOWEVER...let's examine this particular slope.
> 
> Allowing same-sex marriage will open the door to all kinds of "perversions" in marriage.
> 
> Will it?
> 
> The common denomenator between same sex marriages and hetero marriages in the US is what? (yes, there is one).  It is between consenting adults, there is no coercion and no adverse effect to either the individuals involved or to public welfare.
> 
> Typical pervisions thrown up by the anti-pervert lobby:
> 
> "people will demand to marry their dogs" -- no consenting adults, dogs can't consent, and it is coercive.
> "pedos will marry children" -- same argument and add to it is damaging to the child
> "people will want to marry their siblings" -- consenting adults are possible, however it can be argued to be damaging to the public welfare if children are produced and this becomes an acceptable norm.
> 
> I'm not seeing a slippery slope but rather well sanded stairs with one exception - polygamy.  I can't come up with any good arguments against polygamy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, in the 80s when the "Movement" was really getting traction, in public debate after debate, the advocates proclaimed that 'it was ludicrous to claim that if the US Culture just accepted the individual homosexuals and dropped the sodomy laws, that homosexuals would inevitably demand to be married; declaring THEN that the claim that such was inevitable was 'a slippery slope fallacy'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again... the facts demonstrate that the slope is steep and greasy, thus it is foolish to even consider going down it.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Suggestion - take off the dark glasses and you'll see well defined stairs.[/QUOTE]
Who decides adverse affects, you?  Two fags marrying will never equal my marriage to a woman no matter how much you perverts support it.


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If only one changes, the argument that someone is born that way is invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh. I know a woman who was straight, then gay, then straight again.
> 
> Lesbians especially have a high rate of "recovery".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like a pretty screwed up in the head chick to me - her name didn't happen to be "SeaWytch" did it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But Seawytch will tell you that someone is born gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who would know better on how SeaWitch was born? You....or her?
> 
> I take it you don't understand the rise of laughter when some anonymous conservative starts dictating to individuals their own sexuality. And I doubt you ever will.
Click to expand...


Seawytch said that my claim of choosing to be heterosexual was false.  Who would know better about me?  Me or her?

Are you laughing at her?  Likely not as your kind are hypocrites.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Conservative65 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Deviancy is away from the norm. You are using the term in the wrong context. But, I figure you know that already.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> The norm is to approve marriage equality, and you, deviantly, oppose it.  It is the norm for heterosexuality to be linked to pederasty and pedophilia and other child abuse.  But you already know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you approve of a brother/ sister marriage?
Click to expand...

Straw man fallacy.

Marriage law currently accommodates same-sex couples, which is not the case for siblings marrying.

Allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law they're already eligible to participate in doesn't 'change' marriage, marriage remains the same, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'


----------



## Conservative65

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Deviancy is away from the norm. You are using the term in the wrong context. But, I figure you know that already.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> The norm is to approve marriage equality, and you, deviantly, oppose it.  It is the norm for heterosexuality to be linked to pederasty and pedophilia and other child abuse.  But you already know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you approve of a brother/ sister marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw man fallacy.
> 
> Marriage law currently accommodates same-sex couples, which is not the case for siblings marrying.
> 
> Allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law they're already eligible to participate in doesn't 'change' marriage, marriage remains the same, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'
Click to expand...

Only to you hypocrites that argue equality of marriage then deny it when you don't like it.

Two fags marrying will never be the same as mine.


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who are attracted to children can't make a different choice either.  Compulsive hoarding isn't a choice.  No compulsive disorder leaves the sufferer with a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a choice in acting. For me, as a gay woman, the only choice is in acting upon my natural or god given inclinations. As long as I am acting upon those natural inclinations with another consenting adult, whose fucking business is it and why should I be denied the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage because my life partner of choice happens to be the same gender I am?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice how they no longer say, "What business is it of yours what we do in our own bedroom. This is because they know they've taken in out of the bedroom and shoved it in our faces. They hilariously push their lifestyle into the public while at the same time in this post saying it's none of our business. Just another daffy quirk of the faggoty Left.
Click to expand...


No, our sex lives are still in our bedrooms, we just don't live in closets anymore. I'm sorry that gays living their lives exactly like heterosexuals live their lives, with families and stuff,  makes you uncomfortable and that knowing gay people makes you think about them having sex, but that's your hangup not theirs.


----------



## Seawytch

80zephyr said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I certainly chose to have sex with women- I chose to marry a woman- but I never, ever chose to be attracted to women.
> 
> IF you can choose to be attracted to women- then you should be able to chose to be attracted to men.
> 
> If you find the idea of a stubbly male face kissing your lips repugnant- like I do- then your attraction is not a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I choose not to be attracted to men.
> 
> I find a lot of things repugnant.  Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are probably bisexual.
> 
> As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.
> 
> I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.
> 
> If you think you could chose to be turned on by a photo of Clooney in a bathing suit- then you  are probably bisexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could choose to be a criminal.  Does that make me one?
> 
> I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't choose your attraction, only whether to act on them or not. If you are not attracted to men, you can't make yourself attracted to men, trust me on this. (It's why reparative "therapy" has such a high failure rate)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be interesting to know what other psychiatric problems have a "high failure rate" and if we simply gave up because of it.
> 
> Did you ever stop to think that this "high failure rate" is because we haven't been been trying reparative therapy that long?
Click to expand...


No. We know why reparative therapy has a high failure rate. It doesn't work. Heck, it not only doesn't work, it is universally panned by the scientific community. 

*Organizational Positions on Reparative Therapy*

*American Academy of Pediatrics*

"Confusion about sexual orientation is not unusual during adolescence. Counseling may be helpful for young people who are uncertain about their sexual orientation or for those who are uncertain about how to express their sexuality and might profit from an attempt at clarification through a counseling or psychotherapeutic initiative. Therapy directed specifically at changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation."
_Homosexuality and Adolescence, Pediatrics._

*American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy*

"The American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy takes the position that same sex orientation is not a mental disorder. Therefore, we do not believe that sexual orientation in and of itself requires treatment or intervention."
_Statement on Nonpathologizing Sexual Orientation._

*American Counseling Association*

"The American Counseling Association opposes portrayals of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation; and supports the dissemination of accurate information about sexual orientation, mental health, and appropriate interventions in order to counteract bias that is based on ignorance or unfounded beliefs about same-gender sexual orientation."
_Resolution, as reported in the American Psychological Association's publication, "Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth."_

*American Medical Association*

"Our AMA… opposes, the use of 'reparative' or 'conversion' therapy that is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation."
_H-160.991, Health Care Needs of the Homosexual Population._

*American Psychiatric Association*

"Psychotherapeutic modalities to convert or 'repair' homosexuality are based on developmental theories whose scientific validity is questionable. Furthermore, anecdotal reports of "cures" are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm. In the last four decades, "reparative" therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure. Until there is such research available, [the American Psychiatric Association] recommends that ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation, keeping in mind the medical dictum to first, do no harm.

The potential risks of reparative therapy are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone reparative therapy relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed.

Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as reparative or conversion therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation."
_Position Statement on Therapies Focused on Attempts to Change Sexual Orientation (Reparative or Conversion Therapies)._

*American Psychoanalytic Association*

"Same-gender sexual orientation cannot be assumed to represent a deficit in personality development or the expression of psychopathology. As with any societal prejudice, anti-homosexual bias negatively affects mental health, contributing to an enduring sense of stigma and pervasive self-criticism in people of same-gender sexual orientation through the internalization of such prejudice.

As in all psychoanalytic treatments, the goal of analysis with homosexual patients is understanding. Psychoanalytic technique does not encompass purposeful efforts to "convert" or "repair" an individual's sexual orientation. Such directed efforts are against fundamental principles of psychoanalytic treatment and often result in substantial psychological pain by reinforcing damaging internalized homophobic attitudes."
_Position Statement on Reparative Therapy._

*American Psychological Association*

"THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association affirms that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality regardless of sexual orientation identity;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association reaffirms its position that homosexuality per se is not a mental disorder and opposes portrayals of sexual minority youths and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association encourages mental health professionals to avoid misrepresenting the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts by promoting or promising change in sexual orientation when providing assistance to individuals distressed by their own or others' sexual orientation…"
_Resolution on Appropriate Affirmative Responses to Sexual Orientation Distress and Change Efforts._

*American School Counselor Association*

"Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and questioning (LGBTQ) youth often begin to experience self-identification during their pre-adolescent or adolescent years, as do heterosexual youth. These developmental processes are essential cognitive, emotional and social activities, and although they may have an impact on student development and achievement, they are not a sign of illness, mental disorder or emotional problems nor do they necessarily signify sexual activity.

The professional school counselor works with all students through the stages of identity development and understands this development may be more difficult for LGBTQ youth. It is not the role of the professional school counselor to attempt to change a student's sexual orientation/gender identity but instead to provide support to LGBTQ students to promote student achievement and personal well-being."
_The Professional School Counselor and LGBTQ Youth._

*National Association of Social Workers*

"People seek mental health services for many reasons. Accordingly, it is fair to assert that lesbians and gay men seek therapy for the same reasons that heterosexual people do. However, the increase in media campaigns, often coupled with coercive messages from family and community members, has created an environment in which lesbians and gay men often are pressured to seek reparative or conversion therapies, which cannot and will not change sexual orientation. Aligned with the American Psychological Association's (1997) position, NCLGB [NASW's National Committee on Lesbian and Gay Issues] believes that such treatment potentially can lead to severe emotional damage. Specifically, transformational ministries are fueled by stigmatization of lesbians and gay men, which in turn produces the social climate that pressures some people to seek change in sexual orientation. No data demonstrate that reparative or conversion therapies are effective, and in fact they may be harmful."
_Position Statement, "Reparative" and "Conversion" Therapies._

*Pan American Health Organization (PAHO): Regional Office of the World Health Organization*

Services that purport to "cure" people with non-heterosexual sexual orientation lack medical justification and represent a serious threat to the health and well-being of affected people, the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) said in a position statement launched on 17 May, 2012, the International Day against Homophobia. The statement calls on governments, academic institutions, professional associations and the media to expose these practices and to promote respect for diversity.

Statement, "Therapies" to change sexual orientation lack medical justification and threaten health



> I mean fuck, we have been trying to cure cancer, diabetes, and heart disease forever.
> 
> Maybe you think we should stop trying?
> 
> Mark



Gay isn't a disease to be cured.


----------



## Conservative65

Seawytch said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I choose not to be attracted to men.
> 
> I find a lot of things repugnant.  Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are probably bisexual.
> 
> As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.
> 
> I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.
> 
> If you think you could chose to be turned on by a photo of Clooney in a bathing suit- then you  are probably bisexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could choose to be a criminal.  Does that make me one?
> 
> I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't choose your attraction, only whether to act on them or not. If you are not attracted to men, you can't make yourself attracted to men, trust me on this. (It's why reparative "therapy" has such a high failure rate)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be interesting to know what other psychiatric problems have a "high failure rate" and if we simply gave up because of it.
> 
> Did you ever stop to think that this "high failure rate" is because we haven't been been trying reparative therapy that long?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. We know why reparative therapy has a high failure rate. It doesn't work. Heck, it not only doesn't work, it is universally panned by the scientific community.
> 
> *Organizational Positions on Reparative Therapy*
> 
> *American Academy of Pediatrics*
> 
> "Confusion about sexual orientation is not unusual during adolescence. Counseling may be helpful for young people who are uncertain about their sexual orientation or for those who are uncertain about how to express their sexuality and might profit from an attempt at clarification through a counseling or psychotherapeutic initiative. Therapy directed specifically at changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation."
> _Homosexuality and Adolescence, Pediatrics._
> 
> *American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy*
> 
> "The American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy takes the position that same sex orientation is not a mental disorder. Therefore, we do not believe that sexual orientation in and of itself requires treatment or intervention."
> _Statement on Nonpathologizing Sexual Orientation._
> 
> *American Counseling Association*
> 
> "The American Counseling Association opposes portrayals of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation; and supports the dissemination of accurate information about sexual orientation, mental health, and appropriate interventions in order to counteract bias that is based on ignorance or unfounded beliefs about same-gender sexual orientation."
> _Resolution, as reported in the American Psychological Association's publication, "Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth."_
> 
> *American Medical Association*
> 
> "Our AMA… opposes, the use of 'reparative' or 'conversion' therapy that is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation."
> _H-160.991, Health Care Needs of the Homosexual Population._
> 
> *American Psychiatric Association*
> 
> "Psychotherapeutic modalities to convert or 'repair' homosexuality are based on developmental theories whose scientific validity is questionable. Furthermore, anecdotal reports of "cures" are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm. In the last four decades, "reparative" therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure. Until there is such research available, [the American Psychiatric Association] recommends that ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation, keeping in mind the medical dictum to first, do no harm.
> 
> The potential risks of reparative therapy are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone reparative therapy relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed.
> 
> Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as reparative or conversion therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation."
> _Position Statement on Therapies Focused on Attempts to Change Sexual Orientation (Reparative or Conversion Therapies)._
> 
> *American Psychoanalytic Association*
> 
> "Same-gender sexual orientation cannot be assumed to represent a deficit in personality development or the expression of psychopathology. As with any societal prejudice, anti-homosexual bias negatively affects mental health, contributing to an enduring sense of stigma and pervasive self-criticism in people of same-gender sexual orientation through the internalization of such prejudice.
> 
> As in all psychoanalytic treatments, the goal of analysis with homosexual patients is understanding. Psychoanalytic technique does not encompass purposeful efforts to "convert" or "repair" an individual's sexual orientation. Such directed efforts are against fundamental principles of psychoanalytic treatment and often result in substantial psychological pain by reinforcing damaging internalized homophobic attitudes."
> _Position Statement on Reparative Therapy._
> 
> *American Psychological Association*
> 
> "THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association affirms that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality regardless of sexual orientation identity;
> 
> BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association reaffirms its position that homosexuality per se is not a mental disorder and opposes portrayals of sexual minority youths and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation;
> 
> BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation;
> 
> BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association encourages mental health professionals to avoid misrepresenting the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts by promoting or promising change in sexual orientation when providing assistance to individuals distressed by their own or others' sexual orientation…"
> _Resolution on Appropriate Affirmative Responses to Sexual Orientation Distress and Change Efforts._
> 
> *American School Counselor Association*
> 
> "Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and questioning (LGBTQ) youth often begin to experience self-identification during their pre-adolescent or adolescent years, as do heterosexual youth. These developmental processes are essential cognitive, emotional and social activities, and although they may have an impact on student development and achievement, they are not a sign of illness, mental disorder or emotional problems nor do they necessarily signify sexual activity.
> 
> The professional school counselor works with all students through the stages of identity development and understands this development may be more difficult for LGBTQ youth. It is not the role of the professional school counselor to attempt to change a student's sexual orientation/gender identity but instead to provide support to LGBTQ students to promote student achievement and personal well-being."
> _The Professional School Counselor and LGBTQ Youth._
> 
> *National Association of Social Workers*
> 
> "People seek mental health services for many reasons. Accordingly, it is fair to assert that lesbians and gay men seek therapy for the same reasons that heterosexual people do. However, the increase in media campaigns, often coupled with coercive messages from family and community members, has created an environment in which lesbians and gay men often are pressured to seek reparative or conversion therapies, which cannot and will not change sexual orientation. Aligned with the American Psychological Association's (1997) position, NCLGB [NASW's National Committee on Lesbian and Gay Issues] believes that such treatment potentially can lead to severe emotional damage. Specifically, transformational ministries are fueled by stigmatization of lesbians and gay men, which in turn produces the social climate that pressures some people to seek change in sexual orientation. No data demonstrate that reparative or conversion therapies are effective, and in fact they may be harmful."
> _Position Statement, "Reparative" and "Conversion" Therapies._
> 
> *Pan American Health Organization (PAHO): Regional Office of the World Health Organization*
> 
> Services that purport to "cure" people with non-heterosexual sexual orientation lack medical justification and represent a serious threat to the health and well-being of affected people, the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) said in a position statement launched on 17 May, 2012, the International Day against Homophobia. The statement calls on governments, academic institutions, professional associations and the media to expose these practices and to promote respect for diversity.
> 
> Statement, "Therapies" to change sexual orientation lack medical justification and threaten health
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean fuck, we have been trying to cure cancer, diabetes, and heart disease forever.
> 
> Maybe you think we should stop trying?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gay isn't a disease to be cured.
Click to expand...


So you're willing to let the disease fester?


----------



## Seawytch

80zephyr said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So with a mere choice you could find a man's hairy ass as sexually attractive as a woman's shapely backside?
> 
> Then Sy's right. You're probably bi already. For most of us, its not a choice. Its just an attribute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:
> 
> Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News
> 
> Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.
> 
> Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If only one changes, the argument that someone is born that way is invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh. I know a woman who was straight, then gay, then straight again.
> 
> Lesbians especially have a high rate of "recovery".
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Or maybe sexuality is more fluid than our puritanical roots will allow. You've heard of bisexuals, yes?


----------



## Seawytch

Conservative65 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If only one changes, the argument that someone is born that way is invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh. I know a woman who was straight, then gay, then straight again.
> 
> Lesbians especially have a high rate of "recovery".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like a pretty screwed up in the head chick to me - her name didn't happen to be "SeaWytch" did it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But Seawytch will tell you that someone is born gay.
Click to expand...


Actually most people will tell you sexual orientation is not a choice. Scientists will tell you too. The fact that YOU believe you made a conscious choice leads me to suspect you are bisexual and simply denying part of your attractions. 

I never made a choice to be attracted to the same gender, I just always was.


----------



## Conservative65

Seawytch said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:
> 
> Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News
> 
> Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.
> 
> Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If only one changes, the argument that someone is born that way is invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh. I know a woman who was straight, then gay, then straight again.
> 
> Lesbians especially have a high rate of "recovery".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or maybe sexuality is more fluid than our puritanical roots will allow. You've heard of bisexuals, yes?
Click to expand...


No such thing.


----------



## Conservative65

Seawytch said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If only one changes, the argument that someone is born that way is invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh. I know a woman who was straight, then gay, then straight again.
> 
> Lesbians especially have a high rate of "recovery".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like a pretty screwed up in the head chick to me - her name didn't happen to be "SeaWytch" did it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But Seawytch will tell you that someone is born gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually most people will tell you sexual orientation is not a choice. Scientists will tell you too. The fact that YOU believe you made a conscious choice leads me to suspect you are bisexual and simply denying part of your attractions.
> 
> I never made a choice to be attracted to the same gender, I just always was.
Click to expand...

On a different post, someone said they laughed at people like me who thought they knew more about someone than the person.  They really must be laughing at you.

No such thing as bisexual.


----------



## Conservative65

Seawytch said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If only one changes, the argument that someone is born that way is invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh. I know a woman who was straight, then gay, then straight again.
> 
> Lesbians especially have a high rate of "recovery".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like a pretty screwed up in the head chick to me - her name didn't happen to be "SeaWytch" did it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But Seawytch will tell you that someone is born gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually most people will tell you sexual orientation is not a choice. Scientists will tell you too. The fact that YOU believe you made a conscious choice leads me to suspect you are bisexual and simply denying part of your attractions.
> 
> I never made a choice to be attracted to the same gender, I just always was.
Click to expand...


What people, a bunch a deviants like you?  I don't trust you any further than I can throw a 10 ton brick.


----------



## Seawytch

Coyote said:


> Marriage in this era is for many reasons.  In western culture it is mostly about love.  Two people love each other and want to commit to a long term (hopefully) permanent relationship with each other that might or might not include children, that might include purchasing and building a home together, shared assets, a shared future together that is recognized legally and - if religion is involved, by a religious service.* It is a relationship recognized right now, in many areas, as limited only to hetero couples.*




Now fewer limit it to opposite sex couples than do not... (35-15).


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suffice to say, there are some very decent gays who aren't pushy assholes. I know, two of them are dear friends of mine. It's a tragedy that the faggots have become the face of gay people, but that's how life is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your standard for a 'pushy asshole' is any gay or lesbian who doesn't 'sit down and shut the fuck up'. Which isn't a particularly compelling standard.
> 
> You're a far greater threat to the rights of gays, then gays are a threat to your rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing "pushy" about two people who want to commit to a stable long term legally recognized relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, to be a true relationship, government has to validate it.  I mean who could consider their partner to be their partner without government recognition?  That wouldn't be possible.  Man, a partner without OKs from politicians and bureaucrats, that would just be meaningless, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...


Why are you asking gays that just want exactly what you enjoy? Ask your wife.


----------



## Seawytch

80zephyr said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who are attracted to children can't make a different choice either.  Compulsive hoarding isn't a choice.  No compulsive disorder leaves the sufferer with a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a choice in acting. For me, as a gay woman, the only choice is in acting upon my natural or god given inclinations. As long as I am acting upon those natural inclinations with another consenting adult, whose fucking business is it and why should I be denied the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage because my life partner of choice happens to be the same gender I am?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And who are you to define what a consenting adult is? I mean, if you want to be honest, your conditions are as arbitrary as mine are.
> 
> I just happen to have a higher standard of morality than you.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Are you being intentionally obtuse because you're arguments have failed? The age of consent is defined by law.It varies from state to state. A 40 year old man can marry his 15 year old 1st cousin in Alabama and it is legally recognized in all 50 states, even states that don't allow 15 year old 1st cousins to marry. My civil marriage to my same sex spouse that I married when she was well over the age of 18 and not related to me, is not recognized in all 50 states. That's discrimination in case you were wondering. 

No, you don't have a higher standard of morality, you have a different view of what is moral and what is not. That you think yours is "better" is your opinion (and a sin).


----------



## Seawytch

Conservative65 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If only one changes, the argument that someone is born that way is invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heh. I know a woman who was straight, then gay, then straight again.
> 
> Lesbians especially have a high rate of "recovery".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like a pretty screwed up in the head chick to me - her name didn't happen to be "SeaWytch" did it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But Seawytch will tell you that someone is born gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually most people will tell you sexual orientation is not a choice. Scientists will tell you too. The fact that YOU believe you made a conscious choice leads me to suspect you are bisexual and simply denying part of your attractions.
> 
> I never made a choice to be attracted to the same gender, I just always was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On a different post, someone said they laughed at people like me who thought they knew more about someone than the person.  They really must be laughing at you.
> 
> No such thing as bisexual.
Click to expand...


I didn't say I knew more, I'm merely speculating and trying to understand your thought process. *You *said you made a conscious choice...you said you _made _yourself be attracted to women. Did that mean you were attracted to men? Have you ever found a man so attractive that you *wanted *to kiss him or get to know him better? To hold him close to you at night, spooning naked?


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> It all boils down to what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - so why does the Gay machine insist on getting into everybody else faces ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The very question this whole thread is about.  And in over 75 pages, none of the hemorrhoids have been able to answer it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider marriage "getting in everybody's faces"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I consider the subverting of the democratic process just so you can get your way is getting in everyone's face.  You people are the most self centered of all, making sure that everyone is forced to accept your lifestyle even if at the point of a gun.  Yes, you are getting in everyone's face and that's not going to go unanswered for long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So blacks subverted the democratic process when they wanted to end Jim Crowe.
> Women subverted the democratic process when they wanted the vote.
> 
> Oh how self centered they were forcing you all to accept their rights even at the point of a gun.
> 
> Wait a minute.  At the point of a gun?  Aren't you being a little bit ridiculous here?
> 
> And how is it going to go unanswered?  You going to lynch some people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lifestyle ≠ race.
Click to expand...


Religion is a lifestyle. If we were to prevent all Protestants from civilly marrying, that would be okay with you? Would that pass Constitutional muster for equal treatment? 

Discrimination = Discrimination


----------



## Redfish

poor wytchey.   so angry, so conflicted, so confused.  Human society as a whole has declared that homosexuality is an aberation of the human condition. 

You have a mental illness, not a physical condition, not a birth condition, but a learned condition.  

You are due empathy and sympathy.   The first step to a cure is admitting the disease.


----------



## Redfish

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> The very question this whole thread is about.  And in over 75 pages, none of the hemorrhoids have been able to answer it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you consider marriage "getting in everybody's faces"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I consider the subverting of the democratic process just so you can get your way is getting in everyone's face.  You people are the most self centered of all, making sure that everyone is forced to accept your lifestyle even if at the point of a gun.  Yes, you are getting in everyone's face and that's not going to go unanswered for long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So blacks subverted the democratic process when they wanted to end Jim Crowe.
> Women subverted the democratic process when they wanted the vote.
> 
> Oh how self centered they were forcing you all to accept their rights even at the point of a gun.
> 
> Wait a minute.  At the point of a gun?  Aren't you being a little bit ridiculous here?
> 
> And how is it going to go unanswered?  You going to lynch some people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lifestyle ≠ race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion is a lifestyle. If we were to prevent all Protestants from civilly marrying, that would be okay with you? Would that pass Constitutional muster for equal treatment?
> 
> Discrimination = Discrimination
Click to expand...

 

OMG, now you are equating religion and homosexuality??????????


----------



## zeke

Redfish said:


> You have a mental illness, not a physical condition, not a birth condition, but a learned condition.
> 
> You are due empathy and sympathy. The first step to a cure is admitting the disease.




Red, I admit that I think you have a disease. It is the disease of ignorance and stupidity. And I hate to tell you, there ain't no cure for you.

Gay people woke up this morning and they were still gay. You woke up this morning and were still ignorant and stupid.  

I think the gays will have a better morning. You have an incurable illness red. Stupid and ignorant.


----------



## Conservative65

Seawytch said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heh. I know a woman who was straight, then gay, then straight again.
> 
> Lesbians especially have a high rate of "recovery".
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a pretty screwed up in the head chick to me - her name didn't happen to be "SeaWytch" did it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But Seawytch will tell you that someone is born gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually most people will tell you sexual orientation is not a choice. Scientists will tell you too. The fact that YOU believe you made a conscious choice leads me to suspect you are bisexual and simply denying part of your attractions.
> 
> I never made a choice to be attracted to the same gender, I just always was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On a different post, someone said they laughed at people like me who thought they knew more about someone than the person.  They really must be laughing at you.
> 
> No such thing as bisexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say I knew more, I'm merely speculating and trying to understand your thought process. *You *said you made a conscious choice...you said you _made _yourself be attracted to women. Did that mean you were attracted to men? Have you ever found a man so attractive that you *wanted *to kiss him or get to know him better? To hold him close to you at night, spooning naked?
Click to expand...

You have made the claim.  

I said I chose women just like you chose women.  Difference is my choice is normal and your choice is deviant and one you don't have the guts to admit you made.  If you homos are so proud of what you are, why aren't you willing to say you chose.


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights?  I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote.  I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain.  Seriously, you don't know the difference?
> 
> If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".
> 
> The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally.  As in - the right to vote.  The right to use public drinking fountains.  The right to marry. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.
> 
> *A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it need to be a "distinct gender"?  That automatically is discrimminatory.  Heteros can marry the person they love.  Homos can not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "the person they love"  seriously?
> 
> Give me another law that changes based on what someone wants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is ALL about what someone wants.
Click to expand...


So how is that different than a hunting license or a drivers license or any other license you get?  You don't get it if you don't want something.

Heterosexuals can't enter into a single sex marriage either.  Name another law that changes based on what you want?

If you want to hunt deer but it's duck season and you don't hunt duck, the law doesn't change for you.  Name one that does.


----------



## Conservative65

zeke said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a mental illness, not a physical condition, not a birth condition, but a learned condition.
> 
> You are due empathy and sympathy. The first step to a cure is admitting the disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Red, I admit that I think you have a disease. It is the disease of ignorance and stupidity. And I hate to tell you, there ain't no cure for you.
> 
> Gay people woke up this morning and they were still gay. You woke up this morning and were still ignorant and stupid.
> 
> I think the gays will have a better morning. You have an incurable illness red. Stupid and ignorant.
Click to expand...


Not when they live a deviant lifestyle.  Nothing good about that.


----------



## Redfish

zeke said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a mental illness, not a physical condition, not a birth condition, but a learned condition.
> 
> You are due empathy and sympathy. The first step to a cure is admitting the disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Red, I admit that I think you have a disease. It is the disease of ignorance and stupidity. And I hate to tell you, there ain't no cure for you.
> 
> Gay people woke up this morning and they were still gay. You woke up this morning and were still ignorant and stupid.
> 
> I think the gays will have a better morning. You have an incurable illness red. Stupid and ignorant.
Click to expand...

 

Nope, I am just fine.  My sexuality is of the normal human kind.   I have friends and relatives who are gay,  I love and respect every one of them.   But that does not make homosexuality a normal human condition any more than leprosy is a normal human condition.

the stupidity and ignorance is on your side, because you refuse to accept the biological realities of human beings.


----------



## kaz

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights?  I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote.  I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain.  Seriously, you don't know the difference?
> 
> If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".
> 
> The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally.  As in - the right to vote.  The right to use public drinking fountains.  The right to marry. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.
> 
> *A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it need to be a "distinct gender"?  That automatically is discrimminatory.  Heteros can marry the person they love.  Homos can not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "the person they love"  seriously?
> 
> Give me another law that changes based on what someone wants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blacks wanting freedom, Women wanting the vote,  Mixed-race couples wanting to marry, women wanting legal abortions, the US wanting a nation governed by men and not a king.  Shall I continue, dumbass?
Click to expand...


None of those are examples of laws changing based on what people want.  Was that supposed to make sense?


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> "the person they love"  seriously?
> 
> Give me another law that changes based on what someone wants.
> 
> 
> 
> He's already argued that there are loveless hetero marriages.
> 
> *Here's the dealio: For every single point made in arguing for gay marriage, the exact same argument can be made for unlimited plural marriage.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come to think of it...all those arguments apply to hetero marriage too - OMG - why have ANY marriage?
Click to expand...


If you take the word "government" out of it, then exactly right.  Government is so intrinsic to liberals you just can't imagine something existing without government, can you?  Why cannot there be marriage with government left out of it?  Why is that so impossible to fathom?


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights?  I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote.  I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain.  Seriously, you don't know the difference?
> 
> If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".
> 
> The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally.  As in - the right to vote.  The right to use public drinking fountains.  The right to marry.
> 
> Those are retarded examples.  SURELY you can see the that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So show me where straights can enter into single sex marriage and we're talking.  In the mean time, you have nothing.  The law is applied equally to everyone.  That you don't want what straights want is irrelevant to the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where same sex marriage is legal, "straights" can enter in to same sex marriages.  It's applied equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True but irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one that ask me to "where straights can enter into single sex marriage and we're talking" and now you say it's irrelevant?
Click to expand...


OK, I see what you're saying.  What I meant was where gay sex isn't recognized, straights cannot enter into single sex marriage.


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> A tiny group does.  A minority does not a slippery slope make.  Westboro Baptists anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It literally does... because the minority is pushing the agenda.
> 
> There is no Christian acceptance of Westboro, unanimously the Christian community rejects them OVERTLY.
> 
> Such is not the case with the mouthy, would-be minority of the Militant sect of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality cult.
> 
> *In thread after thread, I have set forth the the request for the professed homosexuals participating in such, IF they rejected the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... to this moment, I have not had a single one stand up against it.*
> 
> You included...
> 
> But I sense that you're desirous to separate yourself from the pack...
> 
> Do you accept or reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification?
> 
> If no, why not?
> 
> If so, on what basis do you reject it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't recall you asking me.  But as I've already said....I am glad to see the age of consent trending UP and not down (except for in the bible belt).   Of course I reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification....and if you paid attention to my posting history, you would already have known that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long will the "age of consent" line hold sway against a waxing tide of depravity?
> 
> We could start a betting pool on that.
Click to expand...


The age of consent has only been going up...a trend I support and applaud. I'm 100% behind a federal age of consent law setting it at 18. Gays have been marrying in MA for over a decade...any age of consent laws dropping? Is there any push to drop them?


----------



## kaz

Coyote said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> "the person they love"  seriously?
> 
> Give me another law that changes based on what someone wants.
> 
> 
> 
> He's already argued that there are loveless hetero marriages.
> 
> *Here's the dealio: For every single point made in arguing for gay marriage, the exact same argument can be made for unlimited plural marriage.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come to think of it...all those arguments apply to hetero marriage too - OMG - why have ANY marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what keys has been saying.
> 
> And yet...and yet. If the government doesn't have the right to deny two people equal rights, how then does it have the right to deny millions, or billions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality.
> 
> We can take anything - any law - to the point of absurbity.  But the chances of it happening are virtually nil.  So because of that do you have no laws?
> 
> I don't have an issue with polygamy if people want it. But that's also another argument.  If people want polygamy then they need to make a compelling case for it on it's own merits.  The case for same sex marriage is being argued on it's own merits - not alongside polygamy.
Click to expand...


Now see, that's what it boils down to, you are no different than the man/woman government marriage crowd.  You keep going with the argument that gays want that, they don't want heterosexual marriage.  But when Carib says others don't want two, you don't accept an argument which to you is enough for what you want.  You are no better than the man/woman crowd, you just draw a different line.

If government were not involved in marriage, then they don't get to define it.  Then people do have what they want.  You want a Catholic marriage?  Work out what that means with the Catholic church.  A Jewish marriage?  Ditto.  And so forth.  That ... is liberty.


----------



## kaz

Carib Gyal said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> "the person they love"  seriously?
> 
> Give me another law that changes based on what someone wants.
> 
> 
> 
> He's already argued that there are loveless hetero marriages.
> 
> *Here's the dealio: For every single point made in arguing for gay marriage, the exact same argument can be made for unlimited plural marriage.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come to think of it...all those arguments apply to hetero marriage too - OMG - why have ANY marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what keys has been saying.
> 
> And yet...and yet. If the government doesn't have the right to deny two people equal rights, how then does it have the right to deny millions, or billions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality.
> 
> We can take anything - any law - to the point of absurbity.  But the chances of it happening are virtually nil.  So because of that do you have no laws?
> 
> I don't have an issue with polygamy if people want it. But that's also another argument.  If people want polygamy then they need to make a compelling case for it on it's own merits.  The case for same sex marriage is being argued on it's own merits - not alongside polygamy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey it's YOUR argument. You're the one who wants to apply equal rights to everyone. It turns out you don't want that at all, because your arbitrary limitations only desire your political....and possibly personal....cause. You are either advocating for the equal rights of everyone, or you are advocating for the extremely limited rights of two people to engage in a false agreement that you would deny to the rest of the world. Certainly the rest of America.
Click to expand...


Bam!  Exactly right.  What homos want is enough for her, she has no other argument.  Her standard is completely arbitrary.


----------



## Redfish

kaz said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> "the person they love"  seriously?
> 
> Give me another law that changes based on what someone wants.
> 
> 
> 
> He's already argued that there are loveless hetero marriages.
> 
> *Here's the dealio: For every single point made in arguing for gay marriage, the exact same argument can be made for unlimited plural marriage.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come to think of it...all those arguments apply to hetero marriage too - OMG - why have ANY marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what keys has been saying.
> 
> And yet...and yet. If the government doesn't have the right to deny two people equal rights, how then does it have the right to deny millions, or billions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality.
> 
> We can take anything - any law - to the point of absurbity.  But the chances of it happening are virtually nil.  So because of that do you have no laws?
> 
> I don't have an issue with polygamy if people want it. But that's also another argument.  If people want polygamy then they need to make a compelling case for it on it's own merits.  The case for same sex marriage is being argued on it's own merits - not alongside polygamy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now see, that's what it boils down to, you are no different than the man/woman government marriage crowd.  You keep going with the argument that gays want that, they don't want heterosexual marriage.  But when Carib says others don't want two, you don't accept an argument which to you is enough for what you want.  You are no better than the man/woman crowd, you just draw a different line.
> 
> If government were not involved in marriage, then they don't get to define it.  Then people do have what they want.  You want a Catholic marriage?  Work out what that means with the Catholic church.  A Jewish marriage?  Ditto.  And so forth.  That ... is liberty.
Click to expand...

 

yeah, I get your point, but the govt is involved in marriage because of tax laws, inheritence laws, property rights etc.  

But the gay agenda is not about those things,  if it was they would be fine with civil unions for gays that would give them all of those rights.   But its all about the word 'marriage' and forced societal acceptance of their deviant lifestyle as 'normal'.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suffice to say, there are some very decent gays who aren't pushy assholes. I know, two of them are dear friends of mine. It's a tragedy that the faggots have become the face of gay people, but that's how life is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your standard for a 'pushy asshole' is any gay or lesbian who doesn't 'sit down and shut the fuck up'. Which isn't a particularly compelling standard.
> 
> You're a far greater threat to the rights of gays, then gays are a threat to your rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing "pushy" about two people who want to commit to a stable long term legally recognized relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, to be a true relationship, government has to validate it.  I mean who could consider their partner to be their partner without government recognition?  That wouldn't be possible.  Man, a partner without OKs from politicians and bureaucrats, that would just be meaningless, wouldn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you asking gays that just want exactly what you enjoy? Ask your wife.
Click to expand...


Yes, you keep reminding us gays aren't ready for full marriage, you can't disagree with each other.  In heterosexual marriage, that happens all the time.


----------



## Seawytch

80zephyr said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]It all boils down to what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - so why does the Gay machine insist on getting into everybody else faces ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the far right social cons want to dictate what grown adults do sexually.
> 
> That's over and done with. You've lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that? I don't care if gay men want to fuck each other, or a goat for that matter. I DO CARE that by normalizing homosexual marriage by force of law will harm society and the family unit.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


I've been legally married to my partner of 20 years since October of 2008. How is that harming you? Is your family unit falling apart yet? 

I'll tell you what that "normalizing" has done for our family...it means our kids can say that their parents are married and that matters.

Bigots back in the 60s thought the same things about interracial marriage that you do about same sex marriage. Society wasn't harmed in the least.


----------



## kaz

Redfish said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's already argued that there are loveless hetero marriages.
> 
> *Here's the dealio: For every single point made in arguing for gay marriage, the exact same argument can be made for unlimited plural marriage.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come to think of it...all those arguments apply to hetero marriage too - OMG - why have ANY marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what keys has been saying.
> 
> And yet...and yet. If the government doesn't have the right to deny two people equal rights, how then does it have the right to deny millions, or billions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality.
> 
> We can take anything - any law - to the point of absurbity.  But the chances of it happening are virtually nil.  So because of that do you have no laws?
> 
> I don't have an issue with polygamy if people want it. But that's also another argument.  If people want polygamy then they need to make a compelling case for it on it's own merits.  The case for same sex marriage is being argued on it's own merits - not alongside polygamy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now see, that's what it boils down to, you are no different than the man/woman government marriage crowd.  You keep going with the argument that gays want that, they don't want heterosexual marriage.  But when Carib says others don't want two, you don't accept an argument which to you is enough for what you want.  You are no better than the man/woman crowd, you just draw a different line.
> 
> If government were not involved in marriage, then they don't get to define it.  Then people do have what they want.  You want a Catholic marriage?  Work out what that means with the Catholic church.  A Jewish marriage?  Ditto.  And so forth.  That ... is liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, I get your point, but the govt is involved in marriage because of tax laws, inheritence laws, property rights etc.
> 
> But the gay agenda is not about those things,  if it was they would be fine with civil unions for gays that would give them all of those rights.   But its all about the word 'marriage' and forced societal acceptance of their deviant lifestyle as 'normal'.
Click to expand...


True, but why do those things need to be tied to marriage?

- The death tax is evil and should not exist for anyone

- Taxes should be flat

- Parental rights and responsibilities should be tied to genes not paper.  With all the babies out of wedlock, this needs to be addressed anyway.

- People should be able to name who they want to make living will decisions for them.

There is a better solution to everything government solves.   And people could back up their private marriages with contracts that specific things like I love you and want to spend my life with you, but if I quit my job and have your brats and you dump me for your secretary I want half your shit you rat bastard.

Can you think of anything that marriage solves that can't be solved better without it?


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suffice to say, there are some very decent gays who aren't pushy assholes. I know, two of them are dear friends of mine. It's a tragedy that the faggots have become the face of gay people, but that's how life is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your standard for a 'pushy asshole' is any gay or lesbian who doesn't 'sit down and shut the fuck up'. Which isn't a particularly compelling standard.
> 
> You're a far greater threat to the rights of gays, then gays are a threat to your rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing "pushy" about two people who want to commit to a stable long term legally recognized relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, to be a true relationship, government has to validate it.  I mean who could consider their partner to be their partner without government recognition?  That wouldn't be possible.  Man, a partner without OKs from politicians and bureaucrats, that would just be meaningless, wouldn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you asking gays that just want exactly what you enjoy? Ask your wife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you keep reminding us gays aren't ready for full marriage, you can't disagree with each other.  In heterosexual marriage, that happens all the time.
Click to expand...


I never said you can't disagree. We know you're the reluctant hypocrite. That's not what I said. Instead of asking gays why they need "government validation", ask your wife why she needs it. She can answer your questions and you'll actually maybe believe the answers from her. 

12 Reasons Marriage Equality Matters


----------



## Redfish

Seawytch said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]It all boils down to what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - so why does the Gay machine insist on getting into everybody else faces ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the far right social cons want to dictate what grown adults do sexually.
> 
> That's over and done with. You've lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that? I don't care if gay men want to fuck each other, or a goat for that matter. I DO CARE that by normalizing homosexual marriage by force of law will harm society and the family unit.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been legally married to my partner of 20 years since October of 2008. How is that harming you? Is your family unit falling apart yet?
> 
> I'll tell you what that "normalizing" has done for our family...it means our kids can say that their parents are married and that matters.
> 
> Bigots back in the 60s thought the same things about interracial marriage that you do about same sex marriage. Society wasn't harmed in the least.
Click to expand...

 

parents = a sperm donor and an egg donor that produce a child

two women or two men are not parents.   you and your sperm donor are parents, not you and your "wife" "partner"


----------



## Redfish

kaz said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come to think of it...all those arguments apply to hetero marriage too - OMG - why have ANY marriage?
> 
> 
> 
> That's what keys has been saying.
> 
> And yet...and yet. If the government doesn't have the right to deny two people equal rights, how then does it have the right to deny millions, or billions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality.
> 
> We can take anything - any law - to the point of absurbity.  But the chances of it happening are virtually nil.  So because of that do you have no laws?
> 
> I don't have an issue with polygamy if people want it. But that's also another argument.  If people want polygamy then they need to make a compelling case for it on it's own merits.  The case for same sex marriage is being argued on it's own merits - not alongside polygamy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now see, that's what it boils down to, you are no different than the man/woman government marriage crowd.  You keep going with the argument that gays want that, they don't want heterosexual marriage.  But when Carib says others don't want two, you don't accept an argument which to you is enough for what you want.  You are no better than the man/woman crowd, you just draw a different line.
> 
> If government were not involved in marriage, then they don't get to define it.  Then people do have what they want.  You want a Catholic marriage?  Work out what that means with the Catholic church.  A Jewish marriage?  Ditto.  And so forth.  That ... is liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, I get your point, but the govt is involved in marriage because of tax laws, inheritence laws, property rights etc.
> 
> But the gay agenda is not about those things,  if it was they would be fine with civil unions for gays that would give them all of those rights.   But its all about the word 'marriage' and forced societal acceptance of their deviant lifestyle as 'normal'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but why do those things need to be tied to marriage?
> 
> - The death tax is evil and should not exist for anyone
> 
> - Taxes should be flat
> 
> - Parental rights and responsibilities should be tied to genes not paper.  With all the babies out of wedlock, this needs to be addressed anyway.
> 
> - People should be able to name who they want to make living will decisions for them.
> 
> There is a better solution to everything government solves.   And people could back up their private marriages with contracts that specific things like I love you and want to spend my life with you, but if I quit my job and have your brats and you dump me for your secretary I want half your shit you rat bastard.
> 
> Can you think of anything that marriage solves that can't be solved better without it?
Click to expand...

 

sure, we could change our laws regarding marriage rights, etc.   What chance do you give that in congress?


----------



## WorldWatcher

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Really?  Even churches right here in Idaho are being threatened if they don't perform same sex marriages.  Coeur d'Alene city officials have told pastors they'll go to jail if they don't marry gays.  If tolerance is what you pride yourself on, you're on the WRONG side.









That is an untrue statement.

1.  You are referring to "The Hitching Post".  The Hitching Post is a commercial business and not a Church.  This for profit business previously advertised their services for not only Christian weddings but for other faiths and for *CIVIL Ceremonies.*

2.  It wasn't city officials that threatened the owners of this for profit business.  The owners of the business inquired with the city of they would fall under Colorado Public Accommodation laws and as a for-profit business the city responded with "yes", which is true.

3.  Another untrue statement is that the owners of the for-profit business were threaten with jail.  Public Accommodation laws fall under Civil Code and not Criminal code.  The outcome of being found guilty of a violation is a fine of $50-$500 and injunctive relief mandating such discriminatory practices stop and possibly damages to the party discriminated against under Civil Liability.

4.  PRIOR to the Same-sex Civil Marriages starting in Idaho, the for profit-business reorganized itself and removed the other fatih's and Civil Ceremony components of it's advertising.  They never offered same-sex religious marriage ceremonies and were never required to offer them.  However they did advertise to the public that they performed non-religious Civil Weddings also, those would have fallen under the purview of Public Accommodation laws.  Since they have not offered Civil Ceremonies since SSCM went into effect in Idaho, there there is not issue.


>>>>


----------



## Seawytch

Redfish said:


> poor wytchey.   so angry, so conflicted, so confused.  Human society as a whole has declared that homosexuality is an aberation of the human condition.
> 
> You have a mental illness, not a physical condition, not a birth condition, but a learned condition.
> 
> You are due empathy and sympathy.   The first step to a cure is admitting the disease.




I asked you this before Fishy and you refused to answer. What is it you think I'm conflicted and confused about? I'm not even a little pissed about my coffeemaker anymore...I'm resolved to boiling water until Tuesday morning. 

You need to catch up on what "human society" thinks these days, certainly not human society here in the good old US of A where we live. Here "human society" thinks gays are okay and that they should be able to civilly *marry*. (not your separate water fountain of Civil Unions only for the gheys, but full *marriage*)

How would you like to "cure the gays" bigot?


----------



## Seawytch

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you consider marriage "getting in everybody's faces"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I consider the subverting of the democratic process just so you can get your way is getting in everyone's face.  You people are the most self centered of all, making sure that everyone is forced to accept your lifestyle even if at the point of a gun.  Yes, you are getting in everyone's face and that's not going to go unanswered for long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So blacks subverted the democratic process when they wanted to end Jim Crowe.
> Women subverted the democratic process when they wanted the vote.
> 
> Oh how self centered they were forcing you all to accept their rights even at the point of a gun.
> 
> Wait a minute.  At the point of a gun?  Aren't you being a little bit ridiculous here?
> 
> And how is it going to go unanswered?  You going to lynch some people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lifestyle ≠ race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion is a lifestyle. If we were to prevent all Protestants from civilly marrying, that would be okay with you? Would that pass Constitutional muster for equal treatment?
> 
> Discrimination = Discrimination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, now you are equating religion and homosexuality??????????
Click to expand...


I do not equate religion with sexual orientation since sexual orientation is an innate trait and religion is a choice, but the poster I was responding to believes people choose to be gay like they choose religion. 

You obviously can't answer the question...let's see if the poster I was responding to can.


----------



## Redfish

Seawytch said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> poor wytchey.   so angry, so conflicted, so confused.  Human society as a whole has declared that homosexuality is an aberation of the human condition.
> 
> You have a mental illness, not a physical condition, not a birth condition, but a learned condition.
> 
> You are due empathy and sympathy.   The first step to a cure is admitting the disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you this before Fishy and you refused to answer. What is it you think I'm conflicted and confused about? I'm not even a little pissed about my coffeemaker anymore...I'm resolved to boiling water until Tuesday morning.
> 
> You need to catch up on what "human society" thinks these days, certainly not human society here in the good old US of A where we live. Here "human society" thinks gays are okay and that they should be able to civilly *marry*. (not your separate water fountain of Civil Unions only for the gheys, but full *marriage*)
> 
> How would you like to "cure the gays" bigot?
Click to expand...

 

your anger and confusion are very evident.   If you were comfortable in your situation you would not have to continually post on gay agenda issues. 

As to a cure, there may not be one.   There is also no cure for MS or diabetes or bipolar disorder.   But hang in there, medical science may find one.


----------



## Seawytch

Conservative65 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a pretty screwed up in the head chick to me - her name didn't happen to be "SeaWytch" did it ?
> 
> 
> 
> But Seawytch will tell you that someone is born gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually most people will tell you sexual orientation is not a choice. Scientists will tell you too. The fact that YOU believe you made a conscious choice leads me to suspect you are bisexual and simply denying part of your attractions.
> 
> I never made a choice to be attracted to the same gender, I just always was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On a different post, someone said they laughed at people like me who thought they knew more about someone than the person.  They really must be laughing at you.
> 
> No such thing as bisexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say I knew more, I'm merely speculating and trying to understand your thought process. *You *said you made a conscious choice...you said you _made _yourself be attracted to women. Did that mean you were attracted to men? Have you ever found a man so attractive that you *wanted *to kiss him or get to know him better? To hold him close to you at night, spooning naked?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have made the claim.
> 
> I said I chose women just like you chose women.  Difference is my choice is normal and your choice is deviant and one you don't have the guts to admit you made.  If you homos are so proud of what you are, why aren't you willing to say you chose.
Click to expand...


You're obviously missing the part where I said I did not choose. I did not find myself attracted to both men and women and chose only one. I was attracted to only members of the same sex from my earliest memories. There was no choice. The fact that you claim to have made one, leads to only one logical conclusion, that you were attracted to both men and women and chose one. Is that how it went down for you?


----------



## Seawytch

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]It all boils down to what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - so why does the Gay machine insist on getting into everybody else faces ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the far right social cons want to dictate what grown adults do sexually.
> 
> That's over and done with. You've lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that? I don't care if gay men want to fuck each other, or a goat for that matter. I DO CARE that by normalizing homosexual marriage by force of law will harm society and the family unit.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been legally married to my partner of 20 years since October of 2008. How is that harming you? Is your family unit falling apart yet?
> 
> I'll tell you what that "normalizing" has done for our family...it means our kids can say that their parents are married and that matters.
> 
> Bigots back in the 60s thought the same things about interracial marriage that you do about same sex marriage. Society wasn't harmed in the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> parents = a sperm donor and an egg donor that produce a child
> 
> two women or two men are not parents.   you and your sperm donor are parents, not you and your "wife" "partner"
Click to expand...



Fortunately the law and our children disagree with your bigoted opinion.


----------



## Redfish

Seawytch said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]It all boils down to what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - so why does the Gay machine insist on getting into everybody else faces ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the far right social cons want to dictate what grown adults do sexually.
> 
> That's over and done with. You've lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that? I don't care if gay men want to fuck each other, or a goat for that matter. I DO CARE that by normalizing homosexual marriage by force of law will harm society and the family unit.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been legally married to my partner of 20 years since October of 2008. How is that harming you? Is your family unit falling apart yet?
> 
> I'll tell you what that "normalizing" has done for our family...it means our kids can say that their parents are married and that matters.
> 
> Bigots back in the 60s thought the same things about interracial marriage that you do about same sex marriage. Society wasn't harmed in the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> parents = a sperm donor and an egg donor that produce a child
> 
> two women or two men are not parents.   you and your sperm donor are parents, not you and your "wife" "partner"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately the law and our children disagree with your bigoted opinion.
Click to expand...

 

biology is not an opinion, nor is it bigoted----------it is fact.


----------



## Seawytch

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> poor wytchey.   so angry, so conflicted, so confused.  Human society as a whole has declared that homosexuality is an aberation of the human condition.
> 
> You have a mental illness, not a physical condition, not a birth condition, but a learned condition.
> 
> You are due empathy and sympathy.   The first step to a cure is admitting the disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you this before Fishy and you refused to answer. What is it you think I'm conflicted and confused about? I'm not even a little pissed about my coffeemaker anymore...I'm resolved to boiling water until Tuesday morning.
> 
> You need to catch up on what "human society" thinks these days, certainly not human society here in the good old US of A where we live. Here "human society" thinks gays are okay and that they should be able to civilly *marry*. (not your separate water fountain of Civil Unions only for the gheys, but full *marriage*)
> 
> How would you like to "cure the gays" bigot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your anger and confusion are very evident.   If you were comfortable in your situation you would not have to continually post on gay agenda issues.
> 
> As to a cure, there may not be one.   There is also no cure for MS or diabetes or bipolar disorder.   But hang in there, medical science may find one.
Click to expand...



So anger is the only reason to post on message boards? That doesn't make any sense. Education is a good reason. People who are not anti gay bigots read these threads. 

You still haven't answered the question. What am I conflicted and confused about Fishy? Is this misdirection, a projection? Are *you *confused and conflicted? Is that why YOU can't stop posting in "gay threads"? I'm gay, I have a good excuse for posting on gay threads. Is being an anti gay bigot the only reason you post here....really?


----------



## Seawytch

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the far right social cons want to dictate what grown adults do sexually.
> 
> That's over and done with. You've lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that? I don't care if gay men want to fuck each other, or a goat for that matter. I DO CARE that by normalizing homosexual marriage by force of law will harm society and the family unit.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been legally married to my partner of 20 years since October of 2008. How is that harming you? Is your family unit falling apart yet?
> 
> I'll tell you what that "normalizing" has done for our family...it means our kids can say that their parents are married and that matters.
> 
> Bigots back in the 60s thought the same things about interracial marriage that you do about same sex marriage. Society wasn't harmed in the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> parents = a sperm donor and an egg donor that produce a child
> 
> two women or two men are not parents.   you and your sperm donor are parents, not you and your "wife" "partner"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately the law and our children disagree with your bigoted opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> biology is not an opinion, nor is it bigoted----------it is fact.
Click to expand...


Yes, your bigotry is a fact, that you don't think my partner and I are the parents of our children (we are, just ask them and the law) is an opinion.

Biology and parenting are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## Redfish

Seawytch said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> poor wytchey.   so angry, so conflicted, so confused.  Human society as a whole has declared that homosexuality is an aberation of the human condition.
> 
> You have a mental illness, not a physical condition, not a birth condition, but a learned condition.
> 
> You are due empathy and sympathy.   The first step to a cure is admitting the disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you this before Fishy and you refused to answer. What is it you think I'm conflicted and confused about? I'm not even a little pissed about my coffeemaker anymore...I'm resolved to boiling water until Tuesday morning.
> 
> You need to catch up on what "human society" thinks these days, certainly not human society here in the good old US of A where we live. Here "human society" thinks gays are okay and that they should be able to civilly *marry*. (not your separate water fountain of Civil Unions only for the gheys, but full *marriage*)
> 
> How would you like to "cure the gays" bigot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your anger and confusion are very evident.   If you were comfortable in your situation you would not have to continually post on gay agenda issues.
> 
> As to a cure, there may not be one.   There is also no cure for MS or diabetes or bipolar disorder.   But hang in there, medical science may find one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So anger is the only reason to post on message boards? That doesn't make any sense. Education is a good reason. People who are not anti gay bigots read these threads.
> 
> You still haven't answered the question. What am I conflicted and confused about Fishy? Is this misdirection, a projection? Are *you *confused and conflicted? Is that why YOU can't stop posting in "gay threads"? I'm gay, I have a good excuse for posting on gay threads. Is being an anti gay bigot the only reason you post here....really?
Click to expand...

 

I post on threads on many subjects.  I post what I believe based on 60+ years of life, travel over much of the world, a successful business career, and an education both in hard knocks and academia.  

You and I will never agree on the gay agenda, gay biology, or probably anything else.   So lets move on.   I suspect that you are basically a good person who is sincere in your beliefs,  but so am I.

In this country we are allowed to disagree and hold different views.  The problem is that you want to force you views on everyone else---------that is the worst form of bigotry and tyranny.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't choose your attraction, only whether to act on them or not. If you are not attracted to men, you can't make yourself attracted to men, trust me on this. (It's why reparative "therapy" has such a high failure rate)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be interesting to know what other psychiatric problems have a "high failure rate" and if we simply gave up because of it.
> 
> Did you ever stop to think that this "high failure rate" is because we haven't been been trying reparative therapy that long?
> 
> I mean fuck, we have been trying to cure cancer, diabetes, and heart disease forever.
> 
> Maybe you think we should stop trying?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reparative therapy has a high failure rate, Mark.  Your suggestion from that fact is useless, meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? I have proven that gays can change. Are you really going to deny those that want to try to change the right to these treatments?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have just proven that some persons have changed who they have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that reparative therapy changes sexual attraction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's why  dickheads like you asking for proof isn't worth providing.  When it's shown, if you don't agree, you discount it.  Typical of your lowlife existence.
Click to expand...

No objective proof exists that homosexuality or heterosexuality is not genetic.

Much evidence does exist for the genetic argument.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Conservative65 said:


> So you approve of a brother/ sister marriage?


Only you are saying that.  The norm is for marriage equality.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If only one changes, the argument that someone is born that way is invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heh. I know a woman who was straight, then gay, then straight again.
> 
> Lesbians especially have a high rate of "recovery".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like a pretty screwed up in the head chick to me - her name didn't happen to be "SeaWytch" did it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But Seawytch will tell you that someone is born gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who would know better on how SeaWitch was born? You....or her?
> 
> I take it you don't understand the rise of laughter when some anonymous conservative starts dictating to individuals their own sexuality. And I doubt you ever will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seawytch said that my claim of choosing to be heterosexual was false.  Who would know better about me?  Me or her?
> 
> Are you laughing at her?  Likely not as your kind are hypocrites.
Click to expand...


You did not "choose", you accepted your heterosexuality without thinking about it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Conservative65 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Deviancy is away from the norm. You are using the term in the wrong context. But, I figure you know that already.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> The norm is to approve marriage equality, and you, deviantly, oppose it.  It is the norm for heterosexuality to be linked to pederasty and pedophilia and other child abuse.  But you already know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you approve of a brother/ sister marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw man fallacy.
> 
> Marriage law currently accommodates same-sex couples, which is not the case for siblings marrying.
> 
> Allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law they're already eligible to participate in doesn't 'change' marriage, marriage remains the same, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only to you hypocrites that argue equality of marriage then deny it when you don't like it.
> 
> Two fags marrying will never be the same as mine.
Click to expand...


If you think so, strawman.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish is full of silliness as he tries to hide his anger for being considered foolish by those who know better.

Conservative is full of anger as he attempts to suppress his latency that is clearly showing.

Guys, what you consider deviant the courts and the growing majority of the population does not.

You are deviant from the accepted norm.

That's OK, but your deviancy is going to rammed down your throat (heh heh) by media, by neighbors, in the school curriculum, by professional organizations and so forth.

You are the deviants.


----------



## GreenBean

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> poor wytchey.   so angry, so conflicted, so confused.  Human society as a whole has declared that homosexuality is an aberation of the human condition.
> 
> You have a mental illness, not a physical condition, not a birth condition, but a learned condition.
> 
> You are due empathy and sympathy.   The first step to a cure is admitting the disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you this before Fishy and you refused to answer. What is it you think I'm conflicted and confused about? I'm not even a little pissed about my coffeemaker anymore...I'm resolved to boiling water until Tuesday morning.
> 
> You need to catch up on what "human society" thinks these days, certainly not human society here in the good old US of A where we live. Here "human society" thinks gays are okay and that they should be able to civilly *marry*. (not your separate water fountain of Civil Unions only for the gheys, but full *marriage*)
> 
> How would you like to "cure the gays" bigot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your anger and confusion are very evident.   If you were comfortable in your situation you would not have to continually post on gay agenda issues.
> 
> As to a cure, there may not be one.   There is also no cure for MS or diabetes or bipolar disorder.   But hang in there, medical science may find one.
Click to expand...




> As to a cure, there may not be one. There is also no cure for MS or diabetes or bipolar disorder. But hang in there, medical science may find one.



Homosexuality differs from MS, diabetes and bipolar disorder in that there is no organic cause - it is a psychological issue and is more relevant to substance abusers - alcoholism - drug addiction.  And yes - there is a cure - it's conversion therapy which has the same success and failure rates as substance abuse therapy does .


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish is full of silliness as he tries to hide his anger for being considered foolish by those who know better.
> 
> Conservative is full of anger as he attempts to suppress his latency that is clearly showing.
> 
> Guys, what you consider deviant the courts and the growing majority of the population does not.
> 
> You are deviant from the accepted norm.
> 
> That's OK, but your deviancy is going to rammed down your throat (heh heh) by media, by neighbors, in the school curriculum, by professional organizations and so forth.
> 
> You are the deviants.


 

so in liberal land, normal people are deviants?   people who practice normal human sexuality are deviants?

WTF is wrong with you?


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be interesting to know what other psychiatric problems have a "high failure rate" and if we simply gave up because of it.
> 
> Did you ever stop to think that this "high failure rate" is because we haven't been been trying reparative therapy that long?
> 
> I mean fuck, we have been trying to cure cancer, diabetes, and heart disease forever.
> 
> Maybe you think we should stop trying?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> Reparative therapy has a high failure rate, Mark.  Your suggestion from that fact is useless, meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? I have proven that gays can change. Are you really going to deny those that want to try to change the right to these treatments?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have just proven that some persons have changed who they have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that reparative therapy changes sexual attraction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's why  dickheads like you asking for proof isn't worth providing.  When it's shown, if you don't agree, you discount it.  Typical of your lowlife existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No objective proof exists that homosexuality or heterosexuality is not genetic.
> 
> Much evidence does exist for the genetic argument.
Click to expand...

 

so having a penis or a vagina and not choosing to use them for their designed purpose is deviant?

are you crazy?


----------



## Redfish

GreenBean said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> poor wytchey.   so angry, so conflicted, so confused.  Human society as a whole has declared that homosexuality is an aberation of the human condition.
> 
> You have a mental illness, not a physical condition, not a birth condition, but a learned condition.
> 
> You are due empathy and sympathy.   The first step to a cure is admitting the disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you this before Fishy and you refused to answer. What is it you think I'm conflicted and confused about? I'm not even a little pissed about my coffeemaker anymore...I'm resolved to boiling water until Tuesday morning.
> 
> You need to catch up on what "human society" thinks these days, certainly not human society here in the good old US of A where we live. Here "human society" thinks gays are okay and that they should be able to civilly *marry*. (not your separate water fountain of Civil Unions only for the gheys, but full *marriage*)
> 
> How would you like to "cure the gays" bigot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your anger and confusion are very evident.   If you were comfortable in your situation you would not have to continually post on gay agenda issues.
> 
> As to a cure, there may not be one.   There is also no cure for MS or diabetes or bipolar disorder.   But hang in there, medical science may find one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As to a cure, there may not be one. There is also no cure for MS or diabetes or bipolar disorder. But hang in there, medical science may find one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuality differs from MS, diabetes and bipolar disorder in that there is no organic cause - it is a psychological issue and is more relevant to substance abusers - alcoholism - drug addiction.  And yes - there is a cure - it's conversion therapy which has the same success and failure rates as substance abuse therapy does .
Click to expand...

 

there is no organic cause for bipolar disorder and most other mental and phychological conditions. 

to claim that homosexuality is genetic defies logic.


----------



## GreenBean

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish is full of silliness as he tries to hide his anger for being considered foolish by those who know better.
> 
> Conservative is full of anger as he attempts to suppress his latency that is clearly showing.
> 
> Guys, what you consider deviant the courts and the growing majority of the population does not.
> 
> You are deviant from the accepted norm.
> 
> That's OK, but your deviancy is going to rammed down your throat (heh heh) by media, by neighbors, in the school curriculum, by professional organizations and so forth.
> 
> You are the deviants.





> Redfish is full of silliness as he tries to hide his anger for being considered foolish by those who know better.



*Those who know better ???!!!???





*


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your standard for a 'pushy asshole' is any gay or lesbian who doesn't 'sit down and shut the fuck up'. Which isn't a particularly compelling standard.
> 
> You're a far greater threat to the rights of gays, then gays are a threat to your rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing "pushy" about two people who want to commit to a stable long term legally recognized relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, to be a true relationship, government has to validate it.  I mean who could consider their partner to be their partner without government recognition?  That wouldn't be possible.  Man, a partner without OKs from politicians and bureaucrats, that would just be meaningless, wouldn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you asking gays that just want exactly what you enjoy? Ask your wife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you keep reminding us gays aren't ready for full marriage, you can't disagree with each other.  In heterosexual marriage, that happens all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said you can't disagree. We know you're the reluctant hypocrite. That's not what I said. Instead of asking gays why they need "government validation", ask your wife why she needs it. She can answer your questions and you'll actually maybe believe the answers from her.
> 
> 12 Reasons Marriage Equality Matters
Click to expand...


That's exactly what I just addressed.  I've addressed it repeatedly. She doesn't agree with me.  She knows what I think about government marriage. She knows I oppose it.  She is fully aware of it.  She disagrees with me.  Why would I continue to ask a question that was asked and answered?  I've told you this a bunch of times.  What is wrong with you that you can't grasp that?  

That's my point, you keep saying you wouldn't give it up.  Ask again, and again, and again.  I'm not changing my mind, she's not changing her mind.  That happens in heterosexual marriages and the marriage can go on just fine.  We don't have to agree on everything.  When you reach that point, then you will be closer to gay marriage being equivalent to straight marriage.  You must just be a joy to live with having to be agreed with on everything, or at least told you're right.


----------



## kaz

Redfish said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what keys has been saying.
> 
> And yet...and yet. If the government doesn't have the right to deny two people equal rights, how then does it have the right to deny millions, or billions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reality.
> 
> We can take anything - any law - to the point of absurbity.  But the chances of it happening are virtually nil.  So because of that do you have no laws?
> 
> I don't have an issue with polygamy if people want it. But that's also another argument.  If people want polygamy then they need to make a compelling case for it on it's own merits.  The case for same sex marriage is being argued on it's own merits - not alongside polygamy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now see, that's what it boils down to, you are no different than the man/woman government marriage crowd.  You keep going with the argument that gays want that, they don't want heterosexual marriage.  But when Carib says others don't want two, you don't accept an argument which to you is enough for what you want.  You are no better than the man/woman crowd, you just draw a different line.
> 
> If government were not involved in marriage, then they don't get to define it.  Then people do have what they want.  You want a Catholic marriage?  Work out what that means with the Catholic church.  A Jewish marriage?  Ditto.  And so forth.  That ... is liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, I get your point, but the govt is involved in marriage because of tax laws, inheritence laws, property rights etc.
> 
> But the gay agenda is not about those things,  if it was they would be fine with civil unions for gays that would give them all of those rights.   But its all about the word 'marriage' and forced societal acceptance of their deviant lifestyle as 'normal'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but why do those things need to be tied to marriage?
> 
> - The death tax is evil and should not exist for anyone
> 
> - Taxes should be flat
> 
> - Parental rights and responsibilities should be tied to genes not paper.  With all the babies out of wedlock, this needs to be addressed anyway.
> 
> - People should be able to name who they want to make living will decisions for them.
> 
> There is a better solution to everything government solves.   And people could back up their private marriages with contracts that specific things like I love you and want to spend my life with you, but if I quit my job and have your brats and you dump me for your secretary I want half your shit you rat bastard.
> 
> Can you think of anything that marriage solves that can't be solved better without it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> sure, we could change our laws regarding marriage rights, etc.   What chance do you give that in congress?
Click to expand...


Well, if we're only going to argue for what's going to happen, then let's just argue for collectivist leftism.


----------



## GreenBean

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish is full of silliness as he tries to hide his anger for being considered foolish by those who know better.
> 
> Conservative is full of anger as he attempts to suppress his latency that is clearly showing.
> 
> Guys, what you consider deviant the courts and the growing majority of the population does not.
> 
> You are deviant from the accepted norm.
> 
> That's OK, but your deviancy is going to rammed down your throat (heh heh) by media, by neighbors, in the school curriculum, by professional organizations and so forth.
> 
> You are the deviants.





> Conservative is full of anger as he attempts to suppress his latency that is clearly showing.



Lame , really lame the last retort of faggots who have no other arguments to posit - "latent" - really ?!  That's a very poor attempt at "Jamming" perpetrated by a half wit

*T*he objective of jamming is to force opponents into silence by accusations of homophobia, latent homosexual tendencies and bigotry . The purpose being to create a social stigmatization of anyone whom opposes the Agenda. Jamming is to ridicule the opponent in the eyes of the world and to evoke the "pack mentality" .


----------



## GreenBean

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish is full of silliness as he tries to hide his anger for being considered foolish by those who know better.
> 
> Conservative is full of anger as he attempts to suppress his latency that is clearly showing.
> 
> Guys, what you consider deviant the courts and the growing majority of the population does not.
> 
> You are deviant from the accepted norm.
> 
> That's OK, but your deviancy is going to rammed down your throat (heh heh) by media, by neighbors, in the school curriculum, by professional organizations and so forth.
> 
> You are the deviants.





> Guys, what you consider deviant the courts and the growing majority of the population does not.



*The Courts* - Hmmm - such as in the Dred Scott Case that established that blacks were property of the slaveholder regardless of where in the country they traveled - is that what you're advocating for ?

*majority of the population - *
*



*


----------



## GreenBean

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish is full of silliness as he tries to hide his anger for being considered foolish by those who know better.
> 
> Conservative is full of anger as he attempts to suppress his latency that is clearly showing.
> 
> Guys, what you consider deviant the courts and the growing majority of the population does not.
> 
> You are deviant from the accepted norm.
> 
> That's OK, but your deviancy is going to rammed down your throat (heh heh) by media, by neighbors, in the school curriculum, by professional organizations and so forth.
> 
> You are the deviants.





> ... your deviancy is going to rammed down your throat (heh heh) by media, ... the school curriculum, by professional organizations and so forth.








We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.

Women, you cry for freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy. We, connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will instruct them; we will embrace them when they weep. Women, you say you wish to live with each other instead of with men. Then go and be with each other. We shall give your men pleasures they have never known because we are foremost men too, and only one man knows how to truly please another man; only one man can understand the depth and feeling, the mind and body of another man.

All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men.

All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.

If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies.

We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap, superficial, sentimental, insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating your cinema screens. We shall sculpt statues of beautiful young men, of bold athletes which will be placed in your parks, your squares, your plazas. The museums of the world will be filled only with paintings of graceful, naked lads.

Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable and de rigueur, and we will succeed because we are adept at setting styles. We will eliminate heterosexual liaisons through usage of the devices of wit and ridicule, devices which we are skilled in employing.

We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators,your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar, bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals because we are always among you; we may be sitting across the desk from you; we may be sleeping in the same bed with you.

There will be no compromises. We are not middle-class weaklings. Highly intelligent, we are the natural aristocrats of the human race, and steely-minded aristocrats never settle for less. Those who oppose us will be exiled.

We shall raise vast private armies, as Mishima did, to defeat you. We shall conquer the world because warriors inspired by and banded together by homosexual love and honor are invincible as were the ancient Greek soldiers.

The family unit-spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence--will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.

All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and esthetic. All that is ugly and vulgar and banal will be annihilated. Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough.

The exquisite society to emerge will be governed by an elite comprised of gay poets. One of the major requirements for a position of power in the new society of homoeroticism will be indulgence in the Greek passion. Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from a position of influence. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men.

"We shall rewrite history, history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions. We shall portray the homosexuality of the great leaders and thinkers who have shaped the world. We will demonstrate that homosexuality and intelligence and imagination are inextricably linked, and that homosexuality is a requirement for true nobility, true beauty in a man.

"We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed who have been forced to play seemingly bit parts in your dumb, heterosexual shows throughout the ages. We too are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution.

*Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.*


Internet History Sourcebooks Project


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  It is about science and how different conlcusions can come from the same research.
> 
> People Are Not Born Gay Affirms Royal College of Psychiatrists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that's not what happened. What happened was an anti gay group misinterpreted the study.
> 
> UK ‘gay cure’ group red-faced as psychiatrists point out they are wrong
> 
> _Speaking to Gay Star News, a Royal College of Psychiatrists spokeswoman said it was a clear ‘misinterpretation’ of their actual statement.
> 
> ‘Homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder,’ it reads. ‘The College believes strongly in evidence-based treatment. There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.
> 
> ‘The College would not support a therapy for converting people from homosexuality any more than we would do so from heterosexuality.
> 
> ‘Psychiatrists should be committed to reducing inequalities, not supporting practices that are explicitly based on pathologizing homosexuality. As such, the College remains in favor of legislative efforts to ban such conversion therapies.’_​
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  Gay West New York cop claims in lawsuit he was harassed intimidated by police director NJ.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a lot more than just "saying something" in that case. Also, you can't "say anything" at work, you know that right? Your "free speech" goes only as far as your employer allows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tebow's action of praying got media attention.  However, had he not scored a toughdown, etc. there would have been no attention because he wouldn't have Tebowed.  For Sam, the attention came before ever stepping foot on an NFL field.  Tebow also had high school accomplishments.  You don't start at Florida and win the Heisman if you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't pretend Michael Sam didn't have accomplishments prior to coming out. He was SEC defensive player of the year and I think would be on a roster right now if he hadn't come out as gay.
> 
> Do you think role models are important? You obviously see Tebow as a role model for Christians and have no problem with that. Why can't Michael Sam be a role model for gay athletes? You may not realize it, but it is important for the gay High School football player in Iowa to see that there are others like him and it's okay to be athletic and gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  Define equal.  It doens't mean you get to do exactly the same things I do or vice versa.
> 
> Just ask them about polygamy or a sibling marriage.  They are quicker to say no to it coming up with why equality should be denied than they are about bending over and taking one in the ass for the homos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Polygamy and incest are both illegal so bringing them up is what is referred to in polite circles as a "slippery slope fallacy". They are completely unrelated to gays having equal access to civil marriage, and would either have a valid argument for legalization or they would not regardless of gays civilly marrying.
> 
> Quite a few countries have been marrying the gays for a while now. Even more countries perform legal polygamist marriages. None do both. There is no slippery slope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a slippery slope. It started with the leftists instituting welfare, easy divorce, and single motherhood to destroy families.
> 
> Gay marriage is simply the latest step in that direction.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the 'left' instituted 'single motherhood'?
> 
> I have a great grandmother who raised 4 kids as a single mom- which 'leftists' was responsible for the death of her husband and wanting to destroy families by her chosing not to remarry?
> 
> 'easy divorce'
> 
> the top five states for divorce rates are largely conservative:
> Maine, Alaska, Oklahoma, Kentucky and Nevada, ranked at the top for divorces
> 
> Ronald Reagan opted for one of those 'easy' divorces- so did Newt Gingrich.
> 
> Conservatives have embraced divorce with a passion.
> 
> So much for your 'leftist' slippery slope fantasies.
Click to expand...




Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  It is about science and how different conlcusions can come from the same research.
> 
> People Are Not Born Gay Affirms Royal College of Psychiatrists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that's not what happened. What happened was an anti gay group misinterpreted the study.
> 
> UK ‘gay cure’ group red-faced as psychiatrists point out they are wrong
> 
> _Speaking to Gay Star News, a Royal College of Psychiatrists spokeswoman said it was a clear ‘misinterpretation’ of their actual statement.
> 
> ‘Homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder,’ it reads. ‘The College believes strongly in evidence-based treatment. There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.
> 
> ‘The College would not support a therapy for converting people from homosexuality any more than we would do so from heterosexuality.
> 
> ‘Psychiatrists should be committed to reducing inequalities, not supporting practices that are explicitly based on pathologizing homosexuality. As such, the College remains in favor of legislative efforts to ban such conversion therapies.’_​
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  Gay West New York cop claims in lawsuit he was harassed intimidated by police director NJ.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a lot more than just "saying something" in that case. Also, you can't "say anything" at work, you know that right? Your "free speech" goes only as far as your employer allows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tebow's action of praying got media attention.  However, had he not scored a toughdown, etc. there would have been no attention because he wouldn't have Tebowed.  For Sam, the attention came before ever stepping foot on an NFL field.  Tebow also had high school accomplishments.  You don't start at Florida and win the Heisman if you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't pretend Michael Sam didn't have accomplishments prior to coming out. He was SEC defensive player of the year and I think would be on a roster right now if he hadn't come out as gay.
> 
> Do you think role models are important? You obviously see Tebow as a role model for Christians and have no problem with that. Why can't Michael Sam be a role model for gay athletes? You may not realize it, but it is important for the gay High School football player in Iowa to see that there are others like him and it's okay to be athletic and gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  Define equal.  It doens't mean you get to do exactly the same things I do or vice versa.
> 
> Just ask them about polygamy or a sibling marriage.  They are quicker to say no to it coming up with why equality should be denied than they are about bending over and taking one in the ass for the homos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Polygamy and incest are both illegal so bringing them up is what is referred to in polite circles as a "slippery slope fallacy". They are completely unrelated to gays having equal access to civil marriage, and would either have a valid argument for legalization or they would not regardless of gays civilly marrying.
> 
> Quite a few countries have been marrying the gays for a while now. Even more countries perform legal polygamist marriages. None do both. There is no slippery slope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a slippery slope. It started with the leftists instituting welfare, easy divorce, and single motherhood to destroy families.
> 
> Gay marriage is simply the latest step in that direction.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the 'left' instituted 'single motherhood'?
> 
> I have a great grandmother who raised 4 kids as a single mom- which 'leftists' was responsible for the death of her husband and wanting to destroy families by her chosing not to remarry?
> 
> 'easy divorce'
> 
> the top five states for divorce rates are largely conservative:
> Maine, Alaska, Oklahoma, Kentucky and Nevada, ranked at the top for divorces
> 
> Ronald Reagan opted for one of those 'easy' divorces- so did Newt Gingrich.
> 
> Conservatives have embraced divorce with a passion.
> 
> So much for your 'leftist' slippery slope fantasies.
Click to expand...


Yes, the left institutionalized single motherhood by their commitment to easy divorce, welfare, and single motherhood.

So some GOPers got a divorce? They were not the impetus to our changing moral code, the left was. 

If participation was the litmus test, you should now claim that Christian fundamentalists backed divorce because one of them got a divorce.

That is....illogical.

Mark


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish and Zephyr are babbling while Green Bean is excited by a hard gay propaganda piece.

Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined.


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone think posting  "link" is  proves anything? Get a life. The proof is experience. Living a full life and having  wide range of experiences. Gays are nice folks, in general. But I don't understand this push for rights for them, I really don't. Tell me why? This is about a general consensus, there isn't any right or wrong. I just don't understand  this rationalizing  irrational sexual behavior. They are never gonna have children, why this PUSH for marriage equality? Why? I just am not buying it. I don't understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> Suffice to say, there are some very decent gays who aren't pushy assholes. I know, two of them are dear friends of mine. It's a tragedy that the faggots have become the face of gay people, but that's how life is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah- I have known racists who claim that there are some very decent negroes too- the ones that aren't uppity like the n*ggers.
> 
> They always have a story of dear friends who were colored, the shoe shine man....the guy who pumped their gas- the ones who 'knew their place'.
> 
> Bigots always have rationalizations like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know that race and lifestyle choice are two different things? Yes you can be judged by how you CHOOSE to live and that doesn't make me a bigot. 90% of blacks oppose homosexuality and resent the hell out of having your fake "cause" lumped in with their genuine plight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Race and lifestyle are different. But bigots are all the same.
> 
> Yeah- I have known racists who claim that there are some very decent negroes too- the ones that aren't uppity like the n*ggers.
> 
> They always have a story of dear friends who were colored, the shoe shine man....the guy who pumped their gas- the ones who 'knew their place'.
> 
> Bigots always have rationalizations like that
Click to expand...


So, if a person give a well considered argument to a topic that you don't agree with, he becomes a bigot?

What I think is that when a person has only name calling to rely on, they are losing the debate...badly.

Why don't you show us how mentally superior you are by answering that question that was bolded in blue?

I mean, you seem to believe you are 100% right in your convictions.

Prove it.

Mark


----------



## kaz

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish is babbling.
> 
> Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined.



You realize if that's true then gays will eventually become extinct.  Think about it, they pretend to be straight now and have kids.  As they become mainstream, they will stop breeding and homosexuality will die out.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The social stigmatization once used by the far right social con haters is now turned back on them.

Don't dish what you can't take, boyos.


----------



## JakeStarkey

kaz, heterosexuals create homosexuals.

They will never die out.


----------



## 80zephyr

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish and Zephyr are babbling while Green Bean is excited by a hard gay propaganda piece.
> 
> Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined.


Show me that it is.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

JakeStarkey said:


> The social stigmatization once used by the far right social con haters is now turned back on them.
> 
> Don't dish what you can't take, boyos.



Lol. A cognizant argument beats hell outta name calling.

I think I'll stick to that.

Mark


----------



## kaz

JakeStarkey said:


> kaz, heterosexuals create homosexuals.
> 
> They will never die out.



Even if it's a recessive gene, that once you get a gay/gay match you stop breeding, the number of gays will significantly drop.  Think about it.  Liberals never do think through your arguments.  You can't, you would realize they don't make sense...


----------



## 80zephyr

GreenBean said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation.  It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that depends. Every other generation didn't celebrate it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most don't "celebrate it".  Wanting to not be forced to hide it is not "celebrating" it.  They want to be treated the same way you are - like people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The militiant straights want to "celebrate" their sexuality.  Of course.  So do gays.
> 
> The straights do not want gays to have the same rights under law.
> 
> That is deviant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So Penis Breath - who, pray tell , in your warped little mind  are the "militant" Heterosexuals -
Click to expand...


That's easy. Leftists believe that anyone who doesn't agree with them is a militant extremist. And all the while, they preach that they are the side of "tolerance".

Lol.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  It is about science and how different conlcusions can come from the same research.
> 
> People Are Not Born Gay Affirms Royal College of Psychiatrists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that's not what happened. What happened was an anti gay group misinterpreted the study.
> 
> UK ‘gay cure’ group red-faced as psychiatrists point out they are wrong
> 
> _Speaking to Gay Star News, a Royal College of Psychiatrists spokeswoman said it was a clear ‘misinterpretation’ of their actual statement.
> 
> ‘Homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder,’ it reads. ‘The College believes strongly in evidence-based treatment. There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.
> 
> ‘The College would not support a therapy for converting people from homosexuality any more than we would do so from heterosexuality.
> 
> ‘Psychiatrists should be committed to reducing inequalities, not supporting practices that are explicitly based on pathologizing homosexuality. As such, the College remains in favor of legislative efforts to ban such conversion therapies.’_​
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  Gay West New York cop claims in lawsuit he was harassed intimidated by police director NJ.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a lot more than just "saying something" in that case. Also, you can't "say anything" at work, you know that right? Your "free speech" goes only as far as your employer allows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tebow's action of praying got media attention.  However, had he not scored a toughdown, etc. there would have been no attention because he wouldn't have Tebowed.  For Sam, the attention came before ever stepping foot on an NFL field.  Tebow also had high school accomplishments.  You don't start at Florida and win the Heisman if you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't pretend Michael Sam didn't have accomplishments prior to coming out. He was SEC defensive player of the year and I think would be on a roster right now if he hadn't come out as gay.
> 
> Do you think role models are important? You obviously see Tebow as a role model for Christians and have no problem with that. Why can't Michael Sam be a role model for gay athletes? You may not realize it, but it is important for the gay High School football player in Iowa to see that there are others like him and it's okay to be athletic and gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  Define equal.  It doens't mean you get to do exactly the same things I do or vice versa.
> 
> Just ask them about polygamy or a sibling marriage.  They are quicker to say no to it coming up with why equality should be denied than they are about bending over and taking one in the ass for the homos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Polygamy and incest are both illegal so bringing them up is what is referred to in polite circles as a "slippery slope fallacy". They are completely unrelated to gays having equal access to civil marriage, and would either have a valid argument for legalization or they would not regardless of gays civilly marrying.
> 
> Quite a few countries have been marrying the gays for a while now. Even more countries perform legal polygamist marriages. None do both. There is no slippery slope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a slippery slope. It started with the leftists instituting welfare, easy divorce, and single motherhood to destroy families.
> 
> Gay marriage is simply the latest step in that direction.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is such a thing as a "slippery slope fallacy".
Click to expand...


That is another fallacy. People write these "fallacy's" to prove to the "sheep" there really is no such thing. And yet we see the slippery slope employed every day, in almost every area of our lives.

Reality trumps bullshit. The slippery slope is not a fallacy.

A fallacy only works when humans are not involved. Since they are your belief is false.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> To an authoritarian leftist, yes.  To a liberal, no.  A liberal walks out of a business that doesn't want to do business with them and goes to one that does.  An authoritarian leftist runs to government to use force to compel them to do business. It's very clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've resolved the authority issue, as the states clearly have the authority over commerce within their States.
> 
> What's left are ethical issues. And I think its perfectly ethical and reasonable for a State to require those doing business with the public to treat the public fairly and equally.
> 
> You disagree. So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I am a liberal and you are an authoritarian leftist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. You're just an anarchist with an opinion. One I don't give a shit about in this thread.
> 
> Do you have anything else to say about homosexuality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, gays have every right to be left alone, they have no right to demand anything from anyone.
> 
> Just like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People, any people, have a right to demand equality.
Click to expand...


You are correct. They were equal before gay marriage.

Mark


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]It all boils down to what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - so why does the Gay machine insist on getting into everybody else faces ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the far right social cons want to dictate what grown adults do sexually.
> 
> That's over and done with. You've lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that? I don't care if gay men want to fuck each other, or a goat for that matter. I DO CARE that by normalizing homosexual marriage by force of law will harm society and the family unit.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been legally married to my partner of 20 years since October of 2008. How is that harming you? Is your family unit falling apart yet?
Click to expand...


No Fault Divorce didn't harm my Marriage... per se, but how many other marriages were destroyed, because it was easier to throw it away than to work out the problems?  Then, how many kids of divorced marriages took that message and played house until it got tough and divorced, leaving their kids to be drug from mommy's house to Daddy's house, 'lucky' that they had _TWO HOUSES?
_
And from that, how many kids have chosen NOT to get married, and just procreate outside of marriage?  with the concept of marriage, and its stabilizing purpose being lowered, thus destabilizing the culture, with marriage now so thoroughly discounted and the culture so bereft of morality and the concept of marriage so convoluted, that a tiny minority of states have passed laws allowing males to marry males. 
_
(This is where they mock the idea that the culture is destabilized, on the basis that it still exists, therefore: It must be stable.)_

So... my marriage doesn't need to be harmed, for the lowering of the marriage standard to be injurious.




> I'll tell you what that "normalizing" has done for our family...it means our kids can say that their parents are married and that matters.



As I've said many times, she sought marriage for the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage. 

What she fails to understand is that by her disrespecting marriage; by trying to BE such with a person of the same gender, she did not legitimize her abnormality, she delegitimized marriage.




> Bigots back in the 60s thought the same things about interracial marriage that you do about same sex marriage. Society wasn't harmed in the least.



LOL!  So you... a bigot, are complaining about bigotry?  That is _hysterical!_


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> All peope have a right to be treated with respect until their individual actions warrant otherwise.
> All people have a right to be treated equally under the law.
> People opposing same-sex marriage fall back on the same tired old arguments:
> Gays are being "pushy"
> Gays are asking for "special rights"
> Marriage is between one man and one woman.
> It will destroy the institution of marriage.
> 
> On the first - how is it that people trying to gain equal rights, get labeled pushy?  Women demanding the vote? Blacks and civil rights?  Those advocating for the rights of the unborn and those advocating for the rights of women over their own bodies?  Advocating for fundamental rights is not "pushy" and marriage is recognized as a fundamental right.
> 
> Gays are asking for "special rights"...no, not really, because - to turn yet another argument on it's head (that gays already have the right to marry, they can marry anyone of the opposite sex) - there is no special right here, heterosexuals will have the same right to marry someone of the same sex.
> 
> Marriage is between one man and one woman.  Marriage, and the reasons for it as an institution has evolved and changed throughout history (for example, marriage at in medievil Europe was reserved for upper classes for political and inheritance reasons while the lower classes cohabitated), it varies according to culture and has not always been one/one.  Opponents of same sex marriage are essentially saying marriage can't change anymore and ignoring history.
> 
> It will destroy the institution of marriage.  This is the one I find hysterically funny.  How exactly will that happen?  No one has been able to explain how the marriages, of a subset of the approx 4% gay population, is going to have any affect on the rest of the 96% who might or might not choose to marry.
> 
> Marriage is a fundamental right.  In today's western world, we recognize that right, and it is not attached to procreation alone.  We recognize the right of two elderly people to marry just as we recognize the right of two young people to marry.  Extending that dignity and respect for the union of two people in love to a same-sex marriage is not that much of a stretch.
> 
> People have a right to happyness as long as that right does not infringe on the rights of others or hurt others.  Marriage is widely recognized as a socially stabilizing influence and there is no reason that would not apply to same sex marriages as well.
> 
> Same sex marriage hurts NO ONE.  It's not "shoving" anything into someone else's face.  It's about recognizing the union of two people who want to spend the rest of their lives together under the legal protections and benefits of marriage.



I have stated this before. The left has assured us that welfare, divorce, and single motherhood would not hurt the institution of marriage.

They were wrong. Now, why should I believe your claim that gay marriage hurts no one?

Your accuracy leaves much to be desired.

Also, you said this:

*for example, marriage at in medievil Europe was reserved for upper classes for political and inheritance reasons while the lower classes cohabitated),
*
The lower classes cohabitated because marriage is not a social construct, but a biological one. The mating of the sexes is "marriage. And those lower classes were "married", even without being allowed to use the word.

*Mark*


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> All peope have a right to be treated with respect until their individual actions warrant otherwise.
> All people have a right to be treated equally under the law.
> People opposing same-sex marriage fall back on the same tired old arguments:
> Gays are being "pushy"
> Gays are asking for "special rights"
> Marriage is between one man and one woman.
> It will destroy the institution of marriage.
> 
> On the first - how is it that people trying to gain equal rights, get labeled pushy?  Women demanding the vote? Blacks and civil rights?  Those advocating for the rights of the unborn and those advocating for the rights of women over their own bodies?  Advocating for fundamental rights is not "pushy" and marriage is recognized as a fundamental right.
> 
> Gays are asking for "special rights"...no, not really, because - to turn yet another argument on it's head (that gays already have the right to marry, they can marry anyone of the opposite sex) - there is no special right here, heterosexuals will have the same right to marry someone of the same sex.
> 
> Marriage is between one man and one woman.  Marriage, and the reasons for it as an institution has evolved and changed throughout history (for example, marriage at in medievil Europe was reserved for upper classes for political and inheritance reasons while the lower classes cohabitated), it varies according to culture and has not always been one/one.  Opponents of same sex marriage are essentially saying marriage can't change anymore and ignoring history.
> 
> It will destroy the institution of marriage.  This is the one I find hysterically funny.  How exactly will that happen?  No one has been able to explain how the marriages, of a subset of the approx 4% gay population, is going to have any affect on the rest of the 96% who might or might not choose to marry.
> 
> Marriage is a fundamental right.  In today's western world, we recognize that right, and it is not attached to procreation alone.  We recognize the right of two elderly people to marry just as we recognize the right of two young people to marry.  Extending that dignity and respect for the union of two people in love to a same-sex marriage is not that much of a stretch.
> 
> People have a right to happyness as long as that right does not infringe on the rights of others or hurt others.  Marriage is widely recognized as a socially stabilizing influence and there is no reason that would not apply to same sex marriages as well.
> 
> Same sex marriage hurts NO ONE.  It's not "shoving" anything into someone else's face.  It's about recognizing the union of two people who want to spend the rest of their lives together under the legal protections and benefits of marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have stated this before. The left has assured us that welfare, divorce, and single motherhood would not hurt the institution of marriage.
> 
> They were wrong. Now, why should I believe your claim that gay marriage hurts no one?
> 
> Your accuracy leaves much to be desired.
> 
> Also, you said this:
> 
> *for example, marriage at in medievil Europe was reserved for upper classes for political and inheritance reasons while the lower classes cohabitated),
> *
> The lower classes cohabitated because marriage is not a social construct, but a biological one. The mating of the sexes is "marriage. And those lower classes were "married", even without being allowed to use the word.
> 
> *Mark*
Click to expand...

So...you want to eliminate welfare, divorce and single motherhood?  How do you propose doing that?


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is such a thing as a "slippery slope fallacy".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, its a classic. You'll find all the best fallacies represented here. The most common being an Appeal to Authority. Where homosexuality is wrong because 'nature' said it was. Or 'god' said it was. Or whatever.
> 
> There's no logical or rational basis behind it. Nor can they offer much in terms of reasoned, rational arguments. Its the main reason why most gay marriage opponents have such a rough time in court. As the motivation for many of them is 'God Hates Fags!'. But you can't really argue that in court.
> 
> So they're left with a litany of half baked 2nd tier arguments that are easily refuted....as they don't  make the slightest sense.
Click to expand...


I have given you valid reasons. That you refuse to acknowledge them is not my fault.

Mark


----------



## bodecea

kaz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> kaz, heterosexuals create homosexuals.
> 
> They will never die out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if it's a recessive gene, that once you get a gay/gay match you stop breeding, the number of gays will significantly drop.  Think about it.  Liberals never do think through your arguments.  You can't, you would realize they don't make sense...
Click to expand...

Genetics is probably part of it but not all of it....like left-handedness...or a artistic talent.


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone here that that can prove that homosexuals NEED to get married, I will buy you a GOOD  cup coffee, you name it. Really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't hold your breath...
> 
> The purpose of the demand for marriage is that with marriage come legitimacy... what they don't understand is that legitimacy comes as a result of the standard that defines it.  Therefore, they're chasing something that can't be had until THEY turn from that which renders them illegitimate.
> 
> It's some fairly sad stuff... but insanity has always been sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they're willing to settle for appearances, because real marriage cannot be redefined. Gay couple can play house and delude themselves, but they can never marry for real. The Bible refers to this as "strong delusions". They forget that marriage is ordained by God and is not up for personal interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage in this era is for many reasons.  In western culture it is mostly about love.  Two people love each other and want to commit to a long term (hopefully) permanent relationship with each other that might or might not include children, that might include purchasing and building a home together, shared assets, a shared future together that is recognized legally and - if religion is involved, by a religious service. It is a relationship recognized right now, in many areas, as limited only to hetero couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And people can't do all that without government?  Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because in our country marriage is recognized by the government which confers special priveledges and legal benefits to those couples that may or may not be obtained by unmarried couples.
Click to expand...

And every one of those reasons were propagation of the species.

Mark


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing "pushy" about two people who want to commit to a stable long term legally recognized relationship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, to be a true relationship, government has to validate it.  I mean who could consider their partner to be their partner without government recognition?  That wouldn't be possible.  Man, a partner without OKs from politicians and bureaucrats, that would just be meaningless, wouldn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you asking gays that just want exactly what you enjoy? Ask your wife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you keep reminding us gays aren't ready for full marriage, you can't disagree with each other.  In heterosexual marriage, that happens all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said you can't disagree. We know you're the reluctant hypocrite. That's not what I said. Instead of asking gays why they need "government validation", ask your wife why she needs it. She can answer your questions and you'll actually maybe believe the answers from her.
> 
> 12 Reasons Marriage Equality Matters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what I just addressed.  I've addressed it repeatedly. She doesn't agree with me.  She knows what I think about government marriage. She knows I oppose it.  She is fully aware of it.  She disagrees with me.  Why would I continue to ask a question that was asked and answered?  I've told you this a bunch of times.  What is wrong with you that you can't grasp that?
> 
> That's my point, you keep saying you wouldn't give it up.  Ask again, and again, and again.  I'm not changing my mind, she's not changing her mind.  That happens in heterosexual marriages and the marriage can go on just fine.  We don't have to agree on everything.  When you reach that point, then you will be closer to gay marriage being equivalent to straight marriage.  You must just be a joy to live with having to be agreed with on everything, or at least told you're right.
Click to expand...


Disagreement happens in all marriage, you're not special. We all disagree and we all compromise. You've compromised on civil marriage, yes we get it and not arguing that. I'm saying stop asking us the questions your wife obviously has the answers to. Stop asking gays why they want to be married since she can answer your questions.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish is babbling.
> 
> Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined.



Show evidence that is IS!

Ya see scamp, it is not reasonable for me to have to break out every scintilla of human knowledge regarding genetics and prove that none of it provides any trace of evidence that sexual deviancy is genetic.  Because to do so would require a massive effort that would span a period of time, of which 99% would be practiced without anyone engaged in this discussion being present, because most fo them would have died of natural causes before the evidence was fully presented.

Therefore, in terms of reason, nature established the law which says that where you assert something as fact, YOU must present the evidence that such is true.

Now there's only one species of reasoning which rejects nature's law... and that is the reasoning which is common to Left-think; OKA: Relativism... 

So... it falls to you to prove that sexual deviancy is genetic, not for Kaz to prove that it is NOT.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
> Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually churches are not ever forced to marry someone they do not want to.   At least on this planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull f*cking shit! Idaho city s ordinance tells pastors to marry gays or go to jail - Washington Times
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was a for-profit wedding chapel like those you see in Vegas.   You DID know that, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> PASTORS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For Profit Business.
Click to expand...


You don't seem to get that ALL PASTORS were being threatened, so you're wrong, and like any stubborn Leftist, you can't admit when you're wrong because you'd never stop.  That's a dangerous combination, incorrigibility and ignorance, and you model it well.


----------



## 80zephyr

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]It all boils down to what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - so why does the Gay machine insist on getting into everybody else faces ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the far right social cons want to dictate what grown adults do sexually.
> 
> That's over and done with. You've lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that? I don't care if gay men want to fuck each other, or a goat for that matter. I DO CARE that by normalizing homosexual marriage by force of law will harm society and the family unit.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been legally married to my partner of 20 years since October of 2008. How is that harming you? Is your family unit falling apart yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Fault Divorce didn't harm my Marriage... per se, but how many other marriages were destroyed, because it was easier to throw it away than to work out the problems?  Then, how many kids of divorced marriages took that message and played house until it got tough and divorced, leaving their kids to be drug from mommy's house to Daddy's house, 'lucky' that they had _TWO HOUSES?
> _
> And from that, how many kids have chosen NOT to get married, and just procreate outside of marriage?  with the concept of marriage, and its stabilizing purpose being lowered, thus destabilizing the culture, with marriage now so thoroughly discounted and the culture so bereft of morality and the concept of marriage so convoluted, that a tiny minority of states have passed laws allowing males to marry males.
> _
> (This is where they mock the idea that the culture is destabilized, on the basis that it still exists, therefore: It must be stable.)_
> 
> So... my marriage doesn't need to be harmed, for the lowering of the marriage standard to be injurious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll tell you what that "normalizing" has done for our family...it means our kids can say that their parents are married and that matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I've said many times, she sought marriage for the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage.
> 
> What she fails to understand is that by her disrespecting marriage; by trying to BE such with a person of the same gender, she did not legitimize her abnormality, she delegitimized marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bigots back in the 60s thought the same things about interracial marriage that you do about same sex marriage. Society wasn't harmed in the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  So you... a bigot, are complaining about bigotry?  That is _hysterical!_
Click to expand...


And the kicker? After the left destroyed marriage, they tell us that since it is fucked up already, making it worse won't matter.

Wow.

Mark


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> Disagreement happens in all marriage, you're not special. We all disagree and we all compromise. You've compromised on civil marriage, yes we get it and not arguing that. I'm saying stop asking us the questions your wife obviously has the answers to. Stop asking gays why they want to be married since she can answer your questions.



Civil unions... not marriage.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. Civil Unions are merely a form of incorporation which provide for financial equality through which two sexual deviants can eventually screw each other.


----------



## 80zephyr

bodecea said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> All peope have a right to be treated with respect until their individual actions warrant otherwise.
> All people have a right to be treated equally under the law.
> People opposing same-sex marriage fall back on the same tired old arguments:
> Gays are being "pushy"
> Gays are asking for "special rights"
> Marriage is between one man and one woman.
> It will destroy the institution of marriage.
> 
> On the first - how is it that people trying to gain equal rights, get labeled pushy?  Women demanding the vote? Blacks and civil rights?  Those advocating for the rights of the unborn and those advocating for the rights of women over their own bodies?  Advocating for fundamental rights is not "pushy" and marriage is recognized as a fundamental right.
> 
> Gays are asking for "special rights"...no, not really, because - to turn yet another argument on it's head (that gays already have the right to marry, they can marry anyone of the opposite sex) - there is no special right here, heterosexuals will have the same right to marry someone of the same sex.
> 
> Marriage is between one man and one woman.  Marriage, and the reasons for it as an institution has evolved and changed throughout history (for example, marriage at in medievil Europe was reserved for upper classes for political and inheritance reasons while the lower classes cohabitated), it varies according to culture and has not always been one/one.  Opponents of same sex marriage are essentially saying marriage can't change anymore and ignoring history.
> 
> It will destroy the institution of marriage.  This is the one I find hysterically funny.  How exactly will that happen?  No one has been able to explain how the marriages, of a subset of the approx 4% gay population, is going to have any affect on the rest of the 96% who might or might not choose to marry.
> 
> Marriage is a fundamental right.  In today's western world, we recognize that right, and it is not attached to procreation alone.  We recognize the right of two elderly people to marry just as we recognize the right of two young people to marry.  Extending that dignity and respect for the union of two people in love to a same-sex marriage is not that much of a stretch.
> 
> People have a right to happyness as long as that right does not infringe on the rights of others or hurt others.  Marriage is widely recognized as a socially stabilizing influence and there is no reason that would not apply to same sex marriages as well.
> 
> Same sex marriage hurts NO ONE.  It's not "shoving" anything into someone else's face.  It's about recognizing the union of two people who want to spend the rest of their lives together under the legal protections and benefits of marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have stated this before. The left has assured us that welfare, divorce, and single motherhood would not hurt the institution of marriage.
> 
> They were wrong. Now, why should I believe your claim that gay marriage hurts no one?
> 
> Your accuracy leaves much to be desired.
> 
> Also, you said this:
> 
> *for example, marriage at in medievil Europe was reserved for upper classes for political and inheritance reasons while the lower classes cohabitated),
> *
> The lower classes cohabitated because marriage is not a social construct, but a biological one. The mating of the sexes is "marriage. And those lower classes were "married", even without being allowed to use the word.
> 
> *Mark*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...you want to eliminate welfare, divorce and single motherhood?  How do you propose doing that?
Click to expand...


In the 1950's, we had all those things, only to a much lesser degree, why is that?

Mark


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slaves were freed because of the army run by the government.
> 
> The force by the law of bigger government enforced freedom for the slaves and rights for women, minorities, and older teens.
> 
> "Forcing American Churches to marry Gays is violating the 1st amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big government ran the army and enforced the laws that freed slaves and guaranteed the rights of women, minorities, and older teens.  If smaller government could have done it, then they should have done it. They did not.
> 
> The OP is about "homosexual dilemma" not making churches marry gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
> That means forcing Churches to marry gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It doesn't.  Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
> Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but it's up to the individual church.  No one can FORCE that church to marry if it's against their doctrine.  There is no law that can force a church to marry anyone they don't want to.
Click to expand...


There's no law yet.  The Coeur d'Alene mayor was jumping the gun a bit: Idaho city s ordinance tells pastors to marry gays or go to jail - Washington Times using the federal court ruling against Idaho's marriage law as a justification to threaten jail for ANY pastor who refused to marry gays.  This very thing goes to the very heart and intent of this thread, naked belligerence from the gay movement to impose itself on those who don't agree.  This is the very kind of thing you're pretending doesn't happen, but it does.  And if you're on the side of the aggressor, which is what much of the gay movement has become, you're on the wrong side of history.


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> Gay brainwashing techniques?  Seriously?



Why is that funny? It wasn't even 20 years ago that gay marriage wasn't even considered by the majority. How do you think we got from there to here?

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

JakeStarkey said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation.  It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that depends. Every other generation didn't celebrate it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most don't "celebrate it".  Wanting to not be forced to hide it is not "celebrating" it.  They want to be treated the same way you are - like people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The militiant straights want to "celebrate" their sexuality.  Of course.  So do gays.
> 
> The straights do not want gays to have the same rights under law.
> 
> That is deviant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So Penis Breath - who, pray tell , in your warped little mind  are the "militant" Heterosexuals -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why,you are by all your dancing and prancing here, son.
> 
> Let it go.  Marriage Equality is here and SCOTUS will nationalize it this year.
Click to expand...


Why should we let it go? The left keeps going after gun control, and they keep losing. Will you give them the same advice?

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there is a slippery slope fallacy...  however, that fallacy only exists where the appeal is to a slippery slope that does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument has one huge hole: *you can't establish causation. *You insist that no culture that has embraced homosexuality has survived. Yet virtually no culture that has rejected homosexuality has survived either. When your 'effect' exists even if your 'cause' doesn't....clearly you need to work on your causation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again... the facts demonstrate that the slope is steep and greasy, thus it is foolish to even consider going down it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If facts were 'whatever you imagine', then perhaps. Alas, reality doesn't work that way. And your assumptions don't translate into our concern.
Click to expand...


Oh fer... establish causation? Do you really believe that after the first smoking law passed, that it made the basis for the next smoking restriction that much easier?

Mark


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

80zephyr said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> All peope have a right to be treated with respect until their individual actions warrant otherwise.
> All people have a right to be treated equally under the law.
> People opposing same-sex marriage fall back on the same tired old arguments:
> Gays are being "pushy"
> Gays are asking for "special rights"
> Marriage is between one man and one woman.
> It will destroy the institution of marriage.
> 
> On the first - how is it that people trying to gain equal rights, get labeled pushy?  Women demanding the vote? Blacks and civil rights?  Those advocating for the rights of the unborn and those advocating for the rights of women over their own bodies?  Advocating for fundamental rights is not "pushy" and marriage is recognized as a fundamental right.
> 
> Gays are asking for "special rights"...no, not really, because - to turn yet another argument on it's head (that gays already have the right to marry, they can marry anyone of the opposite sex) - there is no special right here, heterosexuals will have the same right to marry someone of the same sex.
> 
> Marriage is between one man and one woman.  Marriage, and the reasons for it as an institution has evolved and changed throughout history (for example, marriage at in medievil Europe was reserved for upper classes for political and inheritance reasons while the lower classes cohabitated), it varies according to culture and has not always been one/one.  Opponents of same sex marriage are essentially saying marriage can't change anymore and ignoring history.
> 
> It will destroy the institution of marriage.  This is the one I find hysterically funny.  How exactly will that happen?  No one has been able to explain how the marriages, of a subset of the approx 4% gay population, is going to have any affect on the rest of the 96% who might or might not choose to marry.
> 
> Marriage is a fundamental right.  In today's western world, we recognize that right, and it is not attached to procreation alone.  We recognize the right of two elderly people to marry just as we recognize the right of two young people to marry.  Extending that dignity and respect for the union of two people in love to a same-sex marriage is not that much of a stretch.
> 
> People have a right to happyness as long as that right does not infringe on the rights of others or hurt others.  Marriage is widely recognized as a socially stabilizing influence and there is no reason that would not apply to same sex marriages as well.
> 
> Same sex marriage hurts NO ONE.  It's not "shoving" anything into someone else's face.  It's about recognizing the union of two people who want to spend the rest of their lives together under the legal protections and benefits of marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have stated this before. The left has assured us that welfare, divorce, and single motherhood would not hurt the institution of marriage.
> 
> They were wrong. Now, why should I believe your claim that gay marriage hurts no one?
> 
> Your accuracy leaves much to be desired.
> 
> Also, you said this:
> 
> *for example, marriage at in medievil Europe was reserved for upper classes for political and inheritance reasons while the lower classes cohabitated),
> *
> The lower classes cohabitated because marriage is not a social construct, but a biological one. The mating of the sexes is "marriage. And those lower classes were "married", even without being allowed to use the word.
> 
> *Mark*
Click to expand...


Actually, in practice the non-classes were 'allowed' to marry.  For a while in some culture's, the Lord of the Land... had the RIGHT to 'first dibs' on the newly wed wife.  The reason being that by virtue of his owning the land, he more or less owned those living on the land, thus the right to spread his seed... .   SO... if a couple 'married', she got to go up to the big house and take one for the team.  Most people simply opted out of marriage.

NOW ... with that said, it becomes clear to the reasonable people, that 'changes' to the law, which lowered the standard of marriage can and always DO have an effect on marriage.  The law of nature known as CAUSE AND EFFECT pretty well covers this.

The Left want to claim that their cause, will bear no effect.  And as astonishing as it seems, some libertarians have actually bought into this.  

Not the least of those is the Talk Show Host Neil Bortz.. an eminently well reasoned man, who was among the first nationally recognized thinkers who came out in support of the State Sanctioned Playing House of Homosexuals.  I tried for some years to get through to discuss this with him, but never managed to do so.

How anyone of reason can conclude that ANY causation will not produce an effect is beyond me.  The laws of physics clearly requires that every action caused a reaction and those laws are not limited to bodies in motions.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

hipeter924 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what are you saying..that if there's dual sexualities that's good reason to deny someone their rights?
> 
> 
> 
> Child abuse isn't a human right, even if the child 'likes it'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your backward, narrow, religiously dogmatic views of morality will have to give way to love.  Who are you to decide their love is wrong?  Aren't you the guys telling us that there are different kinds of love and they're all equal? What happened that you became such a repressed pedophobe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yawn. Pedobear will have to do without. Not going to cry about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. You're just going to be pushed aside by people who are even more "progressive" than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not a "progressive", a "liberal", or a "conservative". I would prefer it if 'marriage' of any variety was not condoned through special tax status for couples; or that the government dictates LGBT couples can't adopt. But I don't set the rules or the laws.
> 
> If marriage didn't provide incentives for couples, then it would be used ceremonially - instead it sets apart the single person from the couple with a special status (through tax and other things).
> 
> The attempts at stopping same-sex marriage are ultimately doomed to fail, as the special status attributed to marriage makes denying same-sex marriage a matter of discrimination rather than purely a issue with religious ceremonial marriages.
Click to expand...


It's yet another wish list of things that are called for that will never come to be.  Marriage will always have a legal component because that's human nature.  It always has in every civilization throughout human history.  People want the laws to protect their inheritance, to give them standing in court as a couple, and for the simple recognition of society that has the imprimatur of government.  Wishing it weren't so is just silly.


----------



## 80zephyr

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't hold your breath...
> 
> The purpose of the demand for marriage is that with marriage come legitimacy... what they don't understand is that legitimacy comes as a result of the standard that defines it.  Therefore, they're chasing something that can't be had until THEY turn from that which renders them illegitimate.
> 
> It's some fairly sad stuff... but insanity has always been sad.
> 
> 
> 
> And they're willing to settle for appearances, because real marriage cannot be redefined. Gay couple can play house and delude themselves, but they can never marry for real. The Bible refers to this as "strong delusions". They forget that marriage is ordained by God and is not up for personal interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage in this era is for many reasons.  In western culture it is mostly about love.  Two people love each other and want to commit to a long term (hopefully) permanent relationship with each other that might or might not include children, that might include purchasing and building a home together, shared assets, a shared future together that is recognized legally and - if religion is involved, by a religious service. It is a relationship recognized right now, in many areas, as limited only to hetero couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And people can't do all that without government?  Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because in our country marriage is recognized by the government which confers special priveledges and legal benefits to those couples that may or may not be obtained by unmarried couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Recognized by the government or not, Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> That the government seeks to encourage marriage, through providing married couples a lower tax liability is irrelevant to those who demand to alter that which defines marriage, as a means to help them find the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage, which exists because of the very standards that they seek to remove, thus stripping it of legitimacy.
> 
> Open marriage to same gender unions, then by your own reasoning, marriage must be opened to siblings, Mothers and son, Dads and daughters, more than two people, varying species... and by allowing all of that sick shit to "be Married" the state 'legitimizes' or normalizes that nonsense... effectively ending marriage, and the culture whose viability rests upon the principled standards that define it.
> 
> Reasonable people recognize _that_, as NONSENSE!
Click to expand...


The definition of marriage is now changed. And yet, these people are now telling us that this definition is as far as it can go.

Why is that? I mean, who are they to say that the new definition is now the limit? And if they believe it to be so, why are these "bigots" denying the rights of other people to marry by limiting it to two people?

Mark


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

peach174 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should have not said "and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals".
> That means forcing Churches to marry gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It doesn't.  Because Churches are not required to marry all heterosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
> Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Catholic churches require you to be Catholic to marry in a Catholic Church? I guess I'll have to tell my non Catholic future daughter in law that she can't be married in a Catholic church since the date is already set.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy with the friendly fire. Peach is one of us.  As a Catholic I can clear that up.  We will marry any baptized Christian of any Christian faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for clearing that up.
> When I married my first husband, in the early 70's I had to join his Church which was Catholic,  but I was not baptized at that time,so we got married in a Baptist Church.
> His Church never said that I had to be baptized though, they said that I needed to join.
> So I don't know.
Click to expand...


In most of these cases, one of the marrying couple is Catholic.  Marriage is one of the Seven Sacraments that shares a common trait with another Sacrament, penance. Any baptized Christian can confess his her sins to a Catholic priest and receive absolution.  More than ever, the Catholic Church is striving to be as inclusive as possible and that's a good thing.  Often people's experience with the Catholic Church has more to do with the bishop of that diocese than the Church at large. But it reflects on the whole church, which is why bishops need to take seriously the fact that they are the face of the Church to people like you and work to be more solicitous in their policies.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:
> 
> Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News
> 
> Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.
> 
> Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finish answering the rest of my post:
> 
> *My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Mark*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think i have answered you just fine.
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
Click to expand...


We were doing that. It wasn't enough for the faggots in the gay community.


----------



## 80zephyr

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who are attracted to children can't make a different choice either.  Compulsive hoarding isn't a choice.  No compulsive disorder leaves the sufferer with a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a choice in acting. For me, as a gay woman, the only choice is in acting upon my natural or god given inclinations. As long as I am acting upon those natural inclinations with another consenting adult, whose fucking business is it and why should I be denied the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage because my life partner of choice happens to be the same gender I am?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And who are you to define what a consenting adult is? I mean, if you want to be honest, your conditions are as arbitrary as mine are.
> 
> I just happen to have a higher standard of morality than you.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, it gets MUCH worse than that.
> 
> "Consenting Adult"... means what?
> 
> It means a person who is, at least of the age set into law to be capable of consenting... .  A "Consenting Adult" could by a simple alteration of "The Law" represent a 16 year old, or a 12 year old, or an 10 year old, or '_any person who favors the caring intimacy, of another, without regard to age'.
> _
> Prior to just a few years ago, the Militant-homo lobby, OKA: The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality would without fail respond to allegations that homosexuals are prone toward the pursuit of sexual gratification with children, with OUTRAGE!  When pushed to explain the basis fo their outrage, they would respond with some variation on the "Its SICK!" theme....  Then, it morphed into "It's ILLEGAL!"
> 
> Pedophilia is in fact illegal... it's also SICK; meaning that it is a function of a disordered, dysfunctional mind, but no less so than the disorder that induces the rationalization that sex with people of one's own gender.  It is precisely the same thing.  And the goal of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is to rinse from the culture, any sense of sexual propriety.  And all through the APPEAL TO MISLEADING AUTHORITY wherein the same people that 'informed' us that Homosexuality is not a mental disorder, are now 'informing us' that _"there are no lasting effects from sex with an adult, where the encounter is expressed through a loving, caring perspective."
> _
> They're steadily _'progressing' _toward the lowering of the legal age of sexual consent, until there is no standard.
> 
> Just as they're moving to lower the standard for marriage.
> 
> So, yes... it is a terrible, slippery slope.
> 
> But it's evil, and such is the nature of evil.
Click to expand...


And the sad thing about it is most of the gay supporters here, are falling for it, because they are "enlightened".

Mark


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> Do you know that up until just about 20 years ago- mixed race relationships were considered deviant behavior by most Americans?



In 1995 most Americans frowned on mixed race relationships?  Do you have a link for that, or did you just tell a lie?


----------



## 80zephyr

JakeStarkey said:


> The following is  a type of foolery known by "as if la la logic":  A 'Consenting Adult' could by a simple alteration of 'The Law' represent a 16 year old, or a 12 year old, or an 10 year old, or '_any person who favors the caring intimacy, of another, without regard to age'."
> _
> This is a make believe concoction that does not exist except as the fulmination of weak brain in a foolish person.  This fantasy derives from feeling not objective evidence or solid logic.




Exactly the same was said about homosexuality 50 years ago. How'd that work out?

Mark


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, to be a true relationship, government has to validate it.  I mean who could consider their partner to be their partner without government recognition?  That wouldn't be possible.  Man, a partner without OKs from politicians and bureaucrats, that would just be meaningless, wouldn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you asking gays that just want exactly what you enjoy? Ask your wife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you keep reminding us gays aren't ready for full marriage, you can't disagree with each other.  In heterosexual marriage, that happens all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said you can't disagree. We know you're the reluctant hypocrite. That's not what I said. Instead of asking gays why they need "government validation", ask your wife why she needs it. She can answer your questions and you'll actually maybe believe the answers from her.
> 
> 12 Reasons Marriage Equality Matters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what I just addressed.  I've addressed it repeatedly. She doesn't agree with me.  She knows what I think about government marriage. She knows I oppose it.  She is fully aware of it.  She disagrees with me.  Why would I continue to ask a question that was asked and answered?  I've told you this a bunch of times.  What is wrong with you that you can't grasp that?
> 
> That's my point, you keep saying you wouldn't give it up.  Ask again, and again, and again.  I'm not changing my mind, she's not changing her mind.  That happens in heterosexual marriages and the marriage can go on just fine.  We don't have to agree on everything.  When you reach that point, then you will be closer to gay marriage being equivalent to straight marriage.  You must just be a joy to live with having to be agreed with on everything, or at least told you're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreement happens in all marriage, you're not special. We all disagree and we all compromise. You've compromised on civil marriage, yes we get it and not arguing that. I'm saying stop asking us the questions your wife obviously has the answers to. Stop asking gays why they want to be married since she can answer your questions.
Click to expand...


Her reasons have nothing to do with gay government marriage.  Even if they did, why would it make sense to me?  We just disagree.  We understand each other's views just fine.  We just disagree with them.  It happens.  And she gets her way.  That usually happens too.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> A tiny group does.  A minority does not a slippery slope make.  Westboro Baptists anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It literally does... because the minority is pushing the agenda.
> 
> There is no Christian acceptance of Westboro, unanimously the Christian community rejects them OVERTLY.
> 
> Such is not the case with the mouthy, would-be minority of the Militant sect of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality cult.
> 
> *In thread after thread, I have set forth the the request for the professed homosexuals participating in such, IF they rejected the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... to this moment, I have not had a single one stand up against it.*
> 
> You included...
> 
> But I sense that you're desirous to separate yourself from the pack...
> 
> Do you accept or reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification?
> 
> If no, why not?
> 
> If so, on what basis do you reject it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't recall you asking me.  But as I've already said....I am glad to see the age of consent trending UP and not down (except for in the bible belt).   Of course I reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification....and if you paid attention to my posting history, you would already have known that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long will the "age of consent" line hold sway against a waxing tide of depravity?
> 
> We could start a betting pool on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure that Conservatives will be trying to lower the age of Consent any time now.
Click to expand...


Then you're a rank moron.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> It literally does... because the minority is pushing the agenda.
> 
> There is no Christian acceptance of Westboro, unanimously the Christian community rejects them OVERTLY.
> 
> Such is not the case with the mouthy, would-be minority of the Militant sect of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality cult.
> 
> *In thread after thread, I have set forth the the request for the professed homosexuals participating in such, IF they rejected the Adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification... to this moment, I have not had a single one stand up against it.*
> 
> You included...
> 
> But I sense that you're desirous to separate yourself from the pack...
> 
> Do you accept or reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification?
> 
> If no, why not?
> 
> If so, on what basis do you reject it?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall you asking me.  But as I've already said....I am glad to see the age of consent trending UP and not down (except for in the bible belt).   Of course I reject the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification....and if you paid attention to my posting history, you would already have known that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long will the "age of consent" line hold sway against a waxing tide of depravity?
> 
> We could start a betting pool on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's going UP at the same time that gays are gaining more rights.   Except for in the bible belt of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children are being sexualized more than any other time in history, being literate in all kinds of sexual deviancy that wasn't even whispered about in the days of our grandparents.  Child exposure to your sexual filth is on the increase, not the decrease....maybe less so in the Bible belt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children are being sexualized more- by their heterosexual parents.
> 
> The sex that children are most exposed to is again- heterosexual.
> 
> And back on topic- the age of consent has been going up.
Click to expand...


Wrong as usual. Children are being sexualized by school, by social media, by movies and TV.  It isn't parents teaching their kids this crap, it's parents who are failing to protect them from being exposed to it everywhere else.


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't.  Go to your bank and demand they treat you like a million dollar account holder.  Go to government and demand to be treated like a politician.
> 
> You have the right to be left alone if you're not harming anyone.  No one has the right to demand anything from others, including government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So women had no right to demand the vote?
> Blacks had no right to demand an end to Jim Crowe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights?  I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote.  I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain.  Seriously, you don't know the difference?
> 
> If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".
> 
> The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally.  As in - the right to vote.  The right to use public drinking fountains.  The right to marry.
> 
> Those are retarded examples.  SURELY you can see the that?
Click to expand...


Everyone of them had the same right to marry. Now that the standard has changed, everyone can appeal to have their special situation included.

Society has opened a Pandoras Box.

Mark


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who are attracted to children can't make a different choice either.  Compulsive hoarding isn't a choice.  No compulsive disorder leaves the sufferer with a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a choice in acting. For me, as a gay woman, the only choice is in acting upon my natural or god given inclinations. As long as I am acting upon those natural inclinations with another consenting adult, whose fucking business is it and why should I be denied the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage because my life partner of choice happens to be the same gender I am?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice how they no longer say, "What business is it of yours what we do in our own bedroom. This is because they know they've taken in out of the bedroom and shoved it in our faces. They hilariously push their lifestyle into the public while at the same time in this post saying it's none of our business. Just another daffy quirk of the faggoty Left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, our sex lives are still in our bedrooms, we just don't live in closets anymore. I'm sorry that gays living their lives exactly like heterosexuals live their lives, with families and stuff,  makes you uncomfortable and that knowing gay people makes you think about them having sex, but that's your hangup not theirs.
Click to expand...


I bet that the business that was forced to do a wedding cake for a gay couple would disagree that you're just a benign presence no more obtuse than your heterosexual counterparts.  You live in a world of Leftist delusion.


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't.  Go to your bank and demand they treat you like a million dollar account holder.  Go to government and demand to be treated like a politician.
> 
> You have the right to be left alone if you're not harming anyone.  No one has the right to demand anything from others, including government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So women had no right to demand the vote?
> Blacks had no right to demand an end to Jim Crowe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights?  I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote.  I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain.  Seriously, you don't know the difference?
> 
> If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".
> 
> The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally.  As in - the right to vote.  The right to use public drinking fountains.  The right to marry. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.
> 
> *A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey...the racial standard applied equally too.  Everyone had a right to marry someone of the same race.
Click to expand...


Wrong. Since marriage was always based on gender, always, disallowing one race to not marry another was clearly discrimination.

This isn't apples to oranges. This is apples to watermelons.

Mark


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

80zephyr said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who are attracted to children can't make a different choice either.  Compulsive hoarding isn't a choice.  No compulsive disorder leaves the sufferer with a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a choice in acting. For me, as a gay woman, the only choice is in acting upon my natural or god given inclinations. As long as I am acting upon those natural inclinations with another consenting adult, whose fucking business is it and why should I be denied the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage because my life partner of choice happens to be the same gender I am?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And who are you to define what a consenting adult is? I mean, if you want to be honest, your conditions are as arbitrary as mine are.
> 
> I just happen to have a higher standard of morality than you.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, it gets MUCH worse than that.
> 
> "Consenting Adult"... means what?
> 
> It means a person who is, at least of the age set into law to be capable of consenting... .  A "Consenting Adult" could by a simple alteration of "The Law" represent a 16 year old, or a 12 year old, or an 10 year old, or '_any person who favors the caring intimacy, of another, without regard to age'.
> _
> Prior to just a few years ago, the Militant-homo lobby, OKA: The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality would without fail respond to allegations that homosexuals are prone toward the pursuit of sexual gratification with children, with OUTRAGE!  When pushed to explain the basis fo their outrage, they would respond with some variation on the "Its SICK!" theme....  Then, it morphed into "It's ILLEGAL!"
> 
> Pedophilia is in fact illegal... it's also SICK; meaning that it is a function of a disordered, dysfunctional mind, but no less so than the disorder that induces the rationalization that sex with people of one's own gender.  It is precisely the same thing.  And the goal of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is to rinse from the culture, any sense of sexual propriety.  And all through the APPEAL TO MISLEADING AUTHORITY wherein the same people that 'informed' us that Homosexuality is not a mental disorder, are now 'informing us' that _"there are no lasting effects from sex with an adult, where the encounter is expressed through a loving, caring perspective."
> _
> They're steadily _'progressing' _toward the lowering of the legal age of sexual consent, until there is no standard.
> 
> Just as they're moving to lower the standard for marriage.
> 
> So, yes... it is a terrible, slippery slope.
> 
> But it's evil, and such is the nature of evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the sad thing about it is most of the gay supporters here, are falling for it, because they are "enlightened".
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


LOL!  Well, one of the coolest part of Progressivism, is that it's the mirror image of reality, Left is right, wrong is right, false is true and _enlightenment is the shunning of light._


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't.  Go to your bank and demand they treat you like a million dollar account holder.  Go to government and demand to be treated like a politician.
> 
> You have the right to be left alone if you're not harming anyone.  No one has the right to demand anything from others, including government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So women had no right to demand the vote?
> Blacks had no right to demand an end to Jim Crowe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights?  I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote.  I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain.  Seriously, you don't know the difference?
> 
> If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".
> 
> The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally.  As in - the right to vote.  The right to use public drinking fountains.  The right to marry. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.
> 
> *A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it need to be a "distinct gender"?  That automatically is discrimminatory.  Heteros can marry the person they love.  Homos can not.
Click to expand...


Sigh. The basis of marriage is GENDER. Not race. Not religion. Nothing else. Gender. Until we got "enlightened".

Mark


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who are attracted to children can't make a different choice either.  Compulsive hoarding isn't a choice.  No compulsive disorder leaves the sufferer with a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a choice in acting. For me, as a gay woman, the only choice is in acting upon my natural or god given inclinations. As long as I am acting upon those natural inclinations with another consenting adult, whose fucking business is it and why should I be denied the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage because my life partner of choice happens to be the same gender I am?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And who are you to define what a consenting adult is? I mean, if you want to be honest, your conditions are as arbitrary as mine are.
> 
> I just happen to have a higher standard of morality than you.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you being intentionally obtuse because you're arguments have failed? The age of consent is defined by law.It varies from state to state. A 40 year old man can marry his 15 year old 1st cousin in Alabama and it is legally recognized in all 50 states, even states that don't allow 15 year old 1st cousins to marry. My civil marriage to my same sex spouse that I married when she was well over the age of 18 and not related to me, is not recognized in all 50 states. That's discrimination in case you were wondering.
> 
> No, you don't have a higher standard of morality, you have a different view of what is moral and what is not. That you think yours is "better" is your opinion (and a sin).
Click to expand...


By the way, your "age of consent is lower in Bible belt states" statement was yet another lie.  That's not the trend at all.  Stop lying, Leftists!

*Alabama16 
Alaska16
Arizona18
Arkansas16
California18
Colorado15
Connecticut15
D.C.16
Delaware16
Florida16/18 (bill pending)
Georgia16
Hawaii14
Idaho14
Illinois16/17
Indiana16
Iowa18
Kansas16
Kentucky16 - [1]
Louisiana17
Maine16
Maryland16
Massachusetts16/18
Michigan16
Minnesota16
Mississippi16 - [2]
Missouri17
Montana16
Nebraska16
Nevada16
New Hampshire16/18
New Jersey16/18
New Mexico17
New York17
North Carolina16
North Dakota18
Ohio16
Oklahoma16
Oregon18
Pennsylvania16
Rhode Island16
South Carolina14/16
South Dakota16
Tennessee18
Texas17
Utah16/18
Vermont16
Virginia15
Washington16
West Virginia16
Wisconsin18
Wyoming16
Puerto Rico18*
*
Age of Consent - by State*


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Stop lying, Leftists!


----------



## 80zephyr

JakeStarkey said:


> The ideological social con reactionary far right does not have the correct, much less the final say on the "appropriateness" or the "truthfulness" or the "correctness" on the validity of marriage equality.
> 
> Our Constitution is not based on wiggy far right Christian maxim, it is not based on a la la looniness as expressed by Where R My Keys.
> 
> To suggest that our government might define "marriage [as] the joining of a Monkey and a football" was by far the stupidest appeal to the absurd today.  God will recognize Steve and Paul as much as Mr. and Mrs. Keys.  To suggest otherwise makes both God and Reason stare.



Great. Then government should also recognize the marriage of Ms. Slut to the Denver Bronco football team. After all, you set the standard to "consenting adults".

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are limiting consent to two people. Hundreds, thousands of consenting humans should all be allowed to marry each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. We are redefining the meaning of the word. Let's redefine it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage has only recently (in terms of human history) been *redefined *as  one woman/one man.
Click to expand...


Now, you are splitting hairs. EVERY marriage included both sexes, correct?

Mark


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

80zephyr said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> So women had no right to demand the vote?
> Blacks had no right to demand an end to Jim Crowe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights?  I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote.  I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain.  Seriously, you don't know the difference?
> 
> If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".
> 
> The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally.  As in - the right to vote.  The right to use public drinking fountains.  The right to marry. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.
> 
> *A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it need to be a "distinct gender"?  That automatically is discrimminatory.  Heteros can marry the person they love.  Homos can not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh. The basis of marriage is GENDER. Not race. Not religion. Nothing else. Gender. Until we got "enlightened".
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

The basis of marriage is contract law, as written by the states and administered by state courts. Contract law written to accommodate two equal consenting adult partners in a committed relationship recognized by the state in accordance with its marriage contract law – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference, both are eligible to participate.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Syriusly said:


> There are a very 'special' subset of bigots- homophobes-



There is literally, no such thing as a homo-phobe.  As the word literally means an irrational fear of one's self.  So even if someone HAD an irrational fear of themselves... that would in NO WAY be relevant to one recognizing that sexual abnormality cannot be 'normal'; this being due to it being ABNORMAL; Deviant, distinct from that which is NORMAL.



Syriusly said:


> ... who always try to spread the message homosexual= pedophile.



Homosexual= sexual deviancy
Pedophile= sexual deviancy.
Apple= the round fruit of a tree of the rose family, which typically has thin red or green skin and crisp flesh; fruit that never falls far from the tree.

See any similarities that?


----------



## 80zephyr

JakeStarkey said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ideological social con reactionary far right does not have the correct, much less the final say on the "appropriateness" or the "truthfulness" or the "correctness" on the validity of marriage equality.
> 
> Our Constitution is not based on wiggy far right Christian maxim, it is not based on a la la looniness as expressed by Where R My Keys.
> 
> To suggest that our government might define "marriage [as] the joining of a Monkey and a football" was by far the stupidest appeal to the absurd today.  God will recognize Steve and Paul as much as Mr. and Mrs. Keys.  To suggest otherwise makes both God and Reason stare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To argue otherwise is an expression of a deviant soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> A CLASSIC example of how foolish is was to shut down the asylums...  Ya let them out and the next thing ya know, they're standing in the town square screamin' their heads off about deviant souls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who disagrees with you is insane?  You prove you are deviant.
> 
> Son, you are not the standard bearer of light, only that of a dark light of self-glorification.
Click to expand...


I see you've found a new word Jake. Sadly, you are using it wrong.

Mark


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> poor wytchey.   so angry, so conflicted, so confused.  Human society as a whole has declared that homosexuality is an aberation of the human condition.
> 
> You have a mental illness, not a physical condition, not a birth condition, but a learned condition.
> 
> You are due empathy and sympathy.   The first step to a cure is admitting the disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you this before Fishy and you refused to answer. What is it you think I'm conflicted and confused about? I'm not even a little pissed about my coffeemaker anymore...I'm resolved to boiling water until Tuesday morning.
> 
> You need to catch up on what "human society" thinks these days, certainly not human society here in the good old US of A where we live. Here "human society" thinks gays are okay and that they should be able to civilly *marry*. (not your separate water fountain of Civil Unions only for the gheys, but full *marriage*)
> 
> How would you like to "cure the gays" bigot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your anger and confusion are very evident.   If you were comfortable in your situation you would not have to continually post on gay agenda issues.
> 
> As to a cure, there may not be one.   There is also no cure for MS or diabetes or bipolar disorder.   But hang in there, medical science may find one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So anger is the only reason to post on message boards? That doesn't make any sense. Education is a good reason. People who are not anti gay bigots read these threads.
> 
> You still haven't answered the question. What am I conflicted and confused about Fishy? Is this misdirection, a projection? Are *you *confused and conflicted? Is that why YOU can't stop posting in "gay threads"? I'm gay, I have a good excuse for posting on gay threads. Is being an anti gay bigot the only reason you post here....really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I post on threads on many subjects.  I post what I believe based on 60+ years of life, travel over much of the world, a successful business career, and an education both in hard knocks and academia.
> 
> You and I will never agree on the gay agenda, gay biology, or probably anything else.   So lets move on.   I suspect that you are basically a good person who is sincere in your beliefs,  but so am I.
> 
> In this country we are allowed to disagree and hold different views.  The problem is that you want to force you views on everyone else---------that is the worst form of bigotry and tyranny.
Click to expand...


And the point of this thread.  It's a well known truth that victims can become bullies very quickly and the line is easily crossed. That's what's happened here.  Nobody wants gays to be subject to special hostility such as bashing by hateful people, etc, and we want the law to protect everyone equally, including gay people.  But it's gone well beyond that to where those who disagree with the gay lifestyle are the ones being subject to persecution.  Pastors being told they have to marry gays, business owners being told they have to cater gay weddings, boys who think they're girls using the girls' restrooms in schools, and in the workplace being forced to go along with the charade of a man who mutilated himself now saying he's a woman.

They aren't the victims anymore.  Far from it.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The basis of marriage is contract law...



ROFLMNAO!  

Oh GOD!  That is precious... Show a lawyer a dipstick and it see's itself; _everything boils down to law... and lawyers,_ around which the universe orbits.


----------



## Conservative65

JakeStarkey said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Deviancy is away from the norm. You are using the term in the wrong context. But, I figure you know that already.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> The norm is to approve marriage equality, and you, deviantly, oppose it.  It is the norm for heterosexuality to be linked to pederasty and pedophilia and other child abuse.  But you already know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you approve of a brother/ sister marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw man fallacy.
> 
> Marriage law currently accommodates same-sex couples, which is not the case for siblings marrying.
> 
> Allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law they're already eligible to participate in doesn't 'change' marriage, marriage remains the same, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only to you hypocrites that argue equality of marriage then deny it when you don't like it.
> 
> Two fags marrying will never be the same as mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think so, strawman.
Click to expand...


I know so faggot lover.


----------



## 80zephyr

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights?  I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote.  I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain.  Seriously, you don't know the difference?
> 
> If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".
> 
> The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally.  As in - the right to vote.  The right to use public drinking fountains.  The right to marry. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.
> 
> *A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it need to be a "distinct gender"?  That automatically is discrimminatory.  Heteros can marry the person they love.  Homos can not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh. The basis of marriage is GENDER. Not race. Not religion. Nothing else. Gender. Until we got "enlightened".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The basis of marriage is contract law, as written by the states and administered by state courts. Contract law written to accommodate two equal consenting adult partners in a committed relationship recognized by the state in accordance with its marriage contract law – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference, both are eligible to participate.
Click to expand...


Wrong. The state doesn't define marriage. Biology does. They can pass a law stating Clayton is an asshole, it will not make it so.

Mark


----------



## Conservative65

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> poor wytchey.   so angry, so conflicted, so confused.  Human society as a whole has declared that homosexuality is an aberation of the human condition.
> 
> You have a mental illness, not a physical condition, not a birth condition, but a learned condition.
> 
> You are due empathy and sympathy.   The first step to a cure is admitting the disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you this before Fishy and you refused to answer. What is it you think I'm conflicted and confused about? I'm not even a little pissed about my coffeemaker anymore...I'm resolved to boiling water until Tuesday morning.
> 
> You need to catch up on what "human society" thinks these days, certainly not human society here in the good old US of A where we live. Here "human society" thinks gays are okay and that they should be able to civilly *marry*. (not your separate water fountain of Civil Unions only for the gheys, but full *marriage*)
> 
> How would you like to "cure the gays" bigot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your anger and confusion are very evident.   If you were comfortable in your situation you would not have to continually post on gay agenda issues.
> 
> As to a cure, there may not be one.   There is also no cure for MS or diabetes or bipolar disorder.   But hang in there, medical science may find one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So anger is the only reason to post on message boards? That doesn't make any sense. Education is a good reason. People who are not anti gay bigots read these threads.
> 
> You still haven't answered the question. What am I conflicted and confused about Fishy? Is this misdirection, a projection? Are *you *confused and conflicted? Is that why YOU can't stop posting in "gay threads"? I'm gay, I have a good excuse for posting on gay threads. Is being an anti gay bigot the only reason you post here....really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I post on threads on many subjects.  I post what I believe based on 60+ years of life, travel over much of the world, a successful business career, and an education both in hard knocks and academia.
> 
> You and I will never agree on the gay agenda, gay biology, or probably anything else.   So lets move on.   I suspect that you are basically a good person who is sincere in your beliefs,  but so am I.
> 
> In this country we are allowed to disagree and hold different views.  The problem is that you want to force you views on everyone else---------that is the worst form of bigotry and tyranny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the point of this thread.  It's a well known truth that victims can become bullies very quickly and the line is easily crossed. That's what's happened here.  Nobody wants gays to be subject to special hostility such as bashing by hateful people, etc, and we want the law to protect everyone equally, including gay people.  But it's gone well beyond that to where those who disagree with the gay lifestyle are the ones being subject to persecution.  Pastors being told they have to marry gays, business owners being told they have to cater gay weddings, boys who think they're girls using the girls' restrooms in schools, and in the workplace being forced to go along with the charade of a man who mutilated himself now saying he's a woman.
> 
> They aren't the victims anymore.  Far from it.
Click to expand...

Yet let a gay refuse to do business with someone they don't like and it's perfectly OK to those who tout anti discrimination laws.  They either think it's OK due to a double standard or  . ..   That's pretty much it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Coyote said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't.  Go to your bank and demand they treat you like a million dollar account holder.  Go to government and demand to be treated like a politician.
> 
> You have the right to be left alone if you're not harming anyone.  No one has the right to demand anything from others, including government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So women had no right to demand the vote?
> Blacks had no right to demand an end to Jim Crowe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights?  I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote.  I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain.  Seriously, you don't know the difference?
> 
> If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".
> 
> The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally.  As in - the right to vote.  The right to use public drinking fountains.  The right to marry. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.
> 
> *A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it need to be a "distinct gender"?  That automatically is discrimminatory.  Heteros can marry the person they love.  Homos can not.
Click to expand...

And in fact marriage isn't 'distinct gender,' where the doctrine of coverture was abandoned by all 50 states well over a generation ago.


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about this:
> 
> One guy could marry every illegal alien that are soon to be allowed to stay legally in the US by Obama's EO. Instant green cards for 5 million people. And why stop there? He could marry the entire population of the Earth and get green cards for everyone since they would all be legally married. This is fraught with possibilities. I like it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  So now you are mixing immigration into this.  Let's keep this simple and make it about marriage.  And lets keep it realistic.
Click to expand...


If its possible, its realistic. Polygamy would make it possible.

Mark


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And in fact marriage isn't 'distinct gender,' where the doctrine of coverture was abandoned by all 50 states well over a generation ago.



In FACT: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.  This as a direct result of the intrinsic design common to human physiology; wherein distinct, but complimenting genders represent the means by which the species is propagated and through which the viability of the species is promoted through the ensuing civilization.  This produced as a result of the security inherent in the institution as the progeny are trained and nurtured by the distinct traits of the respective genders.

It's not even a debatable point, with the subjective need of the deviants to debate it... notwithstanding.


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually...it's sad when you can't find it in yourself to allow two people who love each other to marry when it does no harm to you or anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An arbritrary definition.[sic]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arbitrary?
> 
> It follows the natural design of the species.  Its as far from arbitrary as one can get>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Procreation is the natural order.  Marriage is an artificial socio-political-religious construct.  Arbritrary given how it varies and it's changed.
Click to expand...


Wrong. Nature "forces" a man to join with a woman to create life, hence the "marriage". Now, if that combination wasn't necessary, you would have a point. We didn't create marriage. Nature did. We simply named the process.

Mark


----------



## hipeter924

Seawytch said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If only one changes, the argument that someone is born that way is invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh. I know a woman who was straight, then gay, then straight again.
> 
> Lesbians especially have a high rate of "recovery".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like a pretty screwed up in the head chick to me - her name didn't happen to be "SeaWytch" did it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But Seawytch will tell you that someone is born gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually most people will tell you sexual orientation is not a choice. Scientists will tell you too. The fact that YOU believe you made a conscious choice leads me to suspect you are bisexual and simply denying part of your attractions.
> 
> I never made a choice to be attracted to the same gender, I just always was.
Click to expand...

They don't care about science or reality in this thread. Just a lot of gay bashing, attempting to demonize gays as pedophiles, and so on. I am bored of this thread already. 

Outside of this forum, the WBC, Neo Nazi groups, or the most die hard of church groups, same-sex marriage being 'wrong' is no longer an issue of the day.


----------



## 80zephyr

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> So women had no right to demand the vote?
> Blacks had no right to demand an end to Jim Crowe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights?  I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote.  I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain.  Seriously, you don't know the difference?
> 
> If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".
> 
> The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally.  As in - the right to vote.  The right to use public drinking fountains.  The right to marry. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.
> 
> *A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it need to be a "distinct gender"?  That automatically is discrimminatory.  Heteros can marry the person they love.  Homos can not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And in fact marriage isn't 'distinct gender,' where the doctrine of coverture was abandoned by all 50 states well over a generation ago.
Click to expand...


The law can call it a ham sandwich. The law doesn't define marriage. Biology does.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

hipeter924 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If only one changes, the argument that someone is born that way is invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heh. I know a woman who was straight, then gay, then straight again.
> 
> Lesbians especially have a high rate of "recovery".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like a pretty screwed up in the head chick to me - her name didn't happen to be "SeaWytch" did it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But Seawytch will tell you that someone is born gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually most people will tell you sexual orientation is not a choice. Scientists will tell you too. The fact that YOU believe you made a conscious choice leads me to suspect you are bisexual and simply denying part of your attractions.
> 
> I never made a choice to be attracted to the same gender, I just always was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't care about science or reality in this thread. Just a lot of gay bashing, attempting to demonize gays as pedophiles, and so on. I am bored of this thread already.
> 
> Outside of this forum, the WBC, Neo Nazi groups, or the most die hard of church groups, same-sex marriage being 'wrong' is no longer an issue of the day.
Click to expand...


What science don't we care about? Biology?

Mark


----------



## Conservative65

hipeter924 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If only one changes, the argument that someone is born that way is invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heh. I know a woman who was straight, then gay, then straight again.
> 
> Lesbians especially have a high rate of "recovery".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like a pretty screwed up in the head chick to me - her name didn't happen to be "SeaWytch" did it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But Seawytch will tell you that someone is born gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually most people will tell you sexual orientation is not a choice. Scientists will tell you too. The fact that YOU believe you made a conscious choice leads me to suspect you are bisexual and simply denying part of your attractions.
> 
> I never made a choice to be attracted to the same gender, I just always was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't care about science or reality in this thread. Just a lot of gay bashing, attempting to demonize gays as pedophiles, and so on. I am bored of this thread already.
> 
> Outside of this forum, the WBC, Neo Nazi groups, or the most die hard of church groups, same-sex marriage being 'wrong' is no longer an issue of the day.
Click to expand...


I don't claim being gay makes someone a pedophile.  I claim it's abnormal and deviant same as pedophilia.  

Same sex marriage is wrong despite what you faggot lovers thinking.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

hipeter924 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If only one changes, the argument that someone is born that way is invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heh. I know a woman who was straight, then gay, then straight again.
> 
> Lesbians especially have a high rate of "recovery".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like a pretty screwed up in the head chick to me - her name didn't happen to be "SeaWytch" did it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But Seawytch will tell you that someone is born gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually most people will tell you sexual orientation is not a choice. Scientists will tell you too. The fact that YOU believe you made a conscious choice leads me to suspect you are bisexual and simply denying part of your attractions.
> 
> I never made a choice to be attracted to the same gender, I just always was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't care about science or reality in this thread. Just a lot of gay bashing, attempting to demonize gays as pedophiles, and so on. I am bored of this thread already.
> 
> Outside of this forum, the WBC, Neo Nazi groups, or the most die hard of church groups, same-sex marriage being 'wrong' is no longer an issue of the day.
Click to expand...


Science has proven that the human physiological design is the basis of marriage.  Choices regarding gender preference or NON-Choices regarding which gender one craves for sexual gratification, are wholly irrelevant to marriage.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.


----------



## hipeter924

80zephyr said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heh. I know a woman who was straight, then gay, then straight again.
> 
> Lesbians especially have a high rate of "recovery".
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a pretty screwed up in the head chick to me - her name didn't happen to be "SeaWytch" did it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But Seawytch will tell you that someone is born gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually most people will tell you sexual orientation is not a choice. Scientists will tell you too. The fact that YOU believe you made a conscious choice leads me to suspect you are bisexual and simply denying part of your attractions.
> 
> I never made a choice to be attracted to the same gender, I just always was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't care about science or reality in this thread. Just a lot of gay bashing, attempting to demonize gays as pedophiles, and so on. I am bored of this thread already.
> 
> Outside of this forum, the WBC, Neo Nazi groups, or the most die hard of church groups, same-sex marriage being 'wrong' is no longer an issue of the day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What science don't we care about? Biology?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Any science that either proves evolution, homosexuality and bisexuality in nature, or looks into the origin of the universe without the premise a god exists. If it disagrees with your world view you hate it, much like soviet planners that ignored anything that wouldn't fit with the ideology.


----------



## kaz

80zephyr said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> So women had no right to demand the vote?
> Blacks had no right to demand an end to Jim Crowe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights?  I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote.  I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain.  Seriously, you don't know the difference?
> 
> If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".
> 
> The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally.  As in - the right to vote.  The right to use public drinking fountains.  The right to marry. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.
> 
> *A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey...the racial standard applied equally too.  Everyone had a right to marry someone of the same race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. Since marriage was always based on gender, always, disallowing one race to not marry another was clearly discrimination.
> 
> This isn't apples to oranges. This is apples to watermelons.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Yes.  Also, being a different race changed who you can marry.  Being gay or straight does not change who you can marry.


----------



## kaz

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights?  I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote.  I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain.  Seriously, you don't know the difference?
> 
> If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".
> 
> The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally.  As in - the right to vote.  The right to use public drinking fountains.  The right to marry. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.
> 
> *A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it need to be a "distinct gender"?  That automatically is discrimminatory.  Heteros can marry the person they love.  Homos can not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh. The basis of marriage is GENDER. Not race. Not religion. Nothing else. Gender. Until we got "enlightened".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The basis of marriage is contract law, as written by the states and administered by state courts. Contract law written to accommodate two equal consenting adult partners in a committed relationship recognized by the state in accordance with its marriage contract law – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference, both are eligible to participate.
Click to expand...

begging the question


----------



## kaz

80zephyr said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".
> 
> The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally.  As in - the right to vote.  The right to use public drinking fountains.  The right to marry. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.
> 
> *A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it need to be a "distinct gender"?  That automatically is discrimminatory.  Heteros can marry the person they love.  Homos can not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh. The basis of marriage is GENDER. Not race. Not religion. Nothing else. Gender. Until we got "enlightened".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The basis of marriage is contract law, as written by the states and administered by state courts. Contract law written to accommodate two equal consenting adult partners in a committed relationship recognized by the state in accordance with its marriage contract law – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference, both are eligible to participate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. The state doesn't define marriage. Biology does. They can pass a law stating Clayton is an asshole, it will not make it so.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Neither will passing a law that says he is not one.

Then how does the State restrict marriage to minors and incestual couples?  Of course the State defines government marriage.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

hipeter924 said:


> Any science that either proves evolution, homosexuality and bisexuality in nature, or looks into the origin of the universe without the premise a god exists. If it disagrees with your world view you hate it, much like soviet planners that ignored anything that wouldn't fit with the ideology.



ROFLMNAO!

So science is subjective?  (LOL!  Idiots... they're so dam'_ entertaining_.  Leftists are the Jesters of the modern 'court'... OKA: the Interwebz message board.)

Science does not look at God, because science has insufficient understanding of the universe to even begin to know what questions should be asked to come to understand what science must learn to even begin to understand what needs to be known to question what should be answered before we begin to question the composition of what God is.

(Ya see scamp, _science_ has a way to go, maybe ... for instance, it should come to understand what gravity 'is', and then perhaps a firm understanding of time...  before they begin to study 'God'.)


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Ladies and Gentlemen of the USMB *The Homosexual Dilemma *thread, I present you:

_*THE SLIPPERY SLOPE!*_​


C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And in fact marriage isn't 'distinct gender,' where the doctrine of coverture was abandoned by all 50 states well over a generation ago.



Coverture is in fact the natural result of marriage.  Wherein the joining of the two respective genders, into one legally recognized body, determines that two people are now one... as is the case in coitus, wherein the male enters the body of the female, joining with her to form one "being".

In that the female is bound by nature as the body in which conception is manifest, it falls to the male to provide for her security, to sustain her through gestation and the decades long period of maturation of the progeny.  Thus the male is saddled with her, and is responsible for the female, entirely.

In their customary bass-ackward perception of reality, the Feminist saw such in the inverse, wherein they erroneously felt that the female was in a state of servitude to the male, when in truth, it is quite the opposite.  

But... I am a big believer at looking at the consequences to determine if the action is sound.

If the consequences are beneficial, then the actions are legitimate.  If not, then the actions are illegitimate.

I'll leave it to the reader to determine if Feminism 'freeing' the female from male bondage has improved the culture's viability or if it undermined such.

You may test this by your determination as to whether the actions increased the bonds of marriage, or decreased such. 

Was marriage, as an institution stabilized or destabilized?  

Has the family unit been promoted in culture or demoted?

Has the culture which is dependent upon stable families been improved or has it decayed?

And so on... .


----------



## hipeter924

Conservative65 said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heh. I know a woman who was straight, then gay, then straight again.
> 
> Lesbians especially have a high rate of "recovery".
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a pretty screwed up in the head chick to me - her name didn't happen to be "SeaWytch" did it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But Seawytch will tell you that someone is born gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually most people will tell you sexual orientation is not a choice. Scientists will tell you too. The fact that YOU believe you made a conscious choice leads me to suspect you are bisexual and simply denying part of your attractions.
> 
> I never made a choice to be attracted to the same gender, I just always was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't care about science or reality in this thread. Just a lot of gay bashing, attempting to demonize gays as pedophiles, and so on. I am bored of this thread already.
> 
> Outside of this forum, the WBC, Neo Nazi groups, or the most die hard of church groups, same-sex marriage being 'wrong' is no longer an issue of the day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't claim being gay makes someone a pedophile.  I claim it's abnormal and deviant same as pedophilia.
> 
> Same sex marriage is wrong despite what you faggot lovers thinking.
Click to expand...

Meh, and there are invisible pink unicorns and floating tea cups. Both are more real than a link between homosexuality and pedophilia.


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature is a complex and wondrous thing. Did you know that some species are a-sexual? Did you know some could change their gender? How about when animals intentionally sterilize themselves due to over population?
> 
> Since Homosexuality exists in over a thousand animals species and has existed in the human animal since the beginning of recorded history, it's pretty safe to assume that we're supposed to be here. Rest easy, scientists have some theories.
> 
> *The evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality
> 
> The genes that code for homosexuality do other things too*
> The allele - or group of genes - that sometimes codes for homosexual orientation may at other times have a strong reproductive benefit. This would compensate for gay people's lack of reproduction and ensure the continuation of the trait, as non-gay carriers of the gene pass it down.
> 
> *Gay people were 'helpers in the nest'*
> Paul Vasey's research in Samoa has focused on a theory called kin selection or the "helper in the nest" hypothesis. The idea is that gay people compensate for their lack of children by promoting the reproductive fitness of brothers or sisters, contributing money or performing other uncle-like activities such as babysitting or tutoring. Some of the gay person's genetic code is shared with nieces and nephews and so, the theory goes, the genes which code for sexual orientation still get passed down.[...]
> 
> *Gay people do have children*
> In the US, around 37% of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people have a child, about 60% of which are biological. According to the Williams Institute, gay couples that have children have an average of two.
> 
> These figures may not be high enough to sustain genetic traits specific to this group, but the evolutionary biologist Jeremy Yoder points out in a blog post that for much of modern history gay people haven't been living openly gay lives. Compelled by society to enter marriages and have children, their reproduction rates may have been higher than they are now.
> 
> *It's not all in the DNA*
> Qazi Rahman says that alleles coding for same sex attraction only explain some of the variety in human sexuality. Other, naturally varying biological factors come into play, with about one in seven gay men, he says, owing their sexuality to the "big brother effect".
> 
> This has nothing to do with George Orwell, but describes the observation that boys with older brothers are significantly more likely to become gay - with every older brother the chance of homosexuality increases by about a third. No-one knows why this is, but one theory is that with each male pregnancy, a woman's body forms an immune reaction to proteins that have a role in the development of the male brain. Since this only comes into play after several siblings have been born - most of whom are heterosexual and go on to have children - this pre-natal quirk hasn't been selected away by evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, after all of this, my statement still stands:
> 
> *In every species, natures way is reproduction. If a body does not reproduce, it kills off its lineage. That is why, in nature, homosexuality has to be considered abnormal.*
> 
> Humans are born with many types of problems. While these conditions are natural, they most assuredly are abnormal.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of things are 'abnormal'- oral sex is abnormal by your definition- yet the majority of Americans experience it at some time in their life- some of us more than others.
> 
> Abnormal doesn't mean bad.
> 
> Except in the case of homophobes- homosexuals=abnormal-= bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It all boils down to what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - so why does the Gay machine insist on getting into everybody else faces ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The very question this whole thread is about.  And in over 75 pages, none of the hemorrhoids have been able to answer it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider marriage "getting in everybody's faces"?
Click to expand...


Yes. By normalizing and socially accepting a deviancy, it certainly is.

Mark


----------



## GreenBean

Seawytch said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If only one changes, the argument that someone is born that way is invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh. I know a woman who was straight, then gay, then straight again.
> 
> Lesbians especially have a high rate of "recovery".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like a pretty screwed up in the head chick to me - her name didn't happen to be "SeaWytch" did it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But Seawytch will tell you that someone is born gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually most people will tell you sexual orientation is not a choice. Scientists will tell you too. The fact that YOU believe you made a conscious choice leads me to suspect you are bisexual and simply denying part of your attractions.
> 
> I never made a choice to be attracted to the same gender, I just always was.
Click to expand...




> Actually most people will tell you sexual orientation is not a choice



Yes , and at one time "most people"would tell the World was flat and if you sailed far enough over the edge you went ....



> Scientists will tell you too.











> The fact that YOU believe you made a conscious choice leads me to suspect you are bisexual and simply denying part of your attractions.



Nobody makes a *CONSCIOUS* choice to be normal or be a pervert - [Real] Scientists *WILL * tell you that.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Ladies and Gentlemen of the USMB *The Homosexual Dilemma *thread, I present you:

_*THE SLIPPERY SLOPE!*_​


C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And in fact marriage isn't 'distinct gender,' where the doctrine of coverture was abandoned by all 50 states well over a generation ago.



Coverture is in fact the natural result of marriage.  Wherein the joining of the two respective genders, into one legally recognized body, determines that two people are now one... as is the case in coitus, wherein the male enters the body of the female, joining with her to form one "being".

In that the female is bound by nature as the body in which conception is manifest, it falls to the male to provide for her security, to sustain her through gestation and the decades long period of maturation of the progeny.  Thus the male is saddled with her, and is responsible for the female, entirely.

In their customary bass-ackward perception of reality, the Feminist saw such in the inverse, wherein they erroneously felt that the female was in a state of servitude to the male, when in truth, it is quite the opposite.  

But... I am a big believer at looking at the consequences to determine if the action is sound.

If the consequences are beneficial, then the actions are legitimate.  If not, then the actions are illegitimate.

I'll leave it to the reader to determine if Feminism 'freeing' the female from male bondage has improved the culture's viability or if it undermined such.

You may test this by your determination as to whether the actions increased the bonds of marriage, or decreased such. 

Was marriage, as an institution stabilized or destabilized?  

Has the family unit been promoted in culture or demoted?

Has the culture which is dependent upon stable families been improved or has it decayed?

And so on... .


----------



## GreenBean

hipeter924 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a pretty screwed up in the head chick to me - her name didn't happen to be "SeaWytch" did it ?
> 
> 
> 
> But Seawytch will tell you that someone is born gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually most people will tell you sexual orientation is not a choice. Scientists will tell you too. The fact that YOU believe you made a conscious choice leads me to suspect you are bisexual and simply denying part of your attractions.
> 
> I never made a choice to be attracted to the same gender, I just always was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't care about science or reality in this thread. Just a lot of gay bashing, attempting to demonize gays as pedophiles, and so on. I am bored of this thread already.
> 
> Outside of this forum, the WBC, Neo Nazi groups, or the most die hard of church groups, same-sex marriage being 'wrong' is no longer an issue of the day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't claim being gay makes someone a pedophile.  I claim it's abnormal and deviant same as pedophilia.
> 
> Same sex marriage is wrong despite what you faggot lovers thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meh, and there are invisible pink unicorns and floating tea cups. Both are more real than a link between homosexuality and pedophilia.
Click to expand...



Homosexuality and pedophilia *ARE* varying degrees of the same class of Dementia - Sexual Dysphoria


----------



## 80zephyr

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So with a mere choice you could find a man's hairy ass as sexually attractive as a woman's shapely backside?
> 
> Then Sy's right. You're probably bi already. For most of us, its not a choice. Its just an attribute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:
> 
> Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News
> 
> Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.
> 
> Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
Click to expand...


They will use the "age of consent" as an excuse.  The age of consent is nothing more than an arbitrary number society agrees on to set policy.

Sorta like when society deemed marriage was limited to one man and one woman.

See, its OK to change policy when you agree with it, not so much when you don't. They are simply "bigots" just like us, only their moral standards are a shade lower.

Mark


----------



## initforme

"
"A family-run business went under because they chose not to bake a fucking cake for a gay wedding?
That's not only the Gay agenda at work, but the twisted brains of the Liberals who will not stand for dissent or disagreement"

That's the risk they took.   I don't feel one bit of remorse for them.  Did they go under only because gays stopped going there or did others stop going there or what happened?  As a married 76 year old heterosexual man I fail to see how the homosexual agenda is of any threat to me.


----------



## hipeter924

GreenBean said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But Seawytch will tell you that someone is born gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually most people will tell you sexual orientation is not a choice. Scientists will tell you too. The fact that YOU believe you made a conscious choice leads me to suspect you are bisexual and simply denying part of your attractions.
> 
> I never made a choice to be attracted to the same gender, I just always was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't care about science or reality in this thread. Just a lot of gay bashing, attempting to demonize gays as pedophiles, and so on. I am bored of this thread already.
> 
> Outside of this forum, the WBC, Neo Nazi groups, or the most die hard of church groups, same-sex marriage being 'wrong' is no longer an issue of the day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't claim being gay makes someone a pedophile.  I claim it's abnormal and deviant same as pedophilia.
> 
> Same sex marriage is wrong despite what you faggot lovers thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meh, and there are invisible pink unicorns and floating tea cups. Both are more real than a link between homosexuality and pedophilia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality and pedophilia *ARE* varying degrees of the same class of Dementia - Sexual Dysphoria
Click to expand...

 Uganda awaits.


----------



## 80zephyr

hipeter924 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:
> 
> Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News
> 
> Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.
> 
> Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
Click to expand...


Who sets the age of consent? It was posted what the different ages of consent are by state. Why are they different? 

They are different because all these numbers are arbitrary. There is no "right" or "wrong" age. Age is set by society using...nothing to base the number on.

Mark


----------



## GreenBean

initforme said:


> "
> "A family-run business went under because they chose not to bake a fucking cake for a gay wedding?
> That's not only the Gay agenda at work, but the twisted brains of the Liberals who will not stand for dissent or disagreement"
> 
> That's the risk they took.   I don't feel one bit of remorse for them.  Did they go under only because gays stopped going there or did others stop going there or what happened?  As a married 76 year old heterosexual man I fail to see how the homosexual agenda is of any threat to me.





> As a married 76 year old heterosexual man I fail to see how the homosexual agenda is of any threat to me.



Then obviously - you don't give a rats ass about any Children, Grandchildren and future generations you produced.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

80zephyr said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:
> 
> Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News
> 
> Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.
> 
> Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will use the "age of consent" as an excuse.  The age of consent is nothing more than an arbitrary number society agrees on to set policy.
> 
> Sorta like when society deemed marriage was limited to one man and one woman.
> 
> See, its OK to change policy when you agree with it, not so much when you don't. They are simply "bigots" just like us, only their moral standards are a shade lower.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Yup... 

But it's worse than that... they have for decades sought to play down the consequences of adult predation of children for sexual gratification.

Alfred Kinsey traveled the country to 'inform' local and state governments that the psychological consequences of molestation were no where near as harmful as had been believed...  as long as such was manifest through a loving, caring interaction... and that often such was actually _beneficial to the child.
_
It's some ridiculously sick shit...


----------



## 80zephyr

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Ladies and Gentlemen of the USMB *The Homosexual Dilemma *thread, I present you:
> 
> _*THE SLIPPERY SLOPE!*_​
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in fact marriage isn't 'distinct gender,' where the doctrine of coverture was abandoned by all 50 states well over a generation ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coverture is in fact the natural result of marriage.  Wherein the joining of the two respective genders, into one legally recognized body, determines that two people are now one... as is the case in coitus, wherein the male enters the body of the female, joining with her to form one "being".
> 
> In that the female is bound by nature as the body in which conception is manifest, it falls to the male to provide for her security, to sustain her through gestation and the decades long period of maturation of the progeny.  Thus the male is saddled with her, and is responsible for the female, entirely.
> 
> In their customary bass-ackward perception of reality, the Feminist saw such in the inverse, wherein they erroneously felt that the female was in a state of servitude to the male, when in truth, it is quite the opposite.
> 
> But... I am a big believer at looking at the consequences to determine if the action is sound.
> 
> If the consequences are beneficial, then the actions are legitimate.  If not, then the actions are illegitimate.
> 
> I'll leave it to the reader to determine if Feminism 'freeing' the female from male bondage has improved the culture's viability or if it undermined such.
> 
> You may test this by your determination as to whether the actions increased the bonds of marriage, or decreased such.
> 
> Was marriage, as an institution stabilized or destabilized?
> 
> Has the family unit been promoted in culture or demoted?
> 
> Has the culture which is dependent upon stable families been improved or has it decayed?
> 
> And so on... .
Click to expand...


Excellent post.

Mark


----------



## mdk

80zephyr said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, after all of this, my statement still stands:
> 
> *In every species, natures way is reproduction. If a body does not reproduce, it kills off its lineage. That is why, in nature, homosexuality has to be considered abnormal.*
> 
> Humans are born with many types of problems. While these conditions are natural, they most assuredly are abnormal.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of things are 'abnormal'- oral sex is abnormal by your definition- yet the majority of Americans experience it at some time in their life- some of us more than others.
> 
> Abnormal doesn't mean bad.
> 
> Except in the case of homophobes- homosexuals=abnormal-= bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It all boils down to what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - so why does the Gay machine insist on getting into everybody else faces ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The very question this whole thread is about.  And in over 75 pages, none of the hemorrhoids have been able to answer it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider marriage "getting in everybody's faces"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. By normalizing and socially accepting a deviancy, it certainly is.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


It doesn't seem to me you are being forced to accept anything. Gays are getting married and yet here you are railing against deviants and their marriage. You're just upset that society isn't buying your pearl clutching hyperbole anymore, not the public and not courts.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

80zephyr said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who sets the age of consent? It was posted what the different ages of consent are by state. Why are they different?
> 
> They are different because all these numbers are arbitrary. There is no "right" or "wrong" age. Age is set by society using...nothing to base the number on.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


They were set, as you point out, because the law needs a moment of demarcation, thus such is established for legal purposes.  The age is set to protect children... the lowering of the age is designed to protect the pedophile.

In that the distinct perspectives are demonstrated... 

That of the objective standard of the law... to serve justice. 

And that of th subjective needs of the Ideological Left, to reject objectivity essential to the very concept of justice.


----------



## GreenBean

80zephyr said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who sets the age of consent? It was posted what the different ages of consent are by state. Why are they different?
> 
> They are different because all these numbers are arbitrary. There is no "right" or "wrong" age. Age is set by society using...nothing to base the number on.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...





> . Age is set by society ..



....And by manipulating society -you alter the social norms that evolved naturally out of basic Human nature - which is exactly what the Queer Militias are perpetrating.




> .nothing to base the number on



The number in a sane modern society is based upon when it is anticipated a person -or the greatest number of persons -or  average number [age] - where human beings reach full cognizance and ample wisdom to make "Adult" Choices.

In a Gay society that number [Age] would have little to do with intellect or wisdom - but everything to do with the size andcapacity of their anal and/or vaginal canals


----------



## 80zephyr

initforme said:


> "
> "A family-run business went under because they chose not to bake a fucking cake for a gay wedding?
> That's not only the Gay agenda at work, but the twisted brains of the Liberals who will not stand for dissent or disagreement"
> 
> That's the risk they took.   I don't feel one bit of remorse for them.  Did they go under only because gays stopped going there or did others stop going there or what happened?  As a married 76 year old heterosexual man I fail to see how the homosexual agenda is of any threat to me.



I am sure people felt the same way about divorce. Until they had to pay welfare to raise children that statistically end up in a juvenile justice system in far greater numbers than those from a two parent household.

In society, almost every decision affects you. At 76, you should already know that.

Mark


----------



## GreenBean

hipeter924 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually most people will tell you sexual orientation is not a choice. Scientists will tell you too. The fact that YOU believe you made a conscious choice leads me to suspect you are bisexual and simply denying part of your attractions.
> 
> I never made a choice to be attracted to the same gender, I just always was.
> 
> 
> 
> They don't care about science or reality in this thread. Just a lot of gay bashing, attempting to demonize gays as pedophiles, and so on. I am bored of this thread already.
> 
> Outside of this forum, the WBC, Neo Nazi groups, or the most die hard of church groups, same-sex marriage being 'wrong' is no longer an issue of the day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't claim being gay makes someone a pedophile.  I claim it's abnormal and deviant same as pedophilia.
> 
> Same sex marriage is wrong despite what you faggot lovers thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meh, and there are invisible pink unicorns and floating tea cups. Both are more real than a link between homosexuality and pedophilia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality and pedophilia *ARE* varying degrees of the same class of Dementia - Sexual Dysphoria
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uganda awaits.
Click to expand...


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Age of consent is a social/cultural overlay.  However - love is wrong when it damages a person.  Pedophilia has been shown to be very damaging to children.  Children do not have the mental maturity to consent.  Adults do.  *No rights are unlimited.*
Click to expand...


So then, some states allow marriage at 15, others at 18.

Who's right?

Mark


----------



## GreenBean

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will use the "age of consent" as an excuse.  The age of consent is nothing more than an arbitrary number society agrees on to set policy.
> 
> Sorta like when society deemed marriage was limited to one man and one woman.
> 
> See, its OK to change policy when you agree with it, not so much when you don't. They are simply "bigots" just like us, only their moral standards are a shade lower.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup...
> 
> But it's worse than that... they have for decades sought to play down the consequences of adult predation of children for sexual gratification.
> 
> Alfred Kinsey traveled the country to 'inform' local and state governments that the psychological consequences of molestation were no where near as harmful as had been believed...  as long as such was manifest through a loving, caring interaction... and that often such was actually _beneficial to the child.
> _
> It's some ridiculously sick shit...
Click to expand...

Alfred Kinsey also produced troves of tainted ,biased and scientifically inaccurate studies that gay activists have been using for decades to effect court rulings - even though they have long since been discredited by REAL Science.


----------



## 80zephyr

hipeter924 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? *Who are you to say they're love is wrong?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Age of what?  *Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand*.  Fuck five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a fuck, I have a life to lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand'. Children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
Click to expand...


You want to  give scientific reasons for your beliefs? Who said puberty is that "line". In my scientific world,, it tells me that a penis is not designed to screw an asshole.

Why does your belief in science trump mine?

Mark


----------



## GreenBean

hipeter924 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually most people will tell you sexual orientation is not a choice. Scientists will tell you too. The fact that YOU believe you made a conscious choice leads me to suspect you are bisexual and simply denying part of your attractions.
> 
> I never made a choice to be attracted to the same gender, I just always was.
> 
> 
> 
> They don't care about science or reality in this thread. Just a lot of gay bashing, attempting to demonize gays as pedophiles, and so on. I am bored of this thread already.
> 
> Outside of this forum, the WBC, Neo Nazi groups, or the most die hard of church groups, same-sex marriage being 'wrong' is no longer an issue of the day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't claim being gay makes someone a pedophile.  I claim it's abnormal and deviant same as pedophilia.
> 
> Same sex marriage is wrong despite what you faggot lovers thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meh, and there are invisible pink unicorns and floating tea cups. Both are more real than a link between homosexuality and pedophilia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality and pedophilia *ARE* varying degrees of the same class of Dementia - Sexual Dysphoria
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uganda awaits.
Click to expand...

And I reiterate - *Homosexuality and pedophilia ARE varying degrees of the same class of Dementia - Sexual Dysphoria*


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> *No rights are unlimited.*



Very true... Rights are endowed to us by our Creator... and with each right comes the responsibility to not injure the means of another to exercise their own rights.

And in this we readily see that there is no right to injure another by encouraging them to engage in behavior which is diametrically opposed by their genetic composition, or to engage in pre-marital intercourse; wherein the foundation of raising children has not been established, or to murder the child which one conceives as a direct result of their own willful and wanton behavior.

All of which the Ideological Left erroneously hold up as: RIGHTS!


----------



## hipeter924

80zephyr said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who sets the age of consent? It was posted what the different ages of consent are by state. Why are they different?
> 
> They are different because all these numbers are arbitrary. There is no "right" or "wrong" age. Age is set by society using...nothing to base the number on.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

The tooth fairy, who do you think? Obviously psychologists, lawmakers, the community, and science experts with knowledge of human biology.

Age of consent is determined by:

- The biological age of those involved, this means when someone is ready in a biological sense to engage in sexual activity.

- Whether someone can realistically consent to sexual activity and be aware of the consequences of that activity.

- What the parents and wider community have agreed is the the acceptable point where someone get be involved sexually with another.

- If someone is intellectually developed enough to be able to realistically make their own decisions i.e. obviously from 0-15 that is quite difficult. 

Age of Consent is then supplemented by laws on rape, child abuse, prostitution, and on the treatment of people with intellectual or physical disabilities.


----------



## GreenBean

80zephyr said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? *Who are you to say they're love is wrong?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Age of what?  *Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand*.  Fuck five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a fuck, I have a life to lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand'. Children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want to  give scientific reasons for your beliefs? Who said puberty is that "line". In my scientific world,, it tells me that a penis is not designed to screw an asshole.
> 
> Why does your belief in science trump mine?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...



Science is not about BELIEF - if you want to talk about Belief - get on Religious thread - SCIENCE is about FACT not OPINION .  Do you understand the difference ?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

hipeter924 said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who sets the age of consent? It was posted what the different ages of consent are by state. Why are they different?
> 
> They are different because all these numbers are arbitrary. There is no "right" or "wrong" age. Age is set by society using...nothing to base the number on.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The tooth fairy, who do you think? Obviously psychologists, lawmakers, the community, and science experts with knowledge of human biology.
> 
> Age of consent is determined by:
> 
> - The biological age of those involved, this means when someone is ready in a biological sense to engage in sexual activity. ..
Click to expand...


And there ya have it folks...

So when "SCIENCE!" says that children are perfectly ready to engage in sexual behavior by adults who are skilled manipulators of children, for the purpose of pursuing your children and grand children for sexual gratification, YOU can take comfort in their opinions being superior to yours, because... THEY'RE SCIENTISTS!

Sadly, your means to do anything about it will be ZILCHED, as by then the skilled manipulators who pursue your children and Grandchildren for sexual gratification will be a legally protected 'minority' class.  And your beatin' them into a bloody blister will be a 'hate' crime... 

But don't believe me, believe the LAW, because IF the Skilled Manipulator child predator is also a professed homosexual, beating them because of their sexuality, _already *IS* a hate crime._


----------



## JakeStarkey

bodecea said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> kaz, heterosexuals create homosexuals.
> 
> They will never die out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if it's a recessive gene, that once you get a gay/gay match you stop breeding, the number of gays will significantly drop.  Think about it.  Liberals never do think through your arguments.  You can't, you would realize they don't make sense...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Genetics is probably part of it but not all of it....like left-handedness...or a artistic talent.
Click to expand...


Kaz has just revealed he does not get Mendel and excessive gene pool as well as randomness as well as I am not a liberal any more than Kaz is anarchist.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish is babbling.
> 
> Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined.





> Show evidence that is IS!


  Don't have to because the sillies above in the thread flatly state there isn't.  It's their obligation to show by objective evidence.  If there is not any such, then the problem is relative, and the far social con right has clearly shown they have no objective argument for denying marriage equality.

When their puffed up pretend intelligentsia pops up out of the box and spew their nonsense, it is time to pass coffee and donuts and enjoy the burlesque.


----------



## JakeStarkey

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually churches are not ever forced to marry someone they do not want to.   At least on this planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull f*cking shit! Idaho city s ordinance tells pastors to marry gays or go to jail - Washington Times
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was a for-profit wedding chapel like those you see in Vegas.   You DID know that, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> PASTORS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For Profit Business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't seem to get that ALL PASTORS were being threatened, so you're wrong, and like any stubborn Leftist, you can't admit when you're wrong because you'd never stop.  That's a dangerous combination, incorrigibility and ignorance, and you model it well.
Click to expand...


Pastors are not threatened at all.

For-profit marriage businesses will be closed.

Different thing altogether.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

JakeStarkey said:


> Show evidence that there IS!
> 
> 
> 
> Don't have to because the sillies above in the thread flatly state there isn't.  ...
Click to expand...


YOU... _are an* imbecile.*_


----------



## JakeStarkey

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show evidence that there IS!
> 
> 
> 
> Don't have to because the sillies above in the thread flatly state there isn't.  ...  "Don't have to because the sillies above in the thread flatly state there isn't. It's their obligation to show by objective evidence. If there is not any such, then the problem is relative, and the far social con right has clearly shown they have no objective argument for denying marriage equality.
> 
> When their puffed up pretend intelligentsia pops up out of the box and spew their nonsense, it is time to pass coffee and donuts and enjoy the burlesque."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU... _are an* imbecile.*_
Click to expand...


(1) I put in above what you left out that I had wrote (italics). Rather cheesy of you.

(2) You are not very smart but far too confident in your limited abilities.

(3) You, Where R My Keys, are so typical of the social con far right.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you asking gays that just want exactly what you enjoy? Ask your wife.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you keep reminding us gays aren't ready for full marriage, you can't disagree with each other.  In heterosexual marriage, that happens all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said you can't disagree. We know you're the reluctant hypocrite. That's not what I said. Instead of asking gays why they need "government validation", ask your wife why she needs it. She can answer your questions and you'll actually maybe believe the answers from her.
> 
> 12 Reasons Marriage Equality Matters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what I just addressed.  I've addressed it repeatedly. She doesn't agree with me.  She knows what I think about government marriage. She knows I oppose it.  She is fully aware of it.  She disagrees with me.  Why would I continue to ask a question that was asked and answered?  I've told you this a bunch of times.  What is wrong with you that you can't grasp that?
> 
> That's my point, you keep saying you wouldn't give it up.  Ask again, and again, and again.  I'm not changing my mind, she's not changing her mind.  That happens in heterosexual marriages and the marriage can go on just fine.  We don't have to agree on everything.  When you reach that point, then you will be closer to gay marriage being equivalent to straight marriage.  You must just be a joy to live with having to be agreed with on everything, or at least told you're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreement happens in all marriage, you're not special. We all disagree and we all compromise. You've compromised on civil marriage, yes we get it and not arguing that. I'm saying stop asking us the questions your wife obviously has the answers to. Stop asking gays why they want to be married since she can answer your questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her reasons have nothing to do with gay government marriage.  Even if they did, why would it make sense to me?  We just disagree.  We understand each other's views just fine.  We just disagree with them.  It happens.  And she gets her way.  That usually happens too.
Click to expand...


Civil Marriage is Civil Marriage. Her reasons for wanting a "gubmit" marriage is the same reason gays have for wanting it...and for all the reasons that were listed here.

12 Reasons Marriage Equality Matters

You have your answer, you can stop asking why gays want to be married, married guy.


----------



## initforme

"Then obviously - you don't give a rats ass about any Children, Grandchildren and future generations you produced."

Ok then.  So two homosexuals get married.   My kids grew up, got married, had kids of their own.  I now have grandkids.   Those grandkids are somehow in danger how?  Please explain....."

As a lifelong Christian, explain how this is a threat to me..


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who are attracted to children can't make a different choice either.  Compulsive hoarding isn't a choice.  No compulsive disorder leaves the sufferer with a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a choice in acting. For me, as a gay woman, the only choice is in acting upon my natural or god given inclinations. As long as I am acting upon those natural inclinations with another consenting adult, whose fucking business is it and why should I be denied the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage because my life partner of choice happens to be the same gender I am?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And who are you to define what a consenting adult is? I mean, if you want to be honest, your conditions are as arbitrary as mine are.
> 
> I just happen to have a higher standard of morality than you.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you being intentionally obtuse because you're arguments have failed? The age of consent is defined by law.It varies from state to state. A 40 year old man can marry his 15 year old 1st cousin in Alabama and it is legally recognized in all 50 states, even states that don't allow 15 year old 1st cousins to marry. My civil marriage to my same sex spouse that I married when she was well over the age of 18 and not related to me, is not recognized in all 50 states. That's discrimination in case you were wondering.
> 
> No, you don't have a higher standard of morality, you have a different view of what is moral and what is not. That you think yours is "better" is your opinion (and a sin).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the way, your "age of consent is lower in Bible belt states" statement was yet another lie.  That's not the trend at all.  Stop lying, Leftists!
> 
> *Alabama16
> Alaska16
> Arizona18
> Arkansas16
> California18
> Colorado15
> Connecticut15
> D.C.16
> Delaware16
> Florida16/18 (bill pending)
> Georgia16
> Hawaii14
> Idaho14
> Illinois16/17
> Indiana16
> Iowa18
> Kansas16
> Kentucky16 - [1]
> Louisiana17
> Maine16
> Maryland16
> Massachusetts16/18
> Michigan16
> Minnesota16
> Mississippi16 - [2]
> Missouri17
> Montana16
> Nebraska16
> Nevada16
> New Hampshire16/18
> New Jersey16/18
> New Mexico17
> New York17
> North Carolina16
> North Dakota18
> Ohio16
> Oklahoma16
> Oregon18
> Pennsylvania16
> Rhode Island16
> South Carolina14/16
> South Dakota16
> Tennessee18
> Texas17
> Utah16/18
> Vermont16
> Virginia15
> Washington16
> West Virginia16
> Wisconsin18
> Wyoming16
> Puerto Rico18
> 
> Age of Consent - by State*
Click to expand...


You responded to me and I said nothing about the Bible Belt states. You ignored my statement which is that age of consent laws are only going up in the United States, not down...despite marriage equality being a reality. You are claiming age of consent will be lowered because gays are marrying and yet there is no evidence to support your claim...anywhere.


----------



## bodecea

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who are attracted to children can't make a different choice either.  Compulsive hoarding isn't a choice.  No compulsive disorder leaves the sufferer with a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a choice in acting. For me, as a gay woman, the only choice is in acting upon my natural or god given inclinations. As long as I am acting upon those natural inclinations with another consenting adult, whose fucking business is it and why should I be denied the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage because my life partner of choice happens to be the same gender I am?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And who are you to define what a consenting adult is? I mean, if you want to be honest, your conditions are as arbitrary as mine are.
> 
> I just happen to have a higher standard of morality than you.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you being intentionally obtuse because you're arguments have failed? The age of consent is defined by law.It varies from state to state. A 40 year old man can marry his 15 year old 1st cousin in Alabama and it is legally recognized in all 50 states, even states that don't allow 15 year old 1st cousins to marry. My civil marriage to my same sex spouse that I married when she was well over the age of 18 and not related to me, is not recognized in all 50 states. That's discrimination in case you were wondering.
> 
> No, you don't have a higher standard of morality, you have a different view of what is moral and what is not. That you think yours is "better" is your opinion (and a sin).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the way, your "age of consent is lower in Bible belt states" statement was yet another lie.  That's not the trend at all.  Stop lying, Leftists!
> 
> *Alabama16
> Alaska16
> Arizona18
> Arkansas16
> California18
> Colorado15
> Connecticut15
> D.C.16
> Delaware16
> Florida16/18 (bill pending)
> Georgia16
> Hawaii14
> Idaho14
> Illinois16/17
> Indiana16
> Iowa18
> Kansas16
> Kentucky16 - [1]
> Louisiana17
> Maine16
> Maryland16
> Massachusetts16/18
> Michigan16
> Minnesota16
> Mississippi16 - [2]
> Missouri17
> Montana16
> Nebraska16
> Nevada16
> New Hampshire16/18
> New Jersey16/18
> New Mexico17
> New York17
> North Carolina16
> North Dakota18
> Ohio16
> Oklahoma16
> Oregon18
> Pennsylvania16
> Rhode Island16
> South Carolina14/16
> South Dakota16
> Tennessee18
> Texas17
> Utah16/18
> Vermont16
> Virginia15
> Washington16
> West Virginia16
> Wisconsin18
> Wyoming16
> Puerto Rico18
> 
> Age of Consent - by State*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You responded to me and I said nothing about the Bible Belt states. You ignored my statement which is that age of consent laws are only going up in the United States, not down...despite marriage equality being a reality. You are claiming age of consent will be lowered because gays are marrying and yet there is no evidence to support your claim...anywhere.
Click to expand...

I've already pointed that out to him...he's choosing to ignore those facts.


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> poor wytchey.   so angry, so conflicted, so confused.  Human society as a whole has declared that homosexuality is an aberation of the human condition.
> 
> You have a mental illness, not a physical condition, not a birth condition, but a learned condition.
> 
> You are due empathy and sympathy.   The first step to a cure is admitting the disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you this before Fishy and you refused to answer. What is it you think I'm conflicted and confused about? I'm not even a little pissed about my coffeemaker anymore...I'm resolved to boiling water until Tuesday morning.
> 
> You need to catch up on what "human society" thinks these days, certainly not human society here in the good old US of A where we live. Here "human society" thinks gays are okay and that they should be able to civilly *marry*. (not your separate water fountain of Civil Unions only for the gheys, but full *marriage*)
> 
> How would you like to "cure the gays" bigot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your anger and confusion are very evident.   If you were comfortable in your situation you would not have to continually post on gay agenda issues.
> 
> As to a cure, there may not be one.   There is also no cure for MS or diabetes or bipolar disorder.   But hang in there, medical science may find one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So anger is the only reason to post on message boards? That doesn't make any sense. Education is a good reason. People who are not anti gay bigots read these threads.
> 
> You still haven't answered the question. What am I conflicted and confused about Fishy? Is this misdirection, a projection? Are *you *confused and conflicted? Is that why YOU can't stop posting in "gay threads"? I'm gay, I have a good excuse for posting on gay threads. Is being an anti gay bigot the only reason you post here....really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I post on threads on many subjects.  I post what I believe based on 60+ years of life, travel over much of the world, a successful business career, and an education both in hard knocks and academia.
> 
> You and I will never agree on the gay agenda, gay biology, or probably anything else.   So lets move on.   I suspect that you are basically a good person who is sincere in your beliefs,  but so am I.
> 
> In this country we are allowed to disagree and hold different views.  The problem is that you want to force you views on everyone else---------that is the worst form of bigotry and tyranny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the point of this thread.  It's a well known truth that victims can become bullies very quickly and the line is easily crossed. That's what's happened here.  Nobody wants gays to be subject to special hostility such as bashing by hateful people, etc, and we want the law to protect everyone equally, including gay people.  But it's gone well beyond that to where those who disagree with the gay lifestyle are the ones being subject to persecution.  Pastors being told they have to marry gays, business owners being told they have to cater gay weddings, boys who think they're girls using the girls' restrooms in schools, and in the workplace being forced to go along with the charade of a man who mutilated himself now saying he's a woman.
> 
> They aren't the victims anymore.  Far from it.
Click to expand...



Are you aware that the laws you are sniveling about, Public Accommodation laws, protect Christians from discrimination in all 50 states? I cannot deny you service based on your religion in any state in the US...and you're whining and moaning because those same exact laws _*also *_protect gays in a handful? Boo freaking hoo...


----------



## Seawytch

Conservative65 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you this before Fishy and you refused to answer. What is it you think I'm conflicted and confused about? I'm not even a little pissed about my coffeemaker anymore...I'm resolved to boiling water until Tuesday morning.
> 
> You need to catch up on what "human society" thinks these days, certainly not human society here in the good old US of A where we live. Here "human society" thinks gays are okay and that they should be able to civilly *marry*. (not your separate water fountain of Civil Unions only for the gheys, but full *marriage*)
> 
> How would you like to "cure the gays" bigot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your anger and confusion are very evident.   If you were comfortable in your situation you would not have to continually post on gay agenda issues.
> 
> As to a cure, there may not be one.   There is also no cure for MS or diabetes or bipolar disorder.   But hang in there, medical science may find one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So anger is the only reason to post on message boards? That doesn't make any sense. Education is a good reason. People who are not anti gay bigots read these threads.
> 
> You still haven't answered the question. What am I conflicted and confused about Fishy? Is this misdirection, a projection? Are *you *confused and conflicted? Is that why YOU can't stop posting in "gay threads"? I'm gay, I have a good excuse for posting on gay threads. Is being an anti gay bigot the only reason you post here....really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I post on threads on many subjects.  I post what I believe based on 60+ years of life, travel over much of the world, a successful business career, and an education both in hard knocks and academia.
> 
> You and I will never agree on the gay agenda, gay biology, or probably anything else.   So lets move on.   I suspect that you are basically a good person who is sincere in your beliefs,  but so am I.
> 
> In this country we are allowed to disagree and hold different views.  The problem is that you want to force you views on everyone else---------that is the worst form of bigotry and tyranny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the point of this thread.  It's a well known truth that victims can become bullies very quickly and the line is easily crossed. That's what's happened here.  Nobody wants gays to be subject to special hostility such as bashing by hateful people, etc, and we want the law to protect everyone equally, including gay people.  But it's gone well beyond that to where those who disagree with the gay lifestyle are the ones being subject to persecution.  Pastors being told they have to marry gays, business owners being told they have to cater gay weddings, boys who think they're girls using the girls' restrooms in schools, and in the workplace being forced to go along with the charade of a man who mutilated himself now saying he's a woman.
> 
> They aren't the victims anymore.  Far from it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet let a gay refuse to do business with someone they don't like and it's perfectly OK to those who tout anti discrimination laws.  They either think it's OK due to a double standard or  . ..   That's pretty much it.
Click to expand...



Why are you lying? Lying makes baby Jesus cry you know. 

No, gays cannot refuse to serve to do business with someone "they don't like". Learn the law...

*The Right to Refuse Service*


----------



## Seawytch

80zephyr said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Age of consent is a social/cultural overlay.  However - love is wrong when it damages a person.  Pedophilia has been shown to be very damaging to children.  Children do not have the mental maturity to consent.  Adults do.  *No rights are unlimited.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then, some states allow marriage at 15, others at 18.
> 
> Who's right?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


The ones that don't allow it until 18...duh.


----------



## JakeStarkey

St. Mike got booted all over the field, good heavens.

No evidence whatsoever exists that would relate marriage equality with lowering the age of consent.  None.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you keep reminding us gays aren't ready for full marriage, you can't disagree with each other.  In heterosexual marriage, that happens all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said you can't disagree. We know you're the reluctant hypocrite. That's not what I said. Instead of asking gays why they need "government validation", ask your wife why she needs it. She can answer your questions and you'll actually maybe believe the answers from her.
> 
> 12 Reasons Marriage Equality Matters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what I just addressed.  I've addressed it repeatedly. She doesn't agree with me.  She knows what I think about government marriage. She knows I oppose it.  She is fully aware of it.  She disagrees with me.  Why would I continue to ask a question that was asked and answered?  I've told you this a bunch of times.  What is wrong with you that you can't grasp that?
> 
> That's my point, you keep saying you wouldn't give it up.  Ask again, and again, and again.  I'm not changing my mind, she's not changing her mind.  That happens in heterosexual marriages and the marriage can go on just fine.  We don't have to agree on everything.  When you reach that point, then you will be closer to gay marriage being equivalent to straight marriage.  You must just be a joy to live with having to be agreed with on everything, or at least told you're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreement happens in all marriage, you're not special. We all disagree and we all compromise. You've compromised on civil marriage, yes we get it and not arguing that. I'm saying stop asking us the questions your wife obviously has the answers to. Stop asking gays why they want to be married since she can answer your questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her reasons have nothing to do with gay government marriage.  Even if they did, why would it make sense to me?  We just disagree.  We understand each other's views just fine.  We just disagree with them.  It happens.  And she gets her way.  That usually happens too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Civil Marriage is Civil Marriage. Her reasons for wanting a "gubmit" marriage is the same reason gays have for wanting it...and for all the reasons that were listed here.
> 
> 12 Reasons Marriage Equality Matters
> 
> You have your answer, you can stop asking why gays want to be married, married guy.
Click to expand...


You go first, stop advocating your views.  Then talk.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said you can't disagree. We know you're the reluctant hypocrite. That's not what I said. Instead of asking gays why they need "government validation", ask your wife why she needs it. She can answer your questions and you'll actually maybe believe the answers from her.
> 
> 12 Reasons Marriage Equality Matters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what I just addressed.  I've addressed it repeatedly. She doesn't agree with me.  She knows what I think about government marriage. She knows I oppose it.  She is fully aware of it.  She disagrees with me.  Why would I continue to ask a question that was asked and answered?  I've told you this a bunch of times.  What is wrong with you that you can't grasp that?
> 
> That's my point, you keep saying you wouldn't give it up.  Ask again, and again, and again.  I'm not changing my mind, she's not changing her mind.  That happens in heterosexual marriages and the marriage can go on just fine.  We don't have to agree on everything.  When you reach that point, then you will be closer to gay marriage being equivalent to straight marriage.  You must just be a joy to live with having to be agreed with on everything, or at least told you're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreement happens in all marriage, you're not special. We all disagree and we all compromise. You've compromised on civil marriage, yes we get it and not arguing that. I'm saying stop asking us the questions your wife obviously has the answers to. Stop asking gays why they want to be married since she can answer your questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her reasons have nothing to do with gay government marriage.  Even if they did, why would it make sense to me?  We just disagree.  We understand each other's views just fine.  We just disagree with them.  It happens.  And she gets her way.  That usually happens too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Civil Marriage is Civil Marriage. Her reasons for wanting a "gubmit" marriage is the same reason gays have for wanting it...and for all the reasons that were listed here.
> 
> 12 Reasons Marriage Equality Matters
> 
> You have your answer, you can stop asking why gays want to be married, married guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You go first, stop advocating your views.  Then talk.
Click to expand...


You're not "advocating your views" when you ask derisively why gays want to get married. You know the answer so why do you keep asking it?


----------



## bodecea

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said you can't disagree. We know you're the reluctant hypocrite. That's not what I said. Instead of asking gays why they need "government validation", ask your wife why she needs it. She can answer your questions and you'll actually maybe believe the answers from her.
> 
> 12 Reasons Marriage Equality Matters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what I just addressed.  I've addressed it repeatedly. She doesn't agree with me.  She knows what I think about government marriage. She knows I oppose it.  She is fully aware of it.  She disagrees with me.  Why would I continue to ask a question that was asked and answered?  I've told you this a bunch of times.  What is wrong with you that you can't grasp that?
> 
> That's my point, you keep saying you wouldn't give it up.  Ask again, and again, and again.  I'm not changing my mind, she's not changing her mind.  That happens in heterosexual marriages and the marriage can go on just fine.  We don't have to agree on everything.  When you reach that point, then you will be closer to gay marriage being equivalent to straight marriage.  You must just be a joy to live with having to be agreed with on everything, or at least told you're right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disagreement happens in all marriage, you're not special. We all disagree and we all compromise. You've compromised on civil marriage, yes we get it and not arguing that. I'm saying stop asking us the questions your wife obviously has the answers to. Stop asking gays why they want to be married since she can answer your questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her reasons have nothing to do with gay government marriage.  Even if they did, why would it make sense to me?  We just disagree.  We understand each other's views just fine.  We just disagree with them.  It happens.  And she gets her way.  That usually happens too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Civil Marriage is Civil Marriage. Her reasons for wanting a "gubmit" marriage is the same reason gays have for wanting it...and for all the reasons that were listed here.
> 
> 12 Reasons Marriage Equality Matters
> 
> You have your answer, you can stop asking why gays want to be married, married guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You go first, stop advocating your views.  Then talk.
Click to expand...

People aren't allowed to advocate their views now?  Or only uppity gays?


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what I just addressed.  I've addressed it repeatedly. She doesn't agree with me.  She knows what I think about government marriage. She knows I oppose it.  She is fully aware of it.  She disagrees with me.  Why would I continue to ask a question that was asked and answered?  I've told you this a bunch of times.  What is wrong with you that you can't grasp that?
> 
> That's my point, you keep saying you wouldn't give it up.  Ask again, and again, and again.  I'm not changing my mind, she's not changing her mind.  That happens in heterosexual marriages and the marriage can go on just fine.  We don't have to agree on everything.  When you reach that point, then you will be closer to gay marriage being equivalent to straight marriage.  You must just be a joy to live with having to be agreed with on everything, or at least told you're right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disagreement happens in all marriage, you're not special. We all disagree and we all compromise. You've compromised on civil marriage, yes we get it and not arguing that. I'm saying stop asking us the questions your wife obviously has the answers to. Stop asking gays why they want to be married since she can answer your questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her reasons have nothing to do with gay government marriage.  Even if they did, why would it make sense to me?  We just disagree.  We understand each other's views just fine.  We just disagree with them.  It happens.  And she gets her way.  That usually happens too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Civil Marriage is Civil Marriage. Her reasons for wanting a "gubmit" marriage is the same reason gays have for wanting it...and for all the reasons that were listed here.
> 
> 12 Reasons Marriage Equality Matters
> 
> You have your answer, you can stop asking why gays want to be married, married guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You go first, stop advocating your views.  Then talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not "advocating your views" when you ask derisively why gays want to get married. You know the answer so why do you keep asking it?
Click to expand...


I don't specifically ask that question that way, so I'm not sure what you are looking for exactly.


----------



## kaz

bodecea said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what I just addressed.  I've addressed it repeatedly. She doesn't agree with me.  She knows what I think about government marriage. She knows I oppose it.  She is fully aware of it.  She disagrees with me.  Why would I continue to ask a question that was asked and answered?  I've told you this a bunch of times.  What is wrong with you that you can't grasp that?
> 
> That's my point, you keep saying you wouldn't give it up.  Ask again, and again, and again.  I'm not changing my mind, she's not changing her mind.  That happens in heterosexual marriages and the marriage can go on just fine.  We don't have to agree on everything.  When you reach that point, then you will be closer to gay marriage being equivalent to straight marriage.  You must just be a joy to live with having to be agreed with on everything, or at least told you're right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disagreement happens in all marriage, you're not special. We all disagree and we all compromise. You've compromised on civil marriage, yes we get it and not arguing that. I'm saying stop asking us the questions your wife obviously has the answers to. Stop asking gays why they want to be married since she can answer your questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her reasons have nothing to do with gay government marriage.  Even if they did, why would it make sense to me?  We just disagree.  We understand each other's views just fine.  We just disagree with them.  It happens.  And she gets her way.  That usually happens too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Civil Marriage is Civil Marriage. Her reasons for wanting a "gubmit" marriage is the same reason gays have for wanting it...and for all the reasons that were listed here.
> 
> 12 Reasons Marriage Equality Matters
> 
> You have your answer, you can stop asking why gays want to be married, married guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You go first, stop advocating your views.  Then talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People aren't allowed to advocate their views now?  Or only uppity gays?
Click to expand...


She keeps telling me to stop advocating my views.  I keep saying fine, you go first.  And you ask me that question?

Seawytch, the one too lazy to read the conversation before jumping in has a question for you.


----------



## bodecea

kaz said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagreement happens in all marriage, you're not special. We all disagree and we all compromise. You've compromised on civil marriage, yes we get it and not arguing that. I'm saying stop asking us the questions your wife obviously has the answers to. Stop asking gays why they want to be married since she can answer your questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her reasons have nothing to do with gay government marriage.  Even if they did, why would it make sense to me?  We just disagree.  We understand each other's views just fine.  We just disagree with them.  It happens.  And she gets her way.  That usually happens too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Civil Marriage is Civil Marriage. Her reasons for wanting a "gubmit" marriage is the same reason gays have for wanting it...and for all the reasons that were listed here.
> 
> 12 Reasons Marriage Equality Matters
> 
> You have your answer, you can stop asking why gays want to be married, married guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You go first, stop advocating your views.  Then talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People aren't allowed to advocate their views now?  Or only uppity gays?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She keeps telling me to stop advocating my views.  I keep saying fine, you go first.  And you ask me that question?
> 
> Seawytch, the one too lazy to read the conversation before jumping in has a question for you.
Click to expand...

You can advocate your views all you want.  What ARE your views?  Let's hear them.


----------



## GreenBean

JakeStarkey said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> kaz, heterosexuals create homosexuals.
> 
> They will never die out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if it's a recessive gene, that once you get a gay/gay match you stop breeding, the number of gays will significantly drop.  Think about it.  Liberals never do think through your arguments.  You can't, you would realize they don't make sense...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Genetics is probably part of it but not all of it....like left-handedness...or a artistic talent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kaz has just revealed he does not get Mendel and excessive gene pool as well as randomness as well as I am not a liberal any more than Kaz is anarchist.
Click to expand...

You're a liberal you dumbass .
A liberal dumbass


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagreement happens in all marriage, you're not special. We all disagree and we all compromise. You've compromised on civil marriage, yes we get it and not arguing that. I'm saying stop asking us the questions your wife obviously has the answers to. Stop asking gays why they want to be married since she can answer your questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her reasons have nothing to do with gay government marriage.  Even if they did, why would it make sense to me?  We just disagree.  We understand each other's views just fine.  We just disagree with them.  It happens.  And she gets her way.  That usually happens too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Civil Marriage is Civil Marriage. Her reasons for wanting a "gubmit" marriage is the same reason gays have for wanting it...and for all the reasons that were listed here.
> 
> 12 Reasons Marriage Equality Matters
> 
> You have your answer, you can stop asking why gays want to be married, married guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You go first, stop advocating your views.  Then talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People aren't allowed to advocate their views now?  Or only uppity gays?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She keeps telling me to stop advocating my views.  I keep saying fine, you go first.  And you ask me that question?
> 
> Seawytch, the one too lazy to read the conversation before jumping in has a question for you.
Click to expand...


No I haven't. I think you should advocate your views MORE. I don't think just sniveling about how gays get exactly what you get is enough and that you should be picketing county clerk offices. I mean, how dedicated to stopping "gubmit" marriage are you? (outside your own, of course)


----------



## GreenBean

JakeStarkey said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish is babbling.
> 
> Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show evidence that is IS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't have to because the sillies above in the thread flatly state there isn't.  It's their obligation to show by objective evidence.  If there is not any such, then the problem is relative, and the far social con right has clearly shown they have no objective argument for denying marriage equality.
> 
> When their puffed up pretend intelligentsia pops up out of the box and spew their nonsense, it is time to pass coffee and donuts and enjoy the burlesque.
Click to expand...




> REDFISH: Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined





> JAKEMALARKEY: It's their obligation to show by objective evidence. If there is not any such ....



The human genome is complete and the Human Genome Project is over .... Most of the major science journals reported on the progress in the field of genetics, .... The *one piece of information that never materialized from the Human Genome Project was the identification of the so-called gay gene.*  There is none, Homosexuality is not truly a genetic issue, but as Freud and Socarides theorized - it's a Mental disorder. 

Science vs. the Gay Gene 

Pathology of Homosexuality


----------



## bodecea

GreenBean said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish is babbling.
> 
> Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show evidence that is IS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't have to because the sillies above in the thread flatly state there isn't.  It's their obligation to show by objective evidence.  If there is not any such, then the problem is relative, and the far social con right has clearly shown they have no objective argument for denying marriage equality.
> 
> When their puffed up pretend intelligentsia pops up out of the box and spew their nonsense, it is time to pass coffee and donuts and enjoy the burlesque.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REDFISH: Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JAKEMALARKEY: It's their obligation to show by objective evidence. If there is not any such ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The human genome is complete and the Human Genome Project is over .... Most of the major science journals reported on the progress in the field of genetics, .... The *one piece of information that never materialized from the Human Genome Project was the identification of the so-called gay gene.*  There is none, Homosexuality is not truly a genetic issue, but as Freud and Socarides theorized - it's a Mental disorder.
> 
> Science vs. the Gay Gene
> 
> Pathology of Homosexuality
Click to expand...

Then why is it that 40% of identical twins, if one is gay, the other is gay also....when with other siblings including fraternal twins, the % is simply the average of about 2-10%?


----------



## GreenBean

kaz said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagreement happens in all marriage, you're not special. We all disagree and we all compromise. You've compromised on civil marriage, yes we get it and not arguing that. I'm saying stop asking us the questions your wife obviously has the answers to. Stop asking gays why they want to be married since she can answer your questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her reasons have nothing to do with gay government marriage.  Even if they did, why would it make sense to me?  We just disagree.  We understand each other's views just fine.  We just disagree with them.  It happens.  And she gets her way.  That usually happens too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Civil Marriage is Civil Marriage. Her reasons for wanting a "gubmit" marriage is the same reason gays have for wanting it...and for all the reasons that were listed here.
> 
> 12 Reasons Marriage Equality Matters
> 
> You have your answer, you can stop asking why gays want to be married, married guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You go first, stop advocating your views.  Then talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People aren't allowed to advocate their views now?  Or only uppity gays?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She keeps telling me to stop advocating my views.  I keep saying fine, you go first.  And you ask me that question?
> 
> Seawytch, the one too lazy to read the conversation before jumping in has a question for you.
Click to expand...




> Seawytch, the one too lazy to read the conversation before jumping in has a question for you.



SeaWytch is incapable of formulating an objective opinion her sexual dementia and her perverse bias is incredibly overwhelming and has devoured her entire being - they say you are what you eat - on this forum she's the rug upon which I wipe my feet.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

This 'government marriage' nonsense is the epitome of libertarian ignorance and idiocy.

Government cannot be 'gotten out' of marriage – they are one in the same; which is why states are subject to lawsuits when they refuse to allow gay Americans access to the state contract law that is marriage.


----------



## Coyote

GreenBean said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish is babbling.
> 
> Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show evidence that is IS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't have to because the sillies above in the thread flatly state there isn't.  It's their obligation to show by objective evidence.  If there is not any such, then the problem is relative, and the far social con right has clearly shown they have no objective argument for denying marriage equality.
> 
> When their puffed up pretend intelligentsia pops up out of the box and spew their nonsense, it is time to pass coffee and donuts and enjoy the burlesque.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REDFISH: Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JAKEMALARKEY: It's their obligation to show by objective evidence. If there is not any such ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The human genome is complete and the Human Genome Project is over .... Most of the major science journals reported on the progress in the field of genetics, .... The *one piece of information that never materialized from the Human Genome Project was the identification of the so-called gay gene.*  There is none, Homosexuality is not truly a genetic issue, but as Freud and Socarides theorized - it's a Mental disorder.
> 
> Science vs. the Gay Gene
> 
> Pathology of Homosexuality
Click to expand...


I find it hard to take anything seriously from a site that considers evolution a myth 

Here's some stuff for thought:
How our genes could make us gay or straight - The Washington Post
A gay Gene - Is Homosexuality Inherited Assault On Gay America FRONTLINE PBS

Most scientists seem to think that homosexuality is a combination of genetics (likely not one gene), enviroment, and biology.  It's hard to untangle causes but they're pretty much in agreement that it's hard-wired, not a mental disorder.


----------



## GreenBean

bodecea said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish is babbling.
> 
> Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show evidence that is IS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't have to because the sillies above in the thread flatly state there isn't.  It's their obligation to show by objective evidence.  If there is not any such, then the problem is relative, and the far social con right has clearly shown they have no objective argument for denying marriage equality.
> 
> When their puffed up pretend intelligentsia pops up out of the box and spew their nonsense, it is time to pass coffee and donuts and enjoy the burlesque.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REDFISH: Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JAKEMALARKEY: It's their obligation to show by objective evidence. If there is not any such ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The human genome is complete and the Human Genome Project is over .... Most of the major science journals reported on the progress in the field of genetics, .... The *one piece of information that never materialized from the Human Genome Project was the identification of the so-called gay gene.*  There is none, Homosexuality is not truly a genetic issue, but as Freud and Socarides theorized - it's a Mental disorder.
> 
> Science vs. the Gay Gene
> 
> Pathology of Homosexuality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why is it that 40% of identical twins, if one is gay, the other is gay also....when with other siblings including fraternal twins, the % is simply the average of about 2-10%?
Click to expand...



Actually - you're statistics are off somewhat - the actual number of identical twins that are both gay is closer to 50% not 40%

But that is irrelevant - if homosexuality were genetically determined the number of identical twins with identical genes who are both faggots would teeter in the high 90s - closer to 100% - given the fact that some halfs of the pair of twins would be overtly suppressing their genetic composition.

The 40 - 50% only proves that the twins involved had identical upbringings and somewhere during their childhood had shared experiences which led to their dementia . [Nurture over Nature]

As well - in almost all cases of twins - there is a dominant and submissive [or recessive] twin - if the dominant twin becomes Homosexual due to traumatic experience or other underlying factors the recessive or submissive twin will generally follow suit.


----------



## GreenBean

Coyote said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish is babbling.
> 
> Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show evidence that is IS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't have to because the sillies above in the thread flatly state there isn't.  It's their obligation to show by objective evidence.  If there is not any such, then the problem is relative, and the far social con right has clearly shown they have no objective argument for denying marriage equality.
> 
> When their puffed up pretend intelligentsia pops up out of the box and spew their nonsense, it is time to pass coffee and donuts and enjoy the burlesque.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REDFISH: Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JAKEMALARKEY: It's their obligation to show by objective evidence. If there is not any such ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The human genome is complete and the Human Genome Project is over .... Most of the major science journals reported on the progress in the field of genetics, .... The *one piece of information that never materialized from the Human Genome Project was the identification of the so-called gay gene.*  There is none, Homosexuality is not truly a genetic issue, but as Freud and Socarides theorized - it's a Mental disorder.
> 
> Science vs. the Gay Gene
> 
> Pathology of Homosexuality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it hard to take anything seriously from a site that considers evolution a myth
> 
> Here's some stuff for thought:
> How our genes could make us gay or straight - The Washington Post
> A gay Gene - Is Homosexuality Inherited Assault On Gay America FRONTLINE PBS
> 
> Most scientists seem to think that homosexuality is a combination of genetics (likely not one gene), enviroment, and biology.  It's hard to untangle causes but they're pretty much in agreement that it's hard-wired, not a mental disorder.
Click to expand...





> I find it hard to take anything seriously from a site that considers evolution a myth



Coyote - WTF are you babbling about ?   Stop howling at the moon and spit it out little fella


----------



## GreenBean

Coyote said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish is babbling.
> 
> Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show evidence that is IS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't have to because the sillies above in the thread flatly state there isn't.  It's their obligation to show by objective evidence.  If there is not any such, then the problem is relative, and the far social con right has clearly shown they have no objective argument for denying marriage equality.
> 
> When their puffed up pretend intelligentsia pops up out of the box and spew their nonsense, it is time to pass coffee and donuts and enjoy the burlesque.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REDFISH: Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JAKEMALARKEY: It's their obligation to show by objective evidence. If there is not any such ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The human genome is complete and the Human Genome Project is over .... Most of the major science journals reported on the progress in the field of genetics, .... The *one piece of information that never materialized from the Human Genome Project was the identification of the so-called gay gene.*  There is none, Homosexuality is not truly a genetic issue, but as Freud and Socarides theorized - it's a Mental disorder.
> 
> Science vs. the Gay Gene
> 
> Pathology of Homosexuality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it hard to take anything seriously from a site that considers evolution a myth
> 
> Here's some stuff for thought:
> How our genes could make us gay or straight - The Washington Post
> A gay Gene - Is Homosexuality Inherited Assault On Gay America FRONTLINE PBS
> 
> Most scientists seem to think that homosexuality is a combination of genetics (likely not one gene), enviroment, and biology.  It's hard to untangle causes but they're pretty much in agreement that it's hard-wired, not a mental disorder.
Click to expand...





> they're pretty much in agreement that it's hard-wired, not a mental disorder.



Complete and utter Bullshit - the only argument that lends any credence to the possibility of Homosexuality being inherited is the presence of certain brain enzymes in an extremely small percentage of Gay Men - that is not found in heterosexuals.  I not absolutely certain if the percentages -but I believe it was less than 5%


----------



## initforme

Who cares what they do?  Why are some so against them?  Talk about those that have nothing better to do than regulate who marries who... as if it is some kind of threat to America... we have bigger fish to fry.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

80zephyr said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:
> 
> Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News
> 
> Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.
> 
> Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will use the "age of consent" as an excuse.  The age of consent is nothing more than an arbitrary number society agrees on to set policy.
> 
> Sorta like when society deemed marriage was limited to one man and one woman.
> 
> See, its OK to change policy when you agree with it, not so much when you don't. They are simply "bigots" just like us, only their moral standards are a shade lower.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


It hasn't sunk in yet that the same method they used for interpreting the 14th Amendment to protect gay marriage will also be used with not dissimilar methods to protect pedophilia and just about anything else.  It's a recipe for anarchy to apply such myopic exegesis to the Constitution as to render it a document that allows just about anything, rather than a document that limits the power of government in our lives and protects a few essential rights.


----------



## bodecea

GreenBean said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish is babbling.
> 
> Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show evidence that is IS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't have to because the sillies above in the thread flatly state there isn't.  It's their obligation to show by objective evidence.  If there is not any such, then the problem is relative, and the far social con right has clearly shown they have no objective argument for denying marriage equality.
> 
> When their puffed up pretend intelligentsia pops up out of the box and spew their nonsense, it is time to pass coffee and donuts and enjoy the burlesque.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REDFISH: Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JAKEMALARKEY: It's their obligation to show by objective evidence. If there is not any such ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The human genome is complete and the Human Genome Project is over .... Most of the major science journals reported on the progress in the field of genetics, .... The *one piece of information that never materialized from the Human Genome Project was the identification of the so-called gay gene.*  There is none, Homosexuality is not truly a genetic issue, but as Freud and Socarides theorized - it's a Mental disorder.
> 
> Science vs. the Gay Gene
> 
> Pathology of Homosexuality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why is it that 40% of identical twins, if one is gay, the other is gay also....when with other siblings including fraternal twins, the % is simply the average of about 2-10%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually - you're statistics are off somewhat - the actual number of identical twins that are both gay is closer to 50% not 40%
> 
> But that is irrelevant - if homosexuality were genetically determined the number of identical twins with identical genes who are both faggots would teeter in the high 90s - closer to 100% - given the fact that some halfs of the pair of twins would be overtly suppressing their genetic composition.
> 
> The 40 - 50% only proves that the twins involved had identical upbringings and somewhere during their childhood had shared experiences which led to their dementia . [Nurture over Nature]
> 
> As well - in almost all cases of twins - there is a dominant and submissive [or recessive] twin - if the dominant twin becomes Homosexual due to traumatic experience or other underlying factors the recessive or submissive twin will generally follow suit.
Click to expand...

If it were 100% genetic.   But I've not seen anyone make such a claim.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will use the "age of consent" as an excuse.  The age of consent is nothing more than an arbitrary number society agrees on to set policy.
> 
> Sorta like when society deemed marriage was limited to one man and one woman.
> 
> See, its OK to change policy when you agree with it, not so much when you don't. They are simply "bigots" just like us, only their moral standards are a shade lower.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It hasn't sunk in yet that the same method they used for interpreting the 14th Amendment to protect gay marriage will also be used with not dissimilar methods to protect pedophilia and just about anything else.  It's a recipe for anarchy to apply such myopic exegesis to the Constitution as to render it a document that allows just about anything, rather than a document that limits the power of government in our lives and protects a few essential rights.
Click to expand...

So...you cannot see the difference between what goes on between consenting, law-abiding, tax-paying adults.....and what someone does to a child?   That's pretty scary.


----------



## Coyote

GreenBean said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish is babbling.
> 
> Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show evidence that is IS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't have to because the sillies above in the thread flatly state there isn't.  It's their obligation to show by objective evidence.  If there is not any such, then the problem is relative, and the far social con right has clearly shown they have no objective argument for denying marriage equality.
> 
> When their puffed up pretend intelligentsia pops up out of the box and spew their nonsense, it is time to pass coffee and donuts and enjoy the burlesque.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REDFISH: Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JAKEMALARKEY: It's their obligation to show by objective evidence. If there is not any such ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The human genome is complete and the Human Genome Project is over .... Most of the major science journals reported on the progress in the field of genetics, .... The *one piece of information that never materialized from the Human Genome Project was the identification of the so-called gay gene.*  There is none, Homosexuality is not truly a genetic issue, but as Freud and Socarides theorized - it's a Mental disorder.
> 
> Science vs. the Gay Gene
> 
> Pathology of Homosexuality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it hard to take anything seriously from a site that considers evolution a myth
> 
> Here's some stuff for thought:
> How our genes could make us gay or straight - The Washington Post
> A gay Gene - Is Homosexuality Inherited Assault On Gay America FRONTLINE PBS
> 
> Most scientists seem to think that homosexuality is a combination of genetics (likely not one gene), enviroment, and biology.  It's hard to untangle causes but they're pretty much in agreement that it's hard-wired, not a mental disorder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they're pretty much in agreement that it's hard-wired, not a mental disorder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complete and utter Bullshit - the only argument that lends any credence to the possibility of Homosexuality being inherited is the presence of certain brain enzymes in an extremely small percentage of Gay Men - that is not found in heterosexuals.  I not absolutely certain if the percentages -but I believe it was less than 5%
Click to expand...


"hard wired" doesn't mean there is only a genetic component.  It's likely that homosexuality is influenced by a variety of factors including genetics.  What does seem well supported is that it is not simply "a choice" -- it's hard wired.  Which is why so-called ex-gay programs are such an abysmal failure.  They might change the behavior (like celibacy in priests) but it doesn't change the orientation.


----------



## Coyote

GreenBean said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish is babbling.
> 
> Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show evidence that is IS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't have to because the sillies above in the thread flatly state there isn't.  It's their obligation to show by objective evidence.  If there is not any such, then the problem is relative, and the far social con right has clearly shown they have no objective argument for denying marriage equality.
> 
> When their puffed up pretend intelligentsia pops up out of the box and spew their nonsense, it is time to pass coffee and donuts and enjoy the burlesque.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REDFISH: Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JAKEMALARKEY: It's their obligation to show by objective evidence. If there is not any such ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The human genome is complete and the Human Genome Project is over .... Most of the major science journals reported on the progress in the field of genetics, .... The *one piece of information that never materialized from the Human Genome Project was the identification of the so-called gay gene.*  There is none, Homosexuality is not truly a genetic issue, but as Freud and Socarides theorized - it's a Mental disorder.
> 
> Science vs. the Gay Gene
> 
> Pathology of Homosexuality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it hard to take anything seriously from a site that considers evolution a myth
> 
> Here's some stuff for thought:
> How our genes could make us gay or straight - The Washington Post
> A gay Gene - Is Homosexuality Inherited Assault On Gay America FRONTLINE PBS
> 
> Most scientists seem to think that homosexuality is a combination of genetics (likely not one gene), enviroment, and biology.  It's hard to untangle causes but they're pretty much in agreement that it's hard-wired, not a mental disorder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it hard to take anything seriously from a site that considers evolution a myth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coyote - WTF are you babbling about ?   Stop howling at the moon and spit it out little fella
Click to expand...

- The True.Origin Archive -


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

hipeter924 said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who sets the age of consent? It was posted what the different ages of consent are by state. Why are they different?
> 
> They are different because all these numbers are arbitrary. There is no "right" or "wrong" age. Age is set by society using...nothing to base the number on.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The tooth fairy, who do you think? Obviously psychologists, lawmakers, the community, and science experts with knowledge of human biology.
> 
> Age of consent is determined by:
> 
> - The biological age of those involved, this means when someone is ready in a biological sense to engage in sexual activity.
> 
> - Whether someone can realistically consent to sexual activity and be aware of the consequences of that activity.
> 
> - What the parents and wider community have agreed is the the acceptable point where someone get be involved sexually with another.
> 
> - If someone is intellectually developed enough to be able to realistically make their own decisions i.e. obviously from 0-15 that is quite difficult.
> 
> Age of Consent is then supplemented by laws on rape, child abuse, prostitution, and on the treatment of people with intellectual or physical disabilities.
Click to expand...


Sounds subjective, doesn't it?  Why are you going to deny a 40 year old man his 14th Amendment rights to shag a 12 year old girl based on arbitrary permeable standards?  What if the girl thinks she's ready?  Why do you think you can determine their love is wrong?  Take your religious bigotry and intolerance elsewhere and stop imposing your morality on others!


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Her reasons have nothing to do with gay government marriage.  Even if they did, why would it make sense to me?  We just disagree.  We understand each other's views just fine.  We just disagree with them.  It happens.  And she gets her way.  That usually happens too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Civil Marriage is Civil Marriage. Her reasons for wanting a "gubmit" marriage is the same reason gays have for wanting it...and for all the reasons that were listed here.
> 
> 12 Reasons Marriage Equality Matters
> 
> You have your answer, you can stop asking why gays want to be married, married guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You go first, stop advocating your views.  Then talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People aren't allowed to advocate their views now?  Or only uppity gays?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She keeps telling me to stop advocating my views.  I keep saying fine, you go first.  And you ask me that question?
> 
> Seawytch, the one too lazy to read the conversation before jumping in has a question for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I haven't. I think you should advocate your views MORE. I don't think just sniveling about how gays get exactly what you get is enough and that you should be picketing county clerk offices. I mean, how dedicated to stopping "gubmit" marriage are you? (outside your own, of course)
Click to expand...

strawman


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

JakeStarkey said:


> Pastors are not threatened at all.



Now you're just ignoring the facts. This conversation is over.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who are attracted to children can't make a different choice either.  Compulsive hoarding isn't a choice.  No compulsive disorder leaves the sufferer with a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a choice in acting. For me, as a gay woman, the only choice is in acting upon my natural or god given inclinations. As long as I am acting upon those natural inclinations with another consenting adult, whose fucking business is it and why should I be denied the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage because my life partner of choice happens to be the same gender I am?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And who are you to define what a consenting adult is? I mean, if you want to be honest, your conditions are as arbitrary as mine are.
> 
> I just happen to have a higher standard of morality than you.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you being intentionally obtuse because you're arguments have failed? The age of consent is defined by law.It varies from state to state. A 40 year old man can marry his 15 year old 1st cousin in Alabama and it is legally recognized in all 50 states, even states that don't allow 15 year old 1st cousins to marry. My civil marriage to my same sex spouse that I married when she was well over the age of 18 and not related to me, is not recognized in all 50 states. That's discrimination in case you were wondering.
> 
> No, you don't have a higher standard of morality, you have a different view of what is moral and what is not. That you think yours is "better" is your opinion (and a sin).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the way, your "age of consent is lower in Bible belt states" statement was yet another lie.  That's not the trend at all.  Stop lying, Leftists!
> 
> *Alabama16
> Alaska16
> Arizona18
> Arkansas16
> California18
> Colorado15
> Connecticut15
> D.C.16
> Delaware16
> Florida16/18 (bill pending)
> Georgia16
> Hawaii14
> Idaho14
> Illinois16/17
> Indiana16
> Iowa18
> Kansas16
> Kentucky16 - [1]
> Louisiana17
> Maine16
> Maryland16
> Massachusetts16/18
> Michigan16
> Minnesota16
> Mississippi16 - [2]
> Missouri17
> Montana16
> Nebraska16
> Nevada16
> New Hampshire16/18
> New Jersey16/18
> New Mexico17
> New York17
> North Carolina16
> North Dakota18
> Ohio16
> Oklahoma16
> Oregon18
> Pennsylvania16
> Rhode Island16
> South Carolina14/16
> South Dakota16
> Tennessee18
> Texas17
> Utah16/18
> Vermont16
> Virginia15
> Washington16
> West Virginia16
> Wisconsin18
> Wyoming16
> Puerto Rico18
> 
> Age of Consent - by State*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You responded to me and I said nothing about the Bible Belt states. You ignored my statement which is that age of consent laws are only going up in the United States, not down...despite marriage equality being a reality. You are claiming age of consent will be lowered because gays are marrying and yet there is no evidence to support your claim...anywhere.
Click to expand...


Actually you did say that the age of consent is lower in Bible belt states and now you're just lying.  We're through here.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who sets the age of consent? It was posted what the different ages of consent are by state. Why are they different?
> 
> They are different because all these numbers are arbitrary. There is no "right" or "wrong" age. Age is set by society using...nothing to base the number on.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The tooth fairy, who do you think? Obviously psychologists, lawmakers, the community, and science experts with knowledge of human biology.
> 
> Age of consent is determined by:
> 
> - The biological age of those involved, this means when someone is ready in a biological sense to engage in sexual activity.
> 
> - Whether someone can realistically consent to sexual activity and be aware of the consequences of that activity.
> 
> - What the parents and wider community have agreed is the the acceptable point where someone get be involved sexually with another.
> 
> - If someone is intellectually developed enough to be able to realistically make their own decisions i.e. obviously from 0-15 that is quite difficult.
> 
> Age of Consent is then supplemented by laws on rape, child abuse, prostitution, and on the treatment of people with intellectual or physical disabilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds subjective, doesn't it?  *Why are you going to deny a 40 year old man his 14th Amendment rights to shag a 12 year old girl based on arbitrary permeable standards?*  What if the girl thinks she's ready?  Why do you think you can determine their love is wrong?  Take your religious bigotry and intolerance elsewhere and stop imposing your morality on others!
Click to expand...

This is a pretty scary post.  It shows that you cannot discern the difference between consenting adults and a 12 year old being sexually abused by an adult.


----------



## bodecea

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civil Marriage is Civil Marriage. Her reasons for wanting a "gubmit" marriage is the same reason gays have for wanting it...and for all the reasons that were listed here.
> 
> 12 Reasons Marriage Equality Matters
> 
> You have your answer, you can stop asking why gays want to be married, married guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You go first, stop advocating your views.  Then talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People aren't allowed to advocate their views now?  Or only uppity gays?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She keeps telling me to stop advocating my views.  I keep saying fine, you go first.  And you ask me that question?
> 
> Seawytch, the one too lazy to read the conversation before jumping in has a question for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I haven't. I think you should advocate your views MORE. I don't think just sniveling about how gays get exactly what you get is enough and that you should be picketing county clerk offices. I mean, how dedicated to stopping "gubmit" marriage are you? (outside your own, of course)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> strawman
Click to expand...

What is a "strawman" about actually doing something about your beliefs?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish is babbling.
> 
> Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show evidence that is IS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't have to because the sillies above in the thread flatly state there isn't.  It's their obligation to show by objective evidence.  If there is not any such, then the problem is relative, and the far social con right has clearly shown they have no objective argument for denying marriage equality.
> 
> When their puffed up pretend intelligentsia pops up out of the box and spew their nonsense, it is time to pass coffee and donuts and enjoy the burlesque.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REDFISH: Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JAKEMALARKEY: It's their obligation to show by objective evidence. If there is not any such ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The human genome is complete and the Human Genome Project is over .... Most of the major science journals reported on the progress in the field of genetics, .... The *one piece of information that never materialized from the Human Genome Project was the identification of the so-called gay gene.*  There is none, Homosexuality is not truly a genetic issue, but as Freud and Socarides theorized - it's a Mental disorder.
> 
> Science vs. the Gay Gene
> 
> Pathology of Homosexuality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it hard to take anything seriously from a site that considers evolution a myth
> 
> Here's some stuff for thought:
> How our genes could make us gay or straight - The Washington Post
> A gay Gene - Is Homosexuality Inherited Assault On Gay America FRONTLINE PBS
> 
> Most scientists seem to think that homosexuality is a combination of genetics (likely not one gene), enviroment, and biology.  It's hard to untangle causes but they're pretty much in agreement that it's hard-wired, not a mental disorder.
Click to expand...


Evolution is a myth.  I would have a hard time believing anything from a site that thinks we came from crap flinging apes....though in your case..


----------



## kaz

bodecea said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You go first, stop advocating your views.  Then talk.
> 
> 
> 
> People aren't allowed to advocate their views now?  Or only uppity gays?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She keeps telling me to stop advocating my views.  I keep saying fine, you go first.  And you ask me that question?
> 
> Seawytch, the one too lazy to read the conversation before jumping in has a question for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I haven't. I think you should advocate your views MORE. I don't think just sniveling about how gays get exactly what you get is enough and that you should be picketing county clerk offices. I mean, how dedicated to stopping "gubmit" marriage are you? (outside your own, of course)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> strawman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is a "strawman" about actually doing something about your beliefs?
Click to expand...


strawman


----------



## Coyote

JakeStarkey said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bull f*cking shit! Idaho city s ordinance tells pastors to marry gays or go to jail - Washington Times
> 
> 
> 
> That was a for-profit wedding chapel like those you see in Vegas.   You DID know that, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> PASTORS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For Profit Business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't seem to get that ALL PASTORS were being threatened, so you're wrong, and like any stubborn Leftist, you can't admit when you're wrong because you'd never stop.  That's a dangerous combination, incorrigibility and ignorance, and you model it well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pastors are not threatened at all.
> 
> For-profit marriage businesses will be closed.
> 
> Different thing altogether.
Click to expand...



Jake - where did you read it only applied to For-profit?  I couldn't find that (maybe I missed it).  If it's for profit - then they aren't protected under religious freedom?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will use the "age of consent" as an excuse.  The age of consent is nothing more than an arbitrary number society agrees on to set policy.
> 
> Sorta like when society deemed marriage was limited to one man and one woman.
> 
> See, its OK to change policy when you agree with it, not so much when you don't. They are simply "bigots" just like us, only their moral standards are a shade lower.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It hasn't sunk in yet that the same method they used for interpreting the 14th Amendment to protect gay marriage will also be used with not dissimilar methods to protect pedophilia and just about anything else.  It's a recipe for anarchy to apply such myopic exegesis to the Constitution as to render it a document that allows just about anything, rather than a document that limits the power of government in our lives and protects a few essential rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...you cannot see the difference between what goes on between consenting, law-abiding, tax-paying adults.....and what someone does to a child?   That's pretty scary.
Click to expand...


I'm talking about the legal argument used to pervert the 14th Amendment to mean something it never intended.  Such flawed legal theory is ubiquitous enough that it can be used to find any law restricting lifestyle choice to be unconstitutional.


----------



## hipeter924

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who sets the age of consent? It was posted what the different ages of consent are by state. Why are they different?
> 
> They are different because all these numbers are arbitrary. There is no "right" or "wrong" age. Age is set by society using...nothing to base the number on.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The tooth fairy, who do you think? Obviously psychologists, lawmakers, the community, and science experts with knowledge of human biology.
> 
> Age of consent is determined by:
> 
> - The biological age of those involved, this means when someone is ready in a biological sense to engage in sexual activity.
> 
> - Whether someone can realistically consent to sexual activity and be aware of the consequences of that activity.
> 
> - What the parents and wider community have agreed is the the acceptable point where someone get be involved sexually with another.
> 
> - If someone is intellectually developed enough to be able to realistically make their own decisions i.e. obviously from 0-15 that is quite difficult.
> 
> Age of Consent is then supplemented by laws on rape, child abuse, prostitution, and on the treatment of people with intellectual or physical disabilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds subjective, doesn't it?  Why are you going to deny a 40 year old man his 14th Amendment rights to shag a 12 year old girl based on arbitrary permeable standards?  *What if the girl thinks she's ready?  Why do you think you can determine their love is wrong?*  Take your religious bigotry and intolerance elsewhere and stop imposing your morality on others!
Click to expand...

 What if someone gets kidnapped and falls in love with their kidnapper, does that make the act of kidnapping right? If someone gets raped and gains some forced pleasure out of it, does that make the act of rape right? What if you have sex with a goat, and the goat likes it, by your silly logic that becomes permissible too.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who sets the age of consent? It was posted what the different ages of consent are by state. Why are they different?
> 
> They are different because all these numbers are arbitrary. There is no "right" or "wrong" age. Age is set by society using...nothing to base the number on.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The tooth fairy, who do you think? Obviously psychologists, lawmakers, the community, and science experts with knowledge of human biology.
> 
> Age of consent is determined by:
> 
> - The biological age of those involved, this means when someone is ready in a biological sense to engage in sexual activity.
> 
> - Whether someone can realistically consent to sexual activity and be aware of the consequences of that activity.
> 
> - What the parents and wider community have agreed is the the acceptable point where someone get be involved sexually with another.
> 
> - If someone is intellectually developed enough to be able to realistically make their own decisions i.e. obviously from 0-15 that is quite difficult.
> 
> Age of Consent is then supplemented by laws on rape, child abuse, prostitution, and on the treatment of people with intellectual or physical disabilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds subjective, doesn't it?  *Why are you going to deny a 40 year old man his 14th Amendment rights to shag a 12 year old girl based on arbitrary permeable standards?*  What if the girl thinks she's ready?  Why do you think you can determine their love is wrong?  Take your religious bigotry and intolerance elsewhere and stop imposing your morality on others!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a pretty scary post.  It shows that you cannot discern the difference between consenting adults and a 12 year old being sexually abused by an adult.
Click to expand...


That's what happens when you treat morality as relative instead of absolute. It backfires.  Who are you to say that she's being abused and what makes you so sure your truth is more valid than theirs?


----------



## GreenBean

Coyote said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish is babbling.
> 
> Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show evidence that is IS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't have to because the sillies above in the thread flatly state there isn't.  It's their obligation to show by objective evidence.  If there is not any such, then the problem is relative, and the far social con right has clearly shown they have no objective argument for denying marriage equality.
> 
> When their puffed up pretend intelligentsia pops up out of the box and spew their nonsense, it is time to pass coffee and donuts and enjoy the burlesque.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REDFISH: Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JAKEMALARKEY: It's their obligation to show by objective evidence. If there is not any such ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The human genome is complete and the Human Genome Project is over .... Most of the major science journals reported on the progress in the field of genetics, .... The *one piece of information that never materialized from the Human Genome Project was the identification of the so-called gay gene.*  There is none, Homosexuality is not truly a genetic issue, but as Freud and Socarides theorized - it's a Mental disorder.
> 
> Science vs. the Gay Gene
> 
> Pathology of Homosexuality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it hard to take anything seriously from a site that considers evolution a myth
> 
> Here's some stuff for thought:
> How our genes could make us gay or straight - The Washington Post
> A gay Gene - Is Homosexuality Inherited Assault On Gay America FRONTLINE PBS
> 
> Most scientists seem to think that homosexuality is a combination of genetics (likely not one gene), enviroment, and biology.  It's hard to untangle causes but they're pretty much in agreement that it's hard-wired, not a mental disorder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it hard to take anything seriously from a site that considers evolution a myth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coyote - WTF are you babbling about ?   Stop howling at the moon and spit it out little fella
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> - The True.Origin Archive -
Click to expand...



Okay - so what has that to do with what I posted ?

I don't always you agree with what you post - in fact some of your stuff is off the wall - does that mean you lose ALL credibility.  The article YOU linked to is not the article I linked to -  if you can't refute the content and they are presenting valid evidence who cares what their other opinions are ? 

And just for the record - I'm not a Christian and have written against Christianity on an independent blog I maintain - so don't even try the Bible thumper argument .


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

hipeter924 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who sets the age of consent? It was posted what the different ages of consent are by state. Why are they different?
> 
> They are different because all these numbers are arbitrary. There is no "right" or "wrong" age. Age is set by society using...nothing to base the number on.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The tooth fairy, who do you think? Obviously psychologists, lawmakers, the community, and science experts with knowledge of human biology.
> 
> Age of consent is determined by:
> 
> - The biological age of those involved, this means when someone is ready in a biological sense to engage in sexual activity.
> 
> - Whether someone can realistically consent to sexual activity and be aware of the consequences of that activity.
> 
> - What the parents and wider community have agreed is the the acceptable point where someone get be involved sexually with another.
> 
> - If someone is intellectually developed enough to be able to realistically make their own decisions i.e. obviously from 0-15 that is quite difficult.
> 
> Age of Consent is then supplemented by laws on rape, child abuse, prostitution, and on the treatment of people with intellectual or physical disabilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds subjective, doesn't it?  Why are you going to deny a 40 year old man his 14th Amendment rights to shag a 12 year old girl based on arbitrary permeable standards?  *What if the girl thinks she's ready?  Why do you think you can determine their love is wrong?*  Take your religious bigotry and intolerance elsewhere and stop imposing your morality on others!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What if someone gets kidnapped and falls in love with their kidnapper, does that make the act of kidnapping right? If someone gets raped and gains some forced pleasure out of it, does that make the act of rape right? What if you have sex with a goat, and the goat likes it, by your silly logic that becomes permissible too.
Click to expand...



No, actually that's YOUR SILLY LOGIC that's on display here, being repurposed to promote and defend pedophilia.  That's the problem with sexual depravity, you don't get to pick and choose because they are all fruit from the same rotten tree.


----------



## hipeter924

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who sets the age of consent? It was posted what the different ages of consent are by state. Why are they different?
> 
> They are different because all these numbers are arbitrary. There is no "right" or "wrong" age. Age is set by society using...nothing to base the number on.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The tooth fairy, who do you think? Obviously psychologists, lawmakers, the community, and science experts with knowledge of human biology.
> 
> Age of consent is determined by:
> 
> - The biological age of those involved, this means when someone is ready in a biological sense to engage in sexual activity.
> 
> - Whether someone can realistically consent to sexual activity and be aware of the consequences of that activity.
> 
> - What the parents and wider community have agreed is the the acceptable point where someone get be involved sexually with another.
> 
> - If someone is intellectually developed enough to be able to realistically make their own decisions i.e. obviously from 0-15 that is quite difficult.
> 
> Age of Consent is then supplemented by laws on rape, child abuse, prostitution, and on the treatment of people with intellectual or physical disabilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds subjective, doesn't it?  *Why are you going to deny a 40 year old man his 14th Amendment rights to shag a 12 year old girl based on arbitrary permeable standards?*  What if the girl thinks she's ready?  Why do you think you can determine their love is wrong?  Take your religious bigotry and intolerance elsewhere and stop imposing your morality on others!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a pretty scary post.  It shows that you cannot discern the difference between consenting adults and a 12 year old being sexually abused by an adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what happens when you treat morality as relative instead of absolute. It backfires.  Who are you to say that she's being abused and what makes you so sure your truth is more valid than theirs?
Click to expand...

 The argument for allowing homosexual relations, is not that people take pleasure out of it, or even love - as that isn't a requirement for heterosexual relations either.


----------



## GreenBean

Coyote said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish is babbling.
> 
> Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show evidence that is IS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't have to because the sillies above in the thread flatly state there isn't.  It's their obligation to show by objective evidence.  If there is not any such, then the problem is relative, and the far social con right has clearly shown they have no objective argument for denying marriage equality.
> 
> When their puffed up pretend intelligentsia pops up out of the box and spew their nonsense, it is time to pass coffee and donuts and enjoy the burlesque.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REDFISH: Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JAKEMALARKEY: It's their obligation to show by objective evidence. If there is not any such ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The human genome is complete and the Human Genome Project is over .... Most of the major science journals reported on the progress in the field of genetics, .... The *one piece of information that never materialized from the Human Genome Project was the identification of the so-called gay gene.*  There is none, Homosexuality is not truly a genetic issue, but as Freud and Socarides theorized - it's a Mental disorder.
> 
> Science vs. the Gay Gene
> 
> Pathology of Homosexuality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it hard to take anything seriously from a site that considers evolution a myth
> 
> Here's some stuff for thought:
> How our genes could make us gay or straight - The Washington Post
> A gay Gene - Is Homosexuality Inherited Assault On Gay America FRONTLINE PBS
> 
> Most scientists seem to think that homosexuality is a combination of genetics (likely not one gene), enviroment, and biology.  It's hard to untangle causes but they're pretty much in agreement that it's hard-wired, not a mental disorder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they're pretty much in agreement that it's hard-wired, not a mental disorder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complete and utter Bullshit - the only argument that lends any credence to the possibility of Homosexuality being inherited is the presence of certain brain enzymes in an extremely small percentage of Gay Men - that is not found in heterosexuals.  I not absolutely certain if the percentages -but I believe it was less than 5%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "hard wired" doesn't mean there is only a genetic component.  It's likely that homosexuality is influenced by a variety of factors including genetics.  What does seem well supported is that it is not simply "a choice" -- it's hard wired.  Which is why so-called ex-gay programs are such an abysmal failure.  They might change the behavior (like celibacy in priests) but it doesn't change the orientation.
Click to expand...



The evidence is against you - anyone who claims it is hard wired without a shred of viable evidence is biased - just curious Coyote - are you a Fag ?

Take your time getting back to me as I am logging off for now - the real world beckons.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coyote said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was a for-profit wedding chapel like those you see in Vegas.   You DID know that, right?
> 
> 
> 
> PASTORS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For Profit Business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't seem to get that ALL PASTORS were being threatened, so you're wrong, and like any stubborn Leftist, you can't admit when you're wrong because you'd never stop.  That's a dangerous combination, incorrigibility and ignorance, and you model it well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pastors are not threatened at all.
> 
> For-profit marriage businesses will be closed.
> 
> Different thing altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jake - where did you read it only applied to For-profit?  I couldn't find that (maybe I missed it).  If it's for profit - then they aren't protected under religious freedom?
Click to expand...


The Hobby Lobby ruling would seem to militate against that theory, I agree.


----------



## JakeStarkey

GreenBean said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish is babbling.
> 
> Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show evidence that is IS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't have to because the sillies above in the thread flatly state there isn't.  It's their obligation to show by objective evidence.  If there is not any such, then the problem is relative, and the far social con right has clearly shown they have no objective argument for denying marriage equality.
> 
> When their puffed up pretend intelligentsia pops up out of the box and spew their nonsense, it is time to pass coffee and donuts and enjoy the burlesque.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REDFISH: Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JAKEMALARKEY: It's their obligation to show by objective evidence. If there is not any such ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The human genome is complete and the Human Genome Project is over .... Most of the major science journals reported on the progress in the field of genetics, .... The *one piece of information that never materialized from the Human Genome Project was the identification of the so-called gay gene.*  There is none, Homosexuality is not truly a genetic issue, but as Freud and Socarides theorized - it's a Mental disorder.
> 
> Science vs. the Gay Gene
> 
> Pathology of Homosexuality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it hard to take anything seriously from a site that considers evolution a myth
> 
> Here's some stuff for thought:
> How our genes could make us gay or straight - The Washington Post
> A gay Gene - Is Homosexuality Inherited Assault On Gay America FRONTLINE PBS
> 
> Most scientists seem to think that homosexuality is a combination of genetics (likely not one gene), enviroment, and biology.  It's hard to untangle causes but they're pretty much in agreement that it's hard-wired, not a mental disorder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they're pretty much in agreement that it's hard-wired, not a mental disorder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complete and utter Bullshit - the only argument that lends any credence to the possibility of Homosexuality being inherited is the presence of certain brain enzymes in an extremely small percentage of Gay Men - that is not found in heterosexuals.  I not absolutely certain if the percentages -but I believe it was less than 5%
Click to expand...


In other words, you don't have the evidence to discount genetically determined homosexuality.  OK.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

hipeter924 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who sets the age of consent? It was posted what the different ages of consent are by state. Why are they different?
> 
> They are different because all these numbers are arbitrary. There is no "right" or "wrong" age. Age is set by society using...nothing to base the number on.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> The tooth fairy, who do you think? Obviously psychologists, lawmakers, the community, and science experts with knowledge of human biology.
> 
> Age of consent is determined by:
> 
> - The biological age of those involved, this means when someone is ready in a biological sense to engage in sexual activity.
> 
> - Whether someone can realistically consent to sexual activity and be aware of the consequences of that activity.
> 
> - What the parents and wider community have agreed is the the acceptable point where someone get be involved sexually with another.
> 
> - If someone is intellectually developed enough to be able to realistically make their own decisions i.e. obviously from 0-15 that is quite difficult.
> 
> Age of Consent is then supplemented by laws on rape, child abuse, prostitution, and on the treatment of people with intellectual or physical disabilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds subjective, doesn't it?  *Why are you going to deny a 40 year old man his 14th Amendment rights to shag a 12 year old girl based on arbitrary permeable standards?*  What if the girl thinks she's ready?  Why do you think you can determine their love is wrong?  Take your religious bigotry and intolerance elsewhere and stop imposing your morality on others!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a pretty scary post.  It shows that you cannot discern the difference between consenting adults and a 12 year old being sexually abused by an adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what happens when you treat morality as relative instead of absolute. It backfires.  Who are you to say that she's being abused and what makes you so sure your truth is more valid than theirs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument for allowing homosexual relations, is not that people take pleasure out of it, or even love - as that isn't a requirement for heterosexual relations either.
Click to expand...


Which doesn't help you.  Maybe the 12 year old girls wants to get pregnant.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

JakeStarkey said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish is babbling.
> 
> Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show evidence that is IS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't have to because the sillies above in the thread flatly state there isn't.  It's their obligation to show by objective evidence.  If there is not any such, then the problem is relative, and the far social con right has clearly shown they have no objective argument for denying marriage equality.
> 
> When their puffed up pretend intelligentsia pops up out of the box and spew their nonsense, it is time to pass coffee and donuts and enjoy the burlesque.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REDFISH: Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JAKEMALARKEY: It's their obligation to show by objective evidence. If there is not any such ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The human genome is complete and the Human Genome Project is over .... Most of the major science journals reported on the progress in the field of genetics, .... The *one piece of information that never materialized from the Human Genome Project was the identification of the so-called gay gene.*  There is none, Homosexuality is not truly a genetic issue, but as Freud and Socarides theorized - it's a Mental disorder.
> 
> Science vs. the Gay Gene
> 
> Pathology of Homosexuality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it hard to take anything seriously from a site that considers evolution a myth
> 
> Here's some stuff for thought:
> How our genes could make us gay or straight - The Washington Post
> A gay Gene - Is Homosexuality Inherited Assault On Gay America FRONTLINE PBS
> 
> Most scientists seem to think that homosexuality is a combination of genetics (likely not one gene), enviroment, and biology.  It's hard to untangle causes but they're pretty much in agreement that it's hard-wired, not a mental disorder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they're pretty much in agreement that it's hard-wired, not a mental disorder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complete and utter Bullshit - the only argument that lends any credence to the possibility of Homosexuality being inherited is the presence of certain brain enzymes in an extremely small percentage of Gay Men - that is not found in heterosexuals.  I not absolutely certain if the percentages -but I believe it was less than 5%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't have the evidence to discount genetically determined homosexuality.  OK.
Click to expand...


There's no such thing as a genetically determined lifestyle *CHOICE*.


----------



## hipeter924

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who sets the age of consent? It was posted what the different ages of consent are by state. Why are they different?
> 
> They are different because all these numbers are arbitrary. There is no "right" or "wrong" age. Age is set by society using...nothing to base the number on.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The tooth fairy, who do you think? Obviously psychologists, lawmakers, the community, and science experts with knowledge of human biology.
> 
> Age of consent is determined by:
> 
> - The biological age of those involved, this means when someone is ready in a biological sense to engage in sexual activity.
> 
> - Whether someone can realistically consent to sexual activity and be aware of the consequences of that activity.
> 
> - What the parents and wider community have agreed is the the acceptable point where someone get be involved sexually with another.
> 
> - If someone is intellectually developed enough to be able to realistically make their own decisions i.e. obviously from 0-15 that is quite difficult.
> 
> Age of Consent is then supplemented by laws on rape, child abuse, prostitution, and on the treatment of people with intellectual or physical disabilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds subjective, doesn't it?  Why are you going to deny a 40 year old man his 14th Amendment rights to shag a 12 year old girl based on arbitrary permeable standards?  *What if the girl thinks she's ready?  Why do you think you can determine their love is wrong?*  Take your religious bigotry and intolerance elsewhere and stop imposing your morality on others!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What if someone gets kidnapped and falls in love with their kidnapper, does that make the act of kidnapping right? If someone gets raped and gains some forced pleasure out of it, does that make the act of rape right? What if you have sex with a goat, and the goat likes it, by your silly logic that becomes permissible too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually that's YOUR SILLY LOGIC that's on display here*, being repurposed to promote and defend pedophilia*.  That's the problem with sexual depravity, you don't get to pick and choose because they are all fruit from the same rotten tree.
Click to expand...

 Damn. You really are out of touch.

It would suck to actually believe that there is any link between homosexuality and pedophilia, and to see 'gay agendas' like other people see ghosts and invisible friends.


----------



## hipeter924

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tooth fairy, who do you think? Obviously psychologists, lawmakers, the community, and science experts with knowledge of human biology.
> 
> Age of consent is determined by:
> 
> - The biological age of those involved, this means when someone is ready in a biological sense to engage in sexual activity.
> 
> - Whether someone can realistically consent to sexual activity and be aware of the consequences of that activity.
> 
> - What the parents and wider community have agreed is the the acceptable point where someone get be involved sexually with another.
> 
> - If someone is intellectually developed enough to be able to realistically make their own decisions i.e. obviously from 0-15 that is quite difficult.
> 
> Age of Consent is then supplemented by laws on rape, child abuse, prostitution, and on the treatment of people with intellectual or physical disabilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds subjective, doesn't it?  *Why are you going to deny a 40 year old man his 14th Amendment rights to shag a 12 year old girl based on arbitrary permeable standards?*  What if the girl thinks she's ready?  Why do you think you can determine their love is wrong?  Take your religious bigotry and intolerance elsewhere and stop imposing your morality on others!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a pretty scary post.  It shows that you cannot discern the difference between consenting adults and a 12 year old being sexually abused by an adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what happens when you treat morality as relative instead of absolute. It backfires.  Who are you to say that she's being abused and what makes you so sure your truth is more valid than theirs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument for allowing homosexual relations, is not that people take pleasure out of it, or even love - as that isn't a requirement for heterosexual relations either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which doesn't help you.  Maybe the 12 year old girls wants to get pregnant.
Click to expand...

Maybe someone wants to commit suicide, maybe someone wants to murder. Come on seriously?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The social con far right wacks will not be allowed to make arbitrary permissible standards about who can marry who.  Those days are over.

Once again the social con crazies make arguments _ab absurdum_ about marriage equality as a slippery slope.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

hipeter924 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who sets the age of consent? It was posted what the different ages of consent are by state. Why are they different?
> 
> They are different because all these numbers are arbitrary. There is no "right" or "wrong" age. Age is set by society using...nothing to base the number on.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> The tooth fairy, who do you think? Obviously psychologists, lawmakers, the community, and science experts with knowledge of human biology.
> 
> Age of consent is determined by:
> 
> - The biological age of those involved, this means when someone is ready in a biological sense to engage in sexual activity.
> 
> - Whether someone can realistically consent to sexual activity and be aware of the consequences of that activity.
> 
> - What the parents and wider community have agreed is the the acceptable point where someone get be involved sexually with another.
> 
> - If someone is intellectually developed enough to be able to realistically make their own decisions i.e. obviously from 0-15 that is quite difficult.
> 
> Age of Consent is then supplemented by laws on rape, child abuse, prostitution, and on the treatment of people with intellectual or physical disabilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds subjective, doesn't it?  Why are you going to deny a 40 year old man his 14th Amendment rights to shag a 12 year old girl based on arbitrary permeable standards?  *What if the girl thinks she's ready?  Why do you think you can determine their love is wrong?*  Take your religious bigotry and intolerance elsewhere and stop imposing your morality on others!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What if someone gets kidnapped and falls in love with their kidnapper, does that make the act of kidnapping right? If someone gets raped and gains some forced pleasure out of it, does that make the act of rape right? What if you have sex with a goat, and the goat likes it, by your silly logic that becomes permissible too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually that's YOUR SILLY LOGIC that's on display here*, being repurposed to promote and defend pedophilia*.  That's the problem with sexual depravity, you don't get to pick and choose because they are all fruit from the same rotten tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn. You really are out of touch. It would suck to actually believe that there is any link between homosexuality and pedophilia, and to see 'gay agendas' like other people see ghosts and invisible friends.
Click to expand...


Sounds like you ran out of arguments.  Better luck next time.


----------



## Lilah

Would a hermaphrodite be wired for straight or gay sex?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

JakeStarkey said:


> The social con far right wacks will not be allowed to make arbitrary permissible standards about who can marry who.  Those days are over.
> 
> Once again the social con crazies make arguments _ab absurdum_ about marriage equality as a slippery slope.



So you agree it's time to allow NAMBLA members to start loving little boys and marrying them, right?  Or do you have a few "arbitrary permissible standards" of your own you think are more valid than others?  

Damn, it's so fun to turn moral relativist arguments against them!


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Lilah said:


> Would a hermaphrodite be wired for straight or gay sex?



That's called a birth defect, just like homosexuality and just like "man who thinks he's a woman".  Birth defects are not an excuse to force the freak show on everyone else.


----------



## hipeter924

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tooth fairy, who do you think? Obviously psychologists, lawmakers, the community, and science experts with knowledge of human biology.
> 
> Age of consent is determined by:
> 
> - The biological age of those involved, this means when someone is ready in a biological sense to engage in sexual activity.
> 
> - Whether someone can realistically consent to sexual activity and be aware of the consequences of that activity.
> 
> - What the parents and wider community have agreed is the the acceptable point where someone get be involved sexually with another.
> 
> - If someone is intellectually developed enough to be able to realistically make their own decisions i.e. obviously from 0-15 that is quite difficult.
> 
> Age of Consent is then supplemented by laws on rape, child abuse, prostitution, and on the treatment of people with intellectual or physical disabilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds subjective, doesn't it?  Why are you going to deny a 40 year old man his 14th Amendment rights to shag a 12 year old girl based on arbitrary permeable standards?  *What if the girl thinks she's ready?  Why do you think you can determine their love is wrong?*  Take your religious bigotry and intolerance elsewhere and stop imposing your morality on others!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What if someone gets kidnapped and falls in love with their kidnapper, does that make the act of kidnapping right? If someone gets raped and gains some forced pleasure out of it, does that make the act of rape right? What if you have sex with a goat, and the goat likes it, by your silly logic that becomes permissible too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually that's YOUR SILLY LOGIC that's on display here*, being repurposed to promote and defend pedophilia*.  That's the problem with sexual depravity, you don't get to pick and choose because they are all fruit from the same rotten tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn. You really are out of touch. It would suck to actually believe that there is any link between homosexuality and pedophilia, and to see 'gay agendas' like other people see ghosts and invisible friends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like you ran out of arguments.  Better luck next time.
Click to expand...

 Lol. You had an argument?

You provided no evidence to support your points, and spent I don't know how many pages bitching on about 'pedophilia' and 'depravity'. 

Who wouldn't be bored by now.


----------



## Lilah

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would a hermaphrodite be wired for straight or gay sex?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's called a birth defect, just like homosexuality and just like "man who thinks he's a woman".  Birth defects are not an excuse to force the freak show on everyone else.
Click to expand...


Has anyone ever forced you to commit to straight or gay?  What if the doctor gets it wrong when he/she leaves the person with only one form of genitalia? Would that mistake manifest into (your words)  a 'freak show?'


----------



## bodecea

Lilah said:


> Would a hermaphrodite be wired for straight or gay sex?


I honestly don't know....but I do remember reading that there are a lot more hermaphrodites born than we would guess.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The social con far right wacks will not be allowed to make arbitrary permissible standards about who can marry who.  Those days are over.
> 
> Once again the social con crazies make arguments _ab absurdum_ about marriage equality as a slippery slope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree it's time to allow NAMBLA members to start loving little boys and marrying them, right?  Or do you have a few "arbitrary permissible standards" of your own you think are more valid than others?
> 
> Damn, it's so fun to turn moral relativist arguments against them!
Click to expand...

I hope that isn't the argument you are trying to make here.   But.......as I noted earlier, you can't seem to distinquish between consent of law-abiding, tax-paying adults....and an adult sexually abusing a child.


----------



## Lilah

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would a hermaphrodite be wired for straight or gay sex?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's called a birth defect, just like homosexuality and just like "man who thinks he's a woman".  Birth defects are not an excuse to force the freak show on everyone else.
Click to expand...


Has anyone ever forced you to commit to straight or gay?  What if the doctor gets it wrong when he/she leaves the person with only one form of genitalia? Would that mistake manifest into (your words)  a 'freak show?'


bodecea said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would a hermaphrodite be wired for straight or gay sex?
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly don't know....but I do remember reading that there are a lot more hermaphrodites born than we would guess.
Click to expand...


I became aware when I read the book, _Middlesex_.  It was very eye-opening, as well as very sad.


----------



## hipeter924

JakeStarkey said:


> The social con far right wacks will not be allowed to make arbitrary permissible standards about who can marry who.  Those days are over.
> 
> Once again the social con crazies make arguments _ab absurdum_ about marriage equality as a slippery slope.


They are sore losers, and so get more desperate and paranoid about gays, even as the rest of America cares less and less about what two adults get up to in their bedroom, let alone who they marry: Gay Marriage Pew Research Center


> 2013
> Against: 43 For: 50
> 2014
> Against: 39 For: 54


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The social con far right wacks will not be allowed to make arbitrary permissible standards about who can marry who.  Those days are over.
> 
> Once again the social con crazies make arguments _ab absurdum_ about marriage equality as a slippery slope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree it's time to allow NAMBLA members to start loving little boys and marrying them, right?  Or do you have a few "arbitrary permissible standards" of your own you think are more valid than others?
> 
> Damn, it's so fun to turn moral relativist arguments against them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hope that isn't the argument you are trying to make here.   But.......as I noted earlier, you can't seem to distinquish between consent of law-abiding, tax-paying adults....and an adult sexually abusing a child.
Click to expand...


Law abiding, tax paying adults?  Can you dig your hole any deeper?  Half the country doesn't pay taxes and many people don't obey the law...which has virtually NOTHING to do with this discussion.  You're getting desperate now.


----------



## Coyote

GreenBean said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't have to because the sillies above in the thread flatly state there isn't.  It's their obligation to show by objective evidence.  If there is not any such, then the problem is relative, and the far social con right has clearly shown they have no objective argument for denying marriage equality.
> 
> When their puffed up pretend intelligentsia pops up out of the box and spew their nonsense, it is time to pass coffee and donuts and enjoy the burlesque.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REDFISH: Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JAKEMALARKEY: It's their obligation to show by objective evidence. If there is not any such ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The human genome is complete and the Human Genome Project is over .... Most of the major science journals reported on the progress in the field of genetics, .... The *one piece of information that never materialized from the Human Genome Project was the identification of the so-called gay gene.*  There is none, Homosexuality is not truly a genetic issue, but as Freud and Socarides theorized - it's a Mental disorder.
> 
> Science vs. the Gay Gene
> 
> Pathology of Homosexuality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it hard to take anything seriously from a site that considers evolution a myth
> 
> Here's some stuff for thought:
> How our genes could make us gay or straight - The Washington Post
> A gay Gene - Is Homosexuality Inherited Assault On Gay America FRONTLINE PBS
> 
> Most scientists seem to think that homosexuality is a combination of genetics (likely not one gene), enviroment, and biology.  It's hard to untangle causes but they're pretty much in agreement that it's hard-wired, not a mental disorder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it hard to take anything seriously from a site that considers evolution a myth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coyote - WTF are you babbling about ?   Stop howling at the moon and spit it out little fella
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> - The True.Origin Archive -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay - so what has that to do with what I posted ?
> 
> I don't always you agree with what you post - in fact some of your stuff is off the wall - does that mean you lose ALL credibility.  The article YOU linked to is not the article I linked to -  if you can't refute the content and they are presenting valid evidence who cares what their other opinions are ?
> 
> And just for the record - I'm not a Christian and have written against Christianity on an independent blog I maintain - so don't even try the Bible thumper argument .
Click to expand...


What has to do with what you posted is the articles I linked to after the comment.  I haven't called you a bible thumper - but sources matter and when you choose a bad one, it can come back to smack you.

Most of what that article is saying is that there is no "gay gene" -- but that is not what the scientists are claiming.  What studies have been done seem to show some genetic influence on sexual orientation and genetic influences are not always simple dominant/recessive modes of inheritance.  For example some traits may only show up or become activiated under certain environmental influences (piglets show one phenotype when they are kept in domestic conditions, but if they become feral, other genes switch on and change the phenotype quite drastically). 

Your source is picking apart studies largely by focusing on searching for "a gay gene".  It also takes a critical look at "ex-gay" type therapies.  The conclusion it draws from those are that some - a very tiny proportion - of self selected gays can change their orientation for at least 5 years and it attempts to use that to imply it's malleable.

_Robert Spitzer conducted a study on 200 self-selected individuals (143 males, 57 females) in an effort to see if participants could change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual (2003, 32:403-417).  He reported some minimal change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation that lasted at least five years (p. 403).  Spitzer observed:_​
_The majority of participants gave reports of change from a predominantly or exclusively homosexual orientation before therapy to a predominantly or exclusively heterosexual orientation in the past year (p. 403)._​
_In summarizing his findings, Spitzer declared: “Thus, there is evidence that change in sexual orientation following some form of reparative therapy does occur in some gay men and lesbians.” He thus concluded: “This study provides evidence that some gay men and lesbians are able to also change the core features of sexual orientation” (p. 415). _​
However, that study has been widely politicized and misrepresented:

Spitzer s Apology Changes Ex-Gay Debate NPR
_Dr. Robert Spitzer's research was widely cited by those who conduct conversion therapy as proof that it worked. Dr. Spitzer says his findings were misinterpreted, and apologized. The American Psychological Association has said there is no evidence that it's possible to change sexual orientation._​
Can some gay people change their orientation?  Apparently.  But it's also likely that homosexuality overlaps with bisexuality and people who self-identify as homosexual are in reality bisexual.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

hipeter924 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The social con far right wacks will not be allowed to make arbitrary permissible standards about who can marry who.  Those days are over.
> 
> Once again the social con crazies make arguments _ab absurdum_ about marriage equality as a slippery slope.
> 
> 
> 
> They are sore losers, and so get more desperate and paranoid about gays, even as the rest of America cares less and less about what two adults get up to in their bedroom, let alone who they marry: Gay Marriage Pew Research Center
> 
> 
> 
> 2013
> Against: 43 For: 50
> 2014
> Against: 39 For: 54
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Amazing how that never translated into states changing their laws in favor of gay marriage. In fact, even very blue states have kept marriage as one man and one woman.  A rational person would conclude that polls don't tell the whole story.  A rational person, that is.


----------



## JakeStarkey

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The social con far right wacks will not be allowed to make arbitrary permissible standards about who can marry who.  Those days are over.
> 
> Once again the social con crazies make arguments _ab absurdum_ about marriage equality as a slippery slope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree it's time to allow NAMBLA members to start loving little boys and marrying them, right?  Or do you have a few "arbitrary permissible standards" of your own you think are more valid than others?
> 
> Damn, it's so fun to turn moral relativist arguments against them!
Click to expand...

  I agree your thinking is analogous to NAMBLA in being weird and out there.

For instance, the claim about 12 year olds above, only those mentally incapable do not understand the above applies to horny heterosexual men as well as anybody else.

Age of consent is a red herring argument, nothing more.

Talk about NAMBLA or horny polygamous patriarchs are arguments absurdum.

You make as much sense (none) as does NAMBLA, St. Mike.


----------



## JakeStarkey

And the foolish appeal absurdum above to Jacksonin democracy means nothing in law.  SCOTUS says you are wrong.  Public opinion has turned against you.  We are not going back to the bad old days.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The social con far right wacks will not be allowed to make arbitrary permissible standards about who can marry who.  Those days are over.
> 
> Once again the social con crazies make arguments _ab absurdum_ about marriage equality as a slippery slope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree it's time to allow NAMBLA members to start loving little boys and marrying them, right?  Or do you have a few "arbitrary permissible standards" of your own you think are more valid than others?
> 
> Damn, it's so fun to turn moral relativist arguments against them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hope that isn't the argument you are trying to make here.   But.......as I noted earlier, you can't seem to distinquish between consent of law-abiding, tax-paying adults....and an adult sexually abusing a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Law abiding, tax paying adults?  Can you dig your hole any deeper?  Half the country doesn't pay taxes and many people don't obey the law...which has virtually NOTHING to do with this discussion.  You're getting desperate now.
Click to expand...

Homosexual Americans are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens.  Even tho you'd like to, you cannot deny us equal rights.   

And are you going to say for sure that half the country doesn't pay taxes?  You gonna stand by that ridiculous statement?


----------



## hipeter924

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The social con far right wacks will not be allowed to make arbitrary permissible standards about who can marry who.  Those days are over.
> 
> Once again the social con crazies make arguments _ab absurdum_ about marriage equality as a slippery slope.
> 
> 
> 
> They are sore losers, and so get more desperate and paranoid about gays, even as the rest of America cares less and less about what two adults get up to in their bedroom, let alone who they marry: Gay Marriage Pew Research Center
> 
> 
> 
> 2013
> Against: 43 For: 50
> 2014
> Against: 39 For: 54
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazing how that never translated into states changing their laws in favor of gay marriage. In fact, even very blue states have kept marriage as one man and one woman.  A rational person would conclude that polls don't tell the whole story.  A rational person, that is.
Click to expand...

How does it feel being the 39 percent, or should I say 35% by the end of this year?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

JakeStarkey said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The social con far right wacks will not be allowed to make arbitrary permissible standards about who can marry who.  Those days are over.
> 
> Once again the social con crazies make arguments _ab absurdum_ about marriage equality as a slippery slope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree it's time to allow NAMBLA members to start loving little boys and marrying them, right?  Or do you have a few "arbitrary permissible standards" of your own you think are more valid than others?
> 
> Damn, it's so fun to turn moral relativist arguments against them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree your thinking is analogous to NAMBLA in being weird and out there.
> 
> For instance, the claim about 12 year olds above, only those mentally incapable do not understand the above applies to horny heterosexual men as well as anybody else.
> 
> Age of consent is a red herring argument, nothing more.
> 
> Talk about NAMBLA or horny polygamous patriarchs are arguments absurdum.
> 
> You make as much sense (none) as does NAMBLA, St. Mike.
Click to expand...


Funny, because the comparison between NAMBLA and you has much more merit.  After all, it will be YOUR gay marriage legal arguments they will use to push their agenda through the courts.  They might even win a few key court battles.  And they have YOU to thank for it.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The social con far right wacks will not be allowed to make arbitrary permissible standards about who can marry who.  Those days are over.
> 
> Once again the social con crazies make arguments _ab absurdum_ about marriage equality as a slippery slope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree it's time to allow NAMBLA members to start loving little boys and marrying them, right?  Or do you have a few "arbitrary permissible standards" of your own you think are more valid than others?
> 
> Damn, it's so fun to turn moral relativist arguments against them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree your thinking is analogous to NAMBLA in being weird and out there.
> 
> For instance, the claim about 12 year olds above, only those mentally incapable do not understand the above applies to horny heterosexual men as well as anybody else.
> 
> Age of consent is a red herring argument, nothing more.
> 
> Talk about NAMBLA or horny polygamous patriarchs are arguments absurdum.
> 
> You make as much sense (none) as does NAMBLA, St. Mike.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, because the comparison between NAMBLA and you has much more merit.  After all, it will be YOUR gay marriage legal arguments they will use to push their agenda through the courts.  They might even win a few key court battles.  And they have YOU to thank for it.
Click to expand...


Explain to us how allowing consenting adults marry "pushes" the agenda to sexually abuse children?   How do you explain that legally?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The social con far right wacks will not be allowed to make arbitrary permissible standards about who can marry who.  Those days are over.
> 
> Once again the social con crazies make arguments _ab absurdum_ about marriage equality as a slippery slope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree it's time to allow NAMBLA members to start loving little boys and marrying them, right?  Or do you have a few "arbitrary permissible standards" of your own you think are more valid than others?
> 
> Damn, it's so fun to turn moral relativist arguments against them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hope that isn't the argument you are trying to make here.   But.......as I noted earlier, you can't seem to distinquish between consent of law-abiding, tax-paying adults....and an adult sexually abusing a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Law abiding, tax paying adults?  Can you dig your hole any deeper?  Half the country doesn't pay taxes and many people don't obey the law...which has virtually NOTHING to do with this discussion.  You're getting desperate now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homosexual Americans are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens.  Even tho you'd like to, you cannot deny us equal rights.
> 
> And are you going to say for sure that half the country doesn't pay taxes?  You gonna stand by that ridiculous statement?
Click to expand...


47% to be exact.  You can thank Bush for that, increasing the child tax credit.  Hell, I'm one of them with my own adorable little tax credits (ages 11, 6, 2, and 1).  I don't pay a DIME in federal taxes and very little in state taxes. Property taxes....well that's folded into the mortgage so I don't even see it.


----------



## hipeter924

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The social con far right wacks will not be allowed to make arbitrary permissible standards about who can marry who.  Those days are over.
> 
> Once again the social con crazies make arguments _ab absurdum_ about marriage equality as a slippery slope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree it's time to allow NAMBLA members to start loving little boys and marrying them, right?  Or do you have a few "arbitrary permissible standards" of your own you think are more valid than others?
> 
> Damn, it's so fun to turn moral relativist arguments against them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hope that isn't the argument you are trying to make here.   But.......as I noted earlier, you can't seem to distinquish between consent of law-abiding, tax-paying adults....and an adult sexually abusing a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Law abiding, tax paying adults?  Can you dig your hole any deeper?  Half the country doesn't pay taxes and many people don't obey the law...which has virtually NOTHING to do with this discussion.  You're getting desperate now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homosexual Americans are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens.  Even tho you'd like to, you cannot deny us equal rights.
> 
> And are you going to say for sure that half the country doesn't pay taxes?  You gonna stand by that ridiculous statement?
Click to expand...

 He believes gay people are equivalent to pedobears with kiddies in the basement, so pretty sure ridiculous statements are the least of his troubles.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The social con far right wacks will not be allowed to make arbitrary permissible standards about who can marry who.  Those days are over.
> 
> Once again the social con crazies make arguments _ab absurdum_ about marriage equality as a slippery slope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree it's time to allow NAMBLA members to start loving little boys and marrying them, right?  Or do you have a few "arbitrary permissible standards" of your own you think are more valid than others?
> 
> Damn, it's so fun to turn moral relativist arguments against them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hope that isn't the argument you are trying to make here.   But.......as I noted earlier, you can't seem to distinquish between consent of law-abiding, tax-paying adults....and an adult sexually abusing a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Law abiding, tax paying adults?  Can you dig your hole any deeper?  Half the country doesn't pay taxes and many people don't obey the law...which has virtually NOTHING to do with this discussion.  You're getting desperate now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homosexual Americans are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens.  Even tho you'd like to, you cannot deny us equal rights.
> 
> And are you going to say for sure that half the country doesn't pay taxes?  You gonna stand by that ridiculous statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 47% to be exact.  You can thank Bush for that, increasing the child tax credit.  Hell, I'm one of them with my own adorable little tax credits (ages 11, 6, 2, and 1).  I don't pay a DIME in federal taxes and very little in state taxes. Property taxes....well that's folded into the mortgage so I don't even see it.
Click to expand...

So...47% of our citizens buy no gas,   register no cars, buy no products at any stores?


----------



## bodecea

hipeter924 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The social con far right wacks will not be allowed to make arbitrary permissible standards about who can marry who.  Those days are over.
> 
> Once again the social con crazies make arguments _ab absurdum_ about marriage equality as a slippery slope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree it's time to allow NAMBLA members to start loving little boys and marrying them, right?  Or do you have a few "arbitrary permissible standards" of your own you think are more valid than others?
> 
> Damn, it's so fun to turn moral relativist arguments against them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hope that isn't the argument you are trying to make here.   But.......as I noted earlier, you can't seem to distinquish between consent of law-abiding, tax-paying adults....and an adult sexually abusing a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Law abiding, tax paying adults?  Can you dig your hole any deeper?  Half the country doesn't pay taxes and many people don't obey the law...which has virtually NOTHING to do with this discussion.  You're getting desperate now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homosexual Americans are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens.  Even tho you'd like to, you cannot deny us equal rights.
> 
> And are you going to say for sure that half the country doesn't pay taxes?  You gonna stand by that ridiculous statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He believes gay people are equivalent to pedobears with kiddies in the basement, so pretty sure ridiculous statements are the least of his troubles.
Click to expand...

I'm a little concerned about his self-proclaimed area of expertise.....and his inability to distinguish between adults and children.


----------



## WorldWatcher

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Amazing how that never translated into states changing their laws in favor of gay marriage. In fact, even very blue states have kept marriage as one man and one woman.



Well that's false. 

In the November 2012 elections 4 ballot initiatives appeared in the General Election: Maine, Washington, Maryland, and Minnesota.  In all 4 cases the vote was won by the pro-marriage equality side.  Maine, Washington, and Maryland directly authorizing SSCM.  Minnesota ending up in a defeat of an anti-gay ban that resulted in SSCM being passed almost immediately by the legislature.

So the last 4 times the SSCM appeared on a General Election ballot, SSCM won.


>>>>


----------



## bodecea

WorldWatcher said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how that never translated into states changing their laws in favor of gay marriage. In fact, even very blue states have kept marriage as one man and one woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's false.
> 
> In the November 2012 elections 4 ballot initiatives appeared in the General Election: Maine, Washington, Maryland, and Minnesota.  In all 4 cases the vote was won by the pro-marriage equality side.  Maine, Washington, and Maryland directly authorizing SSCM.  Minnesota ending up in a defeat of an anti-gay ban that resulted in SSCM being passed almost immediately by the legislature.
> 
> So the last 4 times the SSCM appeared on a General Election ballot, SSCM won.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

Do not expect saintmichael to acknowledge the truth in what you just posted.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree it's time to allow NAMBLA members to start loving little boys and marrying them, right?  Or do you have a few "arbitrary permissible standards" of your own you think are more valid than others?
> 
> Damn, it's so fun to turn moral relativist arguments against them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that isn't the argument you are trying to make here.   But.......as I noted earlier, you can't seem to distinquish between consent of law-abiding, tax-paying adults....and an adult sexually abusing a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Law abiding, tax paying adults?  Can you dig your hole any deeper?  Half the country doesn't pay taxes and many people don't obey the law...which has virtually NOTHING to do with this discussion.  You're getting desperate now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homosexual Americans are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens.  Even tho you'd like to, you cannot deny us equal rights.
> 
> And are you going to say for sure that half the country doesn't pay taxes?  You gonna stand by that ridiculous statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 47% to be exact.  You can thank Bush for that, increasing the child tax credit.  Hell, I'm one of them with my own adorable little tax credits (ages 11, 6, 2, and 1).  I don't pay a DIME in federal taxes and very little in state taxes. Property taxes....well that's folded into the mortgage so I don't even see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...47% of our citizens buy no gas,   register no cars, buy no products at any stores?
Click to expand...


You do know that state taxes and federal taxes are different, right?

No, you don't? I can explain it to you if you need it.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

WorldWatcher said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how that never translated into states changing their laws in favor of gay marriage. In fact, even very blue states have kept marriage as one man and one woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's false.
> 
> In the November 2012 elections 4 ballot initiatives appeared in the General Election: Maine, Washington, Maryland, and Minnesota.  In all 4 cases the vote was won by the pro-marriage equality side.  Maine, Washington, and Maryland directly authorizing SSCM.  Minnesota ending up in a defeat of an anti-gay ban that resulted in SSCM being passed almost immediately by the legislature.
> 
> So the last 4 times the SSCM appeared on a General Election ballot, SSCM won.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

Yet California passed a law banning same sex marriage and when that was overturned by a state court they passed another law amending the state constitution.  That too was overturned by a federal court.  It seems that you people know you can't win hearts and minds so you need black robed activists to cudgel the American people with your sick agenda.


----------



## hipeter924

bodecea said:


> I'm a little concerned about his self-proclaimed area of expertise.....and his inability to distinguish between adults and children.


 If any of his children turn out to be bisexual or are attracted to the same sex, I sure would feel sorry for them. He is probably the type that would send his kids off to gay conversion therapy, or not allow 'fags' to play with his kids out the irrational fear that they could be 'turned gay'.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> I'm a little concerned about his self-proclaimed area of expertise.....and his inability to distinguish between adults and children.





hipeter924 said:


> If any of his children turn out to be bisexual or are attracted to the same sex, I sure would feel sorry for them. He is probably the type that would send his kids off to gay conversion therapy, or not allow 'fags' to play with his kids out the irrational fear that they could be 'turned gay'.



I'm a little concerned you're sailing the shoals of a USMB rules violation.  Since warning you repeatedly is against the rules too, this will serve as the first and final warning.  Be careful what you say. We can discuss each other's political positions, but if it gets personal then I will start reporting posts.


----------



## WorldWatcher

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how that never translated into states changing their laws in favor of gay marriage. In fact, even very blue states have kept marriage as one man and one woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's false.
> 
> In the November 2012 elections 4 ballot initiatives appeared in the General Election: Maine, Washington, Maryland, and Minnesota.  In all 4 cases the vote was won by the pro-marriage equality side.  Maine, Washington, and Maryland directly authorizing SSCM.  Minnesota ending up in a defeat of an anti-gay ban that resulted in SSCM being passed almost immediately by the legislature.
> 
> So the last 4 times the SSCM appeared on a General Election ballot, SSCM won.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet California passed a law banning same sex marriage and when that was overturned by a state court they passed another law amending the state constitution.  That too was overturned by a federal court.  It seems that you people know you can't win hearts and minds so you need black robed activists to cudgel the American people with your sick agenda.
Click to expand...



saintmichaeldefendthem: "Amazing how that never translated into states changing their laws in favor of gay marriage. In fact, even very blue states have kept marriage as one man and one woman."

WorldWatcher: "In the November 2012 elections 4 ballot initiatives appeared in the General Election: Maine, Washington, Maryland, and Minnesota. In all 4 cases the vote was won by the pro-marriage equality side. Maine, Washington, and Maryland directly authorizing SSCM. Minnesota ending up in a defeat of an anti-gay ban that resulted in SSCM being passed almost immediately by the legislature."​
Your response about California has nothing to do with what yo
u said and is an obvious attempt at deflection.  You said that changing societal attitudes *"never translated into states changing their laws in favor of gay marriage"* the 2012 General Election proves you wrong.

As a matter of fact Maine passed a Civil Marriage ban on SSCM in 2009 and that ban was repealed in the 2012 election.

In the face of undeniable facts, are you read to retract your statement?


**********************************************

ETA:  BTW Prop 22 passed in California in 2000 with a 22% margin of victory, by 2008 Prop 8 squeaked by where a change of only 2.5% would have changed the outcome.  Further indication that societies attitudes have been changing.


>>>>


----------



## hipeter924

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a little concerned about his self-proclaimed area of expertise.....and his inability to distinguish between adults and children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If any of his children turn out to be bisexual or are attracted to the same sex, I sure would feel sorry for them. He is probably the type that would send his kids off to gay conversion therapy, or not allow 'fags' to play with his kids out the irrational fear that they could be 'turned gay'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a little concerned you're sailing the shoals of a USMB rules violation.  Since warning you repeatedly is against the rules too, this will serve as the first and final warning.  Be careful what you say. We can discuss each other's political positions, but if it gets personal then I will start reporting posts.
Click to expand...

Says the guy that called all the LGBT people in this thread pedophiles.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

hipeter924 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a little concerned about his self-proclaimed area of expertise.....and his inability to distinguish between adults and children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If any of his children turn out to be bisexual or are attracted to the same sex, I sure would feel sorry for them. He is probably the type that would send his kids off to gay conversion therapy, or not allow 'fags' to play with his kids out the irrational fear that they could be 'turned gay'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a little concerned you're sailing the shoals of a USMB rules violation.  Since warning you repeatedly is against the rules too, this will serve as the first and final warning.  Be careful what you say. We can discuss each other's political positions, but if it gets personal then I will start reporting posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the guy that called all the LGBT people in this thread pedophiles.
Click to expand...



I'm going to explain this so it can't be misunderstood.  The USMB rules permit discussion on people's political positions, but does NOT allow anyone to imply another member is a pedophile.  A discussion on the age of consent implies nothing.  A person who thinks the age should be lowered might do so purely on academic grounds and that doesn't make him a pedophile any more than a person supporting the legalization of marijuana is a pothead.  Get the difference now?

And I'd appreciate we start to steer away from this line of discussion as I'm really not trying to get anyone in trouble.


----------



## JakeStarkey

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The social con far right wacks will not be allowed to make arbitrary permissible standards about who can marry who.  Those days are over.
> 
> Once again the social con crazies make arguments _ab absurdum_ about marriage equality as a slippery slope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree it's time to allow NAMBLA members to start loving little boys and marrying them, right?  Or do you have a few "arbitrary permissible standards" of your own you think are more valid than others?
> 
> Damn, it's so fun to turn moral relativist arguments against them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree your thinking is analogous to NAMBLA in being weird and out there.
> 
> For instance, the claim about 12 year olds above, only those mentally incapable do not understand the above applies to horny heterosexual men as well as anybody else.
> 
> Age of consent is a red herring argument, nothing more.
> 
> Talk about NAMBLA or horny polygamous patriarchs are arguments absurdum.
> 
> You make as much sense (none) as does NAMBLA, St. Mike.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, because the comparison between NAMBLA and you has much more merit.  After all, it will be YOUR gay marriage legal arguments they will use to push their agenda through the courts.  They might even win a few key court battles.  And they hrd ave YOU to thank for it.
Click to expand...


Thank you for admitting you know you have lost the battle with those silly and absurd arguments.  How does it feel to be so incompetent?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

JakeStarkey said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The social con far right wacks will not be allowed to make arbitrary permissible standards about who can marry who.  Those days are over.
> 
> Once again the social con crazies make arguments _ab absurdum_ about marriage equality as a slippery slope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree it's time to allow NAMBLA members to start loving little boys and marrying them, right?  Or do you have a few "arbitrary permissible standards" of your own you think are more valid than others?
> 
> Damn, it's so fun to turn moral relativist arguments against them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree your thinking is analogous to NAMBLA in being weird and out there.
> 
> For instance, the claim about 12 year olds above, only those mentally incapable do not understand the above applies to horny heterosexual men as well as anybody else.
> 
> Age of consent is a red herring argument, nothing more.
> 
> Talk about NAMBLA or horny polygamous patriarchs are arguments absurdum.
> 
> You make as much sense (none) as does NAMBLA, St. Mike.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, because the comparison between NAMBLA and you has much more merit.  After all, it will be YOUR gay marriage legal arguments they will use to push their agenda through the courts.  They might even win a few key court battles.  And they hrd ave YOU to thank for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting you know you have lost the battle with those silly and absurd arguments.  How does it feel to be so incompetent?
Click to expand...

Claiming a false victory isn't a refutation.  In fact, you can't dispute anything I just posted.  NAMBLA will be using YOUR legal strategy to push their agenda.  Congratulations!


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

WorldWatcher said:


> In the face of undeniable facts, are you ready to retract your statement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>



Yes.


----------



## WorldWatcher

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the face of undeniable facts, are you ready to retract your statement?
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...


Commendable.

May don't have the testicular fortitude to do that.  Thank you.


>>>>


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that isn't the argument you are trying to make here.   But.......as I noted earlier, you can't seem to distinquish between consent of law-abiding, tax-paying adults....and an adult sexually abusing a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Law abiding, tax paying adults?  Can you dig your hole any deeper?  Half the country doesn't pay taxes and many people don't obey the law...which has virtually NOTHING to do with this discussion.  You're getting desperate now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homosexual Americans are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens.  Even tho you'd like to, you cannot deny us equal rights.
> 
> And are you going to say for sure that half the country doesn't pay taxes?  You gonna stand by that ridiculous statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 47% to be exact.  You can thank Bush for that, increasing the child tax credit.  Hell, I'm one of them with my own adorable little tax credits (ages 11, 6, 2, and 1).  I don't pay a DIME in federal taxes and very little in state taxes. Property taxes....well that's folded into the mortgage so I don't even see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...47% of our citizens buy no gas,   register no cars, buy no products at any stores?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know that state taxes and federal taxes are different, right?
> 
> No, you don't? I can explain it to you if you need it.
Click to expand...

you DO know I just said "taxes", right?


----------



## hipeter924

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a little concerned about his self-proclaimed area of expertise.....and his inability to distinguish between adults and children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If any of his children turn out to be bisexual or are attracted to the same sex, I sure would feel sorry for them. He is probably the type that would send his kids off to gay conversion therapy, or not allow 'fags' to play with his kids out the irrational fear that they could be 'turned gay'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a little concerned you're sailing the shoals of a USMB rules violation.  Since warning you repeatedly is against the rules too, this will serve as the first and final warning.  Be careful what you say. We can discuss each other's political positions, but if it gets personal then I will start reporting posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the guy that called all the LGBT people in this thread pedophiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to explain this so it can't be misunderstood.  The USMB rules permit discussion on people's political positions, but does NOT allow anyone to imply another member is a pedophile.  A discussion on the age of consent implies nothing.  A person who thinks the age should be lowered might do so purely on academic grounds and that doesn't make him a pedophile any more than a person supporting the legalization of marijuana is a pothead.  Get the difference now?
> 
> And I'd appreciate we start to steer away from this line of discussion as I'm really not trying to get anyone in trouble.
Click to expand...

It does mean something when x claims that gay people are the equivalent of pedophiles in any moral or legal sense.

It isn't 'academic' when there are no scientific grounds to justify the position, as it is based purely out of ignorance of the difference between the biology of two adults, and the biology of a child.

If there are any 'fine lines' in USMB rules, then the premise of this thread is on it already. I haven't warned anyone on USMB, and don't intend to. That you are threatening to warn people doesn't improve your arguing position.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Law abiding, tax paying adults?  Can you dig your hole any deeper?  Half the country doesn't pay taxes and many people don't obey the law...which has virtually NOTHING to do with this discussion.  You're getting desperate now.
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexual Americans are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens.  Even tho you'd like to, you cannot deny us equal rights.
> 
> And are you going to say for sure that half the country doesn't pay taxes?  You gonna stand by that ridiculous statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 47% to be exact.  You can thank Bush for that, increasing the child tax credit.  Hell, I'm one of them with my own adorable little tax credits (ages 11, 6, 2, and 1).  I don't pay a DIME in federal taxes and very little in state taxes. Property taxes....well that's folded into the mortgage so I don't even see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...47% of our citizens buy no gas,   register no cars, buy no products at any stores?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know that state taxes and federal taxes are different, right?
> 
> No, you don't? I can explain it to you if you need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you DO know I just said "taxes", right?
Click to expand...


 So are you going to admit that paying taxes and obeying the law have nothing to do with the discussion, or do you still think it's relevant?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

hipeter924 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a little concerned about his self-proclaimed area of expertise.....and his inability to distinguish between adults and children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If any of his children turn out to be bisexual or are attracted to the same sex, I sure would feel sorry for them. He is probably the type that would send his kids off to gay conversion therapy, or not allow 'fags' to play with his kids out the irrational fear that they could be 'turned gay'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a little concerned you're sailing the shoals of a USMB rules violation.  Since warning you repeatedly is against the rules too, this will serve as the first and final warning.  Be careful what you say. We can discuss each other's political positions, but if it gets personal then I will start reporting posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the guy that called all the LGBT people in this thread pedophiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to explain this so it can't be misunderstood.  The USMB rules permit discussion on people's political positions, but does NOT allow anyone to imply another member is a pedophile.  A discussion on the age of consent implies nothing.  A person who thinks the age should be lowered might do so purely on academic grounds and that doesn't make him a pedophile any more than a person supporting the legalization of marijuana is a pothead.  Get the difference now?
> 
> And I'd appreciate we start to steer away from this line of discussion as I'm really not trying to get anyone in trouble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does mean something when x claims that gay people are the equivalent of pedophiles in any moral or legal sense.
> 
> It isn't 'academic' when there are no scientific grounds to justify the position, as it is based purely out of ignorance of the difference between the biology of two adults, and the biology of a child.
> 
> If there are any 'fine lines' in USMB rules, then the premise of this thread is on it already. I haven't warned anyone on USMB, and don't intend to. That you are threatening to warn people doesn't improve your arguing position.
Click to expand...


Good.  Moving on....


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a little concerned about his self-proclaimed area of expertise.....and his inability to distinguish between adults and children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If any of his children turn out to be bisexual or are attracted to the same sex, I sure would feel sorry for them. He is probably the type that would send his kids off to gay conversion therapy, or not allow 'fags' to play with his kids out the irrational fear that they could be 'turned gay'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a little concerned you're sailing the shoals of a USMB rules violation.  Since warning you repeatedly is against the rules too, this will serve as the first and final warning.  Be careful what you say. We can discuss each other's political positions, but if it gets personal then I will start reporting posts.
Click to expand...

Sir, I am not the one waving all this info about NAMBLA around.  I am not the one repeatedly demonstrating a lack of understanding of the very clear differences between consenting adults and an adult sexually abusing a child.   That is NOT me.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexual Americans are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens.  Even tho you'd like to, you cannot deny us equal rights.
> 
> And are you going to say for sure that half the country doesn't pay taxes?  You gonna stand by that ridiculous statement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 47% to be exact.  You can thank Bush for that, increasing the child tax credit.  Hell, I'm one of them with my own adorable little tax credits (ages 11, 6, 2, and 1).  I don't pay a DIME in federal taxes and very little in state taxes. Property taxes....well that's folded into the mortgage so I don't even see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...47% of our citizens buy no gas,   register no cars, buy no products at any stores?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know that state taxes and federal taxes are different, right?
> 
> No, you don't? I can explain it to you if you need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you DO know I just said "taxes", right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you going to admit that paying taxes and obeying the law have nothing to do with the discussion, or do you still think it's relevant?
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard the phrase "No taxation without representation"?   Gays pay taxes too.  We are citizens.  We deserve the same civil rights and benefits, protections, etc. from the state.  You may not like it, but there it is.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The social con far right wacks will not be allowed to make arbitrary permissible standards about who can marry who.  Those days are over.
> 
> Once again the social con crazies make arguments _ab absurdum_ about marriage equality as a slippery slope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree it's time to allow NAMBLA members to start loving little boys and marrying them, right?  Or do you have a few "arbitrary permissible standards" of your own you think are more valid than others?
> 
> Damn, it's so fun to turn moral relativist arguments against them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree your thinking is analogous to NAMBLA in being weird and out there.
> 
> For instance, the claim about 12 year olds above, only those mentally incapable do not understand the above applies to horny heterosexual men as well as anybody else.
> 
> Age of consent is a red herring argument, nothing more.
> 
> Talk about NAMBLA or horny polygamous patriarchs are arguments absurdum.
> 
> You make as much sense (none) as does NAMBLA, St. Mike.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, because the comparison between NAMBLA and you has much more merit.  After all, it will be YOUR gay marriage legal arguments they will use to push their agenda through the courts.  They might even win a few key court battles.  And they hrd ave YOU to thank for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting you know you have lost the battle with those silly and absurd arguments.  How does it feel to be so incompetent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Claiming a false victory isn't a refutation.  In fact, you can't dispute anything I just posted.  NAMBLA will be using YOUR legal strategy to push their agenda.  Congratulations!
Click to expand...

And again, you go on about as if YOU are the expert on what NAMBLA will or will not be used for.


----------



## hipeter924

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> So are you going to admit that paying taxes and *obeying the law have nothing to do with the discussion*, or do you still think it's relevant?


 Well, same-sex relations aren't an offense according to US law. So arguing that there is something legally wrong with homosexuality, isn't going to accomplish much in an argument against same-sex marriage - as first  homosexual relationships would have to established as illegal again.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 47% to be exact.  You can thank Bush for that, increasing the child tax credit.  Hell, I'm one of them with my own adorable little tax credits (ages 11, 6, 2, and 1).  I don't pay a DIME in federal taxes and very little in state taxes. Property taxes....well that's folded into the mortgage so I don't even see it.
> 
> 
> 
> So...47% of our citizens buy no gas,   register no cars, buy no products at any stores?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know that state taxes and federal taxes are different, right?
> 
> No, you don't? I can explain it to you if you need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you DO know I just said "taxes", right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you going to admit that paying taxes and obeying the law have nothing to do with the discussion, or do you still think it's relevant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you ever heard the phrase "No taxation without representation"?   Gays pay taxes too.  We are citizens.  We deserve the same civil rights and benefits, protections, etc. from the state.  You may not like it, but there it is.
Click to expand...


Lifestyle is not a constitutionally protected status.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree it's time to allow NAMBLA members to start loving little boys and marrying them, right?  Or do you have a few "arbitrary permissible standards" of your own you think are more valid than others?
> 
> Damn, it's so fun to turn moral relativist arguments against them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree your thinking is analogous to NAMBLA in being weird and out there.
> 
> For instance, the claim about 12 year olds above, only those mentally incapable do not understand the above applies to horny heterosexual men as well as anybody else.
> 
> Age of consent is a red herring argument, nothing more.
> 
> Talk about NAMBLA or horny polygamous patriarchs are arguments absurdum.
> 
> You make as much sense (none) as does NAMBLA, St. Mike.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, because the comparison between NAMBLA and you has much more merit.  After all, it will be YOUR gay marriage legal arguments they will use to push their agenda through the courts.  They might even win a few key court battles.  And they hrd ave YOU to thank for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting you know you have lost the battle with those silly and absurd arguments.  How does it feel to be so incompetent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Claiming a false victory isn't a refutation.  In fact, you can't dispute anything I just posted.  NAMBLA will be using YOUR legal strategy to push their agenda.  Congratulations!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again, you go on about as if YOU are the expert on what NAMBLA will or will not be used for.
Click to expand...


I never claimed expertise on anything. I'm a well educated man who knows that lawyers go with proven strategies, which should be obvious.  Why would NAMBLA choose a legal strategy at variance with the one that met with such great success for the gay movement?


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> So...47% of our citizens buy no gas,   register no cars, buy no products at any stores?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that state taxes and federal taxes are different, right?
> 
> No, you don't? I can explain it to you if you need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you DO know I just said "taxes", right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you going to admit that paying taxes and obeying the law have nothing to do with the discussion, or do you still think it's relevant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you ever heard the phrase "No taxation without representation"?   Gays pay taxes too.  We are citizens.  We deserve the same civil rights and benefits, protections, etc. from the state.  You may not like it, but there it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lifestyle is not a constitutionally protected status.
Click to expand...

Oh?   So, gays have no protected civil rights?  Is that your assertion?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that state taxes and federal taxes are different, right?
> 
> No, you don't? I can explain it to you if you need it.
> 
> 
> 
> you DO know I just said "taxes", right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you going to admit that paying taxes and obeying the law have nothing to do with the discussion, or do you still think it's relevant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you ever heard the phrase "No taxation without representation"?   Gays pay taxes too.  We are citizens.  We deserve the same civil rights and benefits, protections, etc. from the state.  You may not like it, but there it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lifestyle is not a constitutionally protected status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh?   So, gays have no protected civil rights?  Is that your assertion?
Click to expand...


No more than anyone else. I know, it sucks.


----------



## JakeStarkey

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The social con far right wacks will not be allowed to make arbitrary permissible standards about who can marry who.  Those days are over.
> 
> Once again the social con crazies make arguments _ab absurdum_ about marriage equality as a slippery slope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree it's time to allow NAMBLA members to start loving little boys and marrying them, right?  Or do you have a few "arbitrary permissible standards" of your own you think are more valid than others?
> 
> Damn, it's so fun to turn moral relativist arguments against them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree your thinking is analogous to NAMBLA in being weird and out there.
> 
> For instance, the claim about 12 year olds above, only those mentally incapable do not understand the above applies to horny heterosexual men as well as anybody else.
> 
> Age of consent is a red herring argument, nothing more.
> 
> Talk about NAMBLA or horny polygamous patriarchs are arguments absurdum.
> 
> You make as much sense (none) as does NAMBLA, St. Mike.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, because the comparison between NAMBLA and you has much more merit.  After all, it will be YOUR gay marriage legal arguments they will use to push their agenda through the courts.  They might even win a few key court battles.  And they hrd ave YOU to thank for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting you know you have lost the battle with those silly and absurd arguments.  How does it feel to be so incompetent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Claiming a false victory isn't a refutation.  In fact, you can't dispute anything I just posted.  NAMBLA will be using YOUR legal strategy to push their agenda.  Congratulations!
Click to expand...


I am claiming your true defeat.  You have had nothing to offer that made sense.  12 year olds?  NAMBLA?  You arguments are absurd and are recognized as absurd.

Yes, you have truly lost to a more principled crowd who offered nothing more than equality to be treated as all adults to marry the person they love.

What is clear about the future is that the younger ones in the families on your side are going to castigate their parents: "you stupid shits, wasting time on this instead of spreading the gospel."

Yes, you stupid shits.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree your thinking is analogous to NAMBLA in being weird and out there.
> 
> For instance, the claim about 12 year olds above, only those mentally incapable do not understand the above applies to horny heterosexual men as well as anybody else.
> 
> Age of consent is a red herring argument, nothing more.
> 
> Talk about NAMBLA or horny polygamous patriarchs are arguments absurdum.
> 
> You make as much sense (none) as does NAMBLA, St. Mike.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, because the comparison between NAMBLA and you has much more merit.  After all, it will be YOUR gay marriage legal arguments they will use to push their agenda through the courts.  They might even win a few key court battles.  And they hrd ave YOU to thank for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting you know you have lost the battle with those silly and absurd arguments.  How does it feel to be so incompetent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Claiming a false victory isn't a refutation.  In fact, you can't dispute anything I just posted.  NAMBLA will be using YOUR legal strategy to push their agenda.  Congratulations!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again, you go on about as if YOU are the expert on what NAMBLA will or will not be used for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never claimed expertise on anything. I'm a well educated man who knows that lawyers go with proven strategies, which should be obvious.  Why would NAMBLA choose a legal strategy at variance with the one that met with such great success for the gay movement?
Click to expand...

You go on and on about NAMBLA...what they are going to do.....more than anyone else here.   You're the one schooling us all on NAMBLA.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> you DO know I just said "taxes", right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you going to admit that paying taxes and obeying the law have nothing to do with the discussion, or do you still think it's relevant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you ever heard the phrase "No taxation without representation"?   Gays pay taxes too.  We are citizens.  We deserve the same civil rights and benefits, protections, etc. from the state.  You may not like it, but there it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lifestyle is not a constitutionally protected status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh?   So, gays have no protected civil rights?  Is that your assertion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No more than anyone else. I know, it sucks.
Click to expand...

Well, no one else seems to be going on about it like you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> So...47% of our citizens buy no gas,   register no cars, buy no products at any stores?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that state taxes and federal taxes are different, right?
> 
> No, you don't? I can explain it to you if you need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you DO know I just said "taxes", right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you going to admit that paying taxes and obeying the law have nothing to do with the discussion, or do you still think it's relevant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you ever heard the phrase "No taxation without representation"?   Gays pay taxes too.  We are citizens.  We deserve the same civil rights and benefits, protections, etc. from the state.  You may not like it, but there it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lifestyle is not a constitutionally protected status.
Click to expand...


The right to marry whom you will is protected.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 47% to be exact.  You can thank Bush for that, increasing the child tax credit.  Hell, I'm one of them with my own adorable little tax credits (ages 11, 6, 2, and 1).  I don't pay a DIME in federal taxes and very little in state taxes. Property taxes....well that's folded into the mortgage so I don't even see it.
> 
> 
> 
> So...47% of our citizens buy no gas,   register no cars, buy no products at any stores?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know that state taxes and federal taxes are different, right?
> 
> No, you don't? I can explain it to you if you need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you DO know I just said "taxes", right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you going to admit that paying taxes and obeying the law have nothing to do with the discussion, or do you still think it's relevant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you ever heard the phrase "No taxation without representation"?   Gays pay taxes too.  We are citizens.  We deserve the same civil rights and benefits, protections, etc. from the state.  You may not like it, but there it is.
Click to expand...


You have the save rights, civil and human, as everyone else.  

Just because you're a sexual deviant, that doesn't give you special rights to alter key cultural standards, as a means to help you feel better about your nasty little kink.

And what you're searching for are "SPECIAL RIGHTS".    I can't marry my besty  so he can get on my health insurance and neither can you.  

Both of us however can incorporate and through that association share responsibilities and benefits with our besties.  But sadly, if we call our corporation "AT&T" or "IMB", that won't make us any more a legitimate function of either of those, than our naming it "marriage" would make it that.


----------



## JakeStarkey

OK, Where's burlesque show is on.  Get your popcorn , and let's have some fun.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





The pud believes his opinion gives him the arbitrary right to label others and deny one the right to marry the person one loves.

If this deviant is the best the far right social con convention has as an example of its intelligentsia, the issue is over in favor of marriage equality by the end of June.

Scalia will be quoted, "Buncha dumb sucks, aren't they?"  Marriage equality will be the law of the land.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> you DO know I just said "taxes", right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you going to admit that paying taxes and obeying the law have nothing to do with the discussion, or do you still think it's relevant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you ever heard the phrase "No taxation without representation"?   Gays pay taxes too.  We are citizens.  We deserve the same civil rights and benefits, protections, etc. from the state.  You may not like it, but there it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lifestyle is not a constitutionally protected status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh?   So, gays have no protected civil rights?  Is that your assertion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No more than anyone else. I know, it sucks.
Click to expand...

Exactly.   Ergo, marriage rights....just like anyone else.   That was easy for you to come to now, wasn't it?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

hipeter924 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are you going to admit that paying taxes and *obeying the law have nothing to do with the discussion*, or do you still think it's relevant?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, same-sex relations aren't an offense according to US law. So arguing that there is something legally wrong with homosexuality, isn't going to accomplish much in an argument against same-sex marriage - as first  homosexual relationships would have to established as illegal again.
Click to expand...


OH!  So you're a law and order gal?

GREAT! 

I say we put the law back to where two people of the same gender having sex is a felony, with a penalty for 25-life for the first offense... or death.  I'm good with death for first offense, if you think it would help.

THEN there won't be a problem with it, because it will be ILLEGAL.  Which will of course mean you Law and Order Homos will have nothing more to bitch about.


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> So...47% of our citizens buy no gas,   register no cars, buy no products at any stores?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that state taxes and federal taxes are different, right?
> 
> No, you don't? I can explain it to you if you need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you DO know I just said "taxes", right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you going to admit that paying taxes and obeying the law have nothing to do with the discussion, or do you still think it's relevant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you ever heard the phrase "No taxation without representation"?   Gays pay taxes too.  We are citizens.  We deserve the same civil rights and benefits, protections, etc. from the state.  You may not like it, but there it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have the save rights, civil and human, as everyone else.
> 
> Just because you're a sexual deviant, that doesn't give you special rights to alter key cultural standards, as a means to help you feel better about your nasty little kink.
> 
> And what you're searching for are "SPECIAL RIGHTS".    I can't marry my besty  so he can get on my health insurance and neither can you.
> 
> Both of us however can incorporate and through that association share responsibilities and benefits with our besties.  But sadly, if we call our corporation "AT&T" or "IMB", that won't make us any more a legitimate function of either of those, than our naming it "marriage" would make it that.
Click to expand...

Why do you spend so much time thinking about the kind of sex that gay people have?    I don't spend my time dwelling on the kind of sex straights have.


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are you going to admit that paying taxes and *obeying the law have nothing to do with the discussion*, or do you still think it's relevant?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, same-sex relations aren't an offense according to US law. So arguing that there is something legally wrong with homosexuality, isn't going to accomplish much in an argument against same-sex marriage - as first  homosexual relationships would have to established as illegal again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!  So you're a law and order gal?
> 
> GREAT!
> 
> I say we put the law back to where two people of the same gender having sex is a felony, with a penalty for 25-life for the first offense... .
> 
> THEN there won't be a problem with it, because it will be ILLEGAL.  Which will of course mean you Law and Order Homos will have nothing more to bitch about.
Click to expand...

Sorry.  That isn't going to happen.

But it IS interesting to see your take on this.


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Age of consent is a social/cultural overlay.  However - love is wrong when it damages a person.  Pedophilia has been shown to be very damaging to children.  Children do not have the mental maturity to consent.  Adults do.  *No rights are unlimited.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Including the rights of one person to marry the entire adult population of the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? *Who are you to say they're love is wrong?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Age of what?  *Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand*.  Fuck five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a fuck, I have a life to lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?  Are you going to deny them their love for a 40 year old obese man?  Maybe you need to rethink your backward, religiously motivated judgment of people's lifestyles and start showing a little tolerance. Hateful pedophobes like you are the reason that child lovers have been denied equal rights in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children can not legally consent.
Click to expand...


Define children.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

hipeter924 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? *Who are you to say they're love is wrong?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Age of what?  *Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand*.  Fuck five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a fuck, I have a life to lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?*[...]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.
Click to expand...


And yet again, you are using your values of adulthood to make your determination.

You are a "bigot", because you are forcing your morality on others.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Age of consent is a social/cultural overlay.  However - love is wrong when it damages a person.  Pedophilia has been shown to be very damaging to children.  Children do not have the mental maturity to consent.  Adults do.  *No rights are unlimited.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Including the rights of one person to marry the entire adult population of the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? *Who are you to say they're love is wrong?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Age of what?  *Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand*.  Fuck five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a fuck, I have a life to lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?  Are you going to deny them their love for a 40 year old obese man?  Maybe you need to rethink your backward, religiously motivated judgment of people's lifestyles and start showing a little tolerance. Hateful pedophobes like you are the reason that child lovers have been denied equal rights in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children can not legally consent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But what about those laws that prohibited homosexual conduct?  Why are those to be ignored and laws restricting sex with minors to be observed?  Why do we get to pick and choose which laws restricting deviancy are valid?
Click to expand...


Its simple. Because they agree with it.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? *Who are you to say they're love is wrong?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, *why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children*? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Age of what?  *Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand*.  Fuck five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a fuck, I have a life to lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand'. Children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got news for you dummy, an adult female is nearly 27, and an adult male almost 29.  That's reality, 18 is a line in the sand.
Click to expand...


Absolutely true. So, the "age of consent" is set by bigots, correct?

Mark


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Age of consent is a social/cultural overlay.  However - love is wrong when it damages a person.  Pedophilia has been shown to be very damaging to children.  Children do not have the mental maturity to consent.  Adults do.  *No rights are unlimited.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Including the rights of one person to marry the entire adult population of the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? *Who are you to say they're love is wrong?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Age of what?  *Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand*.  Fuck five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a fuck, I have a life to lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?  Are you going to deny them their love for a 40 year old obese man?  Maybe you need to rethink your backward, religiously motivated judgment of people's lifestyles and start showing a little tolerance. Hateful pedophobes like you are the reason that child lovers have been denied equal rights in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children can not legally consent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define children.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...




80zephyr said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? *Who are you to say they're love is wrong?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Age of what?  *Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand*.  Fuck five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a fuck, I have a life to lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?*[...]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet again, you are using your values of adulthood to make your determination.
> 
> You are a "bigot", because you are forcing your morality on others.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Feel free to make your case, in a court of law, for lowering the age of consent for whatever your purposes are.


----------



## bodecea

You two boys seem awfully upset over the legal age of consent line.


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? *Who are you to say they're love is wrong?*
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Age of what?  *Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand*.  Fuck five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a fuck, I have a life to lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?*[...]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But what if a child did consent to it?  Who are you to tell that child their love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I child can not legally consent and for good reason.  They are not mature.  We - adults, parents - ARE their guardians for a reason.  So yes, it is our responsibility to protect them.  This is totally different than a relationship with two consenting adults and is nothing more than a diversion.
Click to expand...


Really? Then why do some states allow 15 year olds to marry, and others have to be 18?

Can you define "child"?

Or is a child based on your own morality?

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?*[...]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But what if a child did consent to it?  Who are you to tell that child their love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I child can not legally consent and for good reason.  They are not mature.  We - adults, parents - ARE their guardians for a reason.  So yes, it is our responsibility to protect them.  This is totally different than a relationship with two consenting adults and is nothing more than a diversion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just said that the age of consent is a social overlay, so who's to say our culture is right and the culture in Saudi Arabia is wrong? What if children are ready for sex by the age of 12?  Who are you to stand in the way of their love and their civil rights?
Click to expand...


Like I stated before. they are bigots, trying to push their own morality on the rest of us.

Mark


----------



## JakeStarkey

80zephyr said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Age of consent is a social/cultural overlay.  However - love is wrong when it damages a person.  Pedophilia has been shown to be very damaging to children.  Children do not have the mental maturity to consent.  Adults do.  *No rights are unlimited.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Including the rights of one person to marry the entire adult population of the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? *Who are you to say they're love is wrong?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Age of what?  *Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand*.  Fuck five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a fuck, I have a life to lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?  Are you going to deny them their love for a 40 year old obese man?  Maybe you need to rethink your backward, religiously motivated judgment of people's lifestyles and start showing a little tolerance. Hateful pedophobes like you are the reason that child lovers have been denied equal rights in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children can not legally consent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define children.Mark
Click to expand...

The legislature defines that and age of consent.

You have no worry in your absurd world about pedophiles and age of consent.

You are absurd, absurd, absurd.

The children of the next generation of your religious groups are going to be saying, "Our parents were meat heads."


----------



## bodecea

JakeStarkey said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Age of consent is a social/cultural overlay.  However - love is wrong when it damages a person.  Pedophilia has been shown to be very damaging to children.  Children do not have the mental maturity to consent.  Adults do.  *No rights are unlimited.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Including the rights of one person to marry the entire adult population of the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? *Who are you to say they're love is wrong?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Age of what?  *Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand*.  Fuck five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a fuck, I have a life to lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?  Are you going to deny them their love for a 40 year old obese man?  Maybe you need to rethink your backward, religiously motivated judgment of people's lifestyles and start showing a little tolerance. Hateful pedophobes like you are the reason that child lovers have been denied equal rights in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children can not legally consent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define children.Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The legislature defines that and age of consent.
> 
> You have no worry in your absurd world about pedophiles and age of consent.
> 
> You are absurd, absurd, absurd.
> 
> The children of the next generation of your religious groups are going to be saying, "Our parents were meat heads."
Click to expand...

Are you sensing the underlying current here?


----------



## 80zephyr

hipeter924 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? *Who are you to say they're love is wrong?*
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Age of what?  *Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand*.  Fuck five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a fuck, I have a life to lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?*[...]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But what if a child did consent to it?  Who are you to tell that child their love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't love, it is taking advantage of a child below the age of consent (which is 16-18 in most states). Children below that age have underdeveloped brains, and can easily be taken advantage of or abused by adults - children can be conditioned to view their abusers behavior as normal or even acceptable but that doesn't make it right.
> 
> Then there is always Stockholm syndrome: Stockholm syndrome - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Stockholm syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of _Kreditbanken_ at Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm, Sweden, in which several bank employees were held hostage in a bank vault from August 23 to 28, 1973, while their captors negotiated with police. *During this standoff, the victims became emotionally attached to their captors, rejected assistance from government officials at one point, and even defended their captors after they were freed from their six-day ordeal.*[6] The term was coined by the criminologist and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot as "Norrmalmstorgssyndromet" (Swedish), directly translated as The Norrmalmstorg Syndrome, but then later became known abroad as the Stockholm syndrome.[7] It was originally defined by psychiatrist Frank Ochberg to aid the management of hostage situations.[8]
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You just pointed out that the age of consent varies by state. So tell me, why is a 15 year old, old enough to marry, and in some states they are not?

Could it possibly be that these laws concerning morality have no basis in fact?

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't.  Go to your bank and demand they treat you like a million dollar account holder.  Go to government and demand to be treated like a politician.
> 
> You have the right to be left alone if you're not harming anyone.  No one has the right to demand anything from others, including government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So women had no right to demand the vote?
> Blacks had no right to demand an end to Jim Crowe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights?  I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote.  I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain.  Seriously, you don't know the difference?
> 
> If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".
> 
> The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally.  As in - the right to vote.  The right to use public drinking fountains.  The right to marry.
> 
> Those are retarded examples.  SURELY you can see the that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So show me where straights can enter into single sex marriage and we're talking.  In the mean time, you have nothing.  The law is applied equally to everyone.  That you don't want what straights want is irrelevant to the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where same sex marriage is legal, "straights" can enter in to same sex marriages.  It's applied equally.
Click to expand...


And vice versa.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?*[...]
> 
> 
> 
> When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But what if a child did consent to it?  Who are you to tell that child their love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I child can not legally consent and for good reason.  They are not mature.  We - adults, parents - ARE their guardians for a reason.  So yes, it is our responsibility to protect them.  This is totally different than a relationship with two consenting adults and is nothing more than a diversion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just said that the age of consent is a social overlay, so who's to say our culture is right and the culture in Saudi Arabia is wrong? What if children are ready for sex by the age of 12?  Who are you to stand in the way of their love and their civil rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't, asswipe.
Click to expand...


Of course you do, Its implied by your argument.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

kaz said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually...it's sad when you can't find it in yourself to allow two people who love each other to marry when it does no harm to you or anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not interested in your strawmen.  Making accusations as to my motives just makes you full of shit.  You have no idea what i think, and I didn't tell you.  We are talking about logic.  You interested in a debate about logic and our positions or you want to go all girl on me and gush about your feelings?  If you want the latter, paintmywagon is probably interested, but i'm not.  If you want the former, cut the crap and discuss the issue, not how you feel about it.  I don't give a shit how you feel about it.
Click to expand...



Dead. Nuts. On.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

bodecea said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Age of consent is a social/cultural overlay.  However - love is wrong when it damages a person.  Pedophilia has been shown to be very damaging to children.  Children do not have the mental maturity to consent.  Adults do.  *No rights are unlimited.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Including the rights of one person to marry the entire adult population of the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? *Who are you to say they're love is wrong?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Age of what?  *Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand*.  Fuck five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a fuck, I have a life to lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?  Are you going to deny them their love for a 40 year old obese man?  Maybe you need to rethink your backward, religiously motivated judgment of people's lifestyles and start showing a little tolerance. Hateful pedophobes like you are the reason that child lovers have been denied equal rights in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children can not legally consent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define children.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? *Who are you to say they're love is wrong?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Age of what?  *Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand*.  Fuck five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a fuck, I have a life to lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?*[...]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet again, you are using your values of adulthood to make your determination.
> 
> You are a "bigot", because you are forcing your morality on others.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feel free to make your case, in a court of law, for lowering the age of consent for whatever your purposes are.
Click to expand...


I have already proved that the age of consent varies. I don't need to prove anything to you.

It is reality. Today.

Mark


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Age of consent is a social/cultural overlay.  However - love is wrong when it damages a person.  Pedophilia has been shown to be very damaging to children.  Children do not have the mental maturity to consent.  Adults do.  *No rights are unlimited.*
> 
> 
> 
> Including the rights of one person to marry the entire adult population of the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?  Are you going to deny them their love for a 40 year old obese man?  Maybe you need to rethink your backward, religiously motivated judgment of people's lifestyles and start showing a little tolerance. Hateful pedophobes like you are the reason that child lovers have been denied equal rights in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children can not legally consent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define children.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?*[...]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet again, you are using your values of adulthood to make your determination.
> 
> You are a "bigot", because you are forcing your morality on others.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feel free to make your case, in a court of law, for lowering the age of consent for whatever your purposes are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have already proved that the age of consent varies. I don't need to prove anything to you.
> 
> It is reality. Today.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

And?


----------



## 80zephyr

JakeStarkey said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Age of consent is a social/cultural overlay.  However - love is wrong when it damages a person.  Pedophilia has been shown to be very damaging to children.  Children do not have the mental maturity to consent.  Adults do.  *No rights are unlimited.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Including the rights of one person to marry the entire adult population of the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? *Who are you to say they're love is wrong?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Age of what?  *Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand*.  Fuck five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a fuck, I have a life to lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?  Are you going to deny them their love for a 40 year old obese man?  Maybe you need to rethink your backward, religiously motivated judgment of people's lifestyles and start showing a little tolerance. Hateful pedophobes like you are the reason that child lovers have been denied equal rights in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children can not legally consent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define children.Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The legislature defines that and age of consent.
> 
> You have no worry in your absurd world about pedophiles and age of consent.
> 
> You are absurd, absurd, absurd.
> 
> The children of the next generation of your religious groups are going to be saying, "Our parents were meat heads."
Click to expand...


So then, why does the age of consent vary? BTW, I do not use religion to argue my stance.

Yet another strawman.
Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

bodecea said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Age of consent is a social/cultural overlay.  However - love is wrong when it damages a person.  Pedophilia has been shown to be very damaging to children.  Children do not have the mental maturity to consent.  Adults do.  *No rights are unlimited.*
> 
> 
> 
> Including the rights of one person to marry the entire adult population of the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?  Are you going to deny them their love for a 40 year old obese man?  Maybe you need to rethink your backward, religiously motivated judgment of people's lifestyles and start showing a little tolerance. Hateful pedophobes like you are the reason that child lovers have been denied equal rights in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children can not legally consent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define children.Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The legislature defines that and age of consent.
> 
> You have no worry in your absurd world about pedophiles and age of consent.
> 
> You are absurd, absurd, absurd.
> 
> The children of the next generation of your religious groups are going to be saying, "Our parents were meat heads."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you sensing the underlying current here?
Click to expand...


Yes, I am. You seem to believe your own moral beliefs trump those of others. Are you a bigot?

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

bodecea said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Including the rights of one person to marry the entire adult population of the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?  Are you going to deny them their love for a 40 year old obese man?  Maybe you need to rethink your backward, religiously motivated judgment of people's lifestyles and start showing a little tolerance. Hateful pedophobes like you are the reason that child lovers have been denied equal rights in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children can not legally consent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define children.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?*[...]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet again, you are using your values of adulthood to make your determination.
> 
> You are a "bigot", because you are forcing your morality on others.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feel free to make your case, in a court of law, for lowering the age of consent for whatever your purposes are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have already proved that the age of consent varies. I don't need to prove anything to you.
> 
> It is reality. Today.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And?
Click to expand...


And? It shoots hell out of your argument.

Next.

Mark


----------



## MaryL

Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again?  this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a  self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for,  they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.


----------



## 80zephyr

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?*[...]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But what if a child did consent to it?  Who are you to tell that child their love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't love, it is taking advantage of a child below the age of consent (which is 16-18 in most states). Children below that age have underdeveloped brains, and can easily be taken advantage of or abused by adults - children can be conditioned to view their abusers behavior as normal or even acceptable but that doesn't make it right.
> 
> Then there is always Stockholm syndrome: Stockholm syndrome - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Stockholm syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of _Kreditbanken_ at Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm, Sweden, in which several bank employees were held hostage in a bank vault from August 23 to 28, 1973, while their captors negotiated with police. *During this standoff, the victims became emotionally attached to their captors, rejected assistance from government officials at one point, and even defended their captors after they were freed from their six-day ordeal.*[6] The term was coined by the criminologist and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot as "Norrmalmstorgssyndromet" (Swedish), directly translated as The Norrmalmstorg Syndrome, but then later became known abroad as the Stockholm syndrome.[7] It was originally defined by psychiatrist Frank Ochberg to aid the management of hostage situations.[8]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you saying that children wanting to have sex with an adult is a mental disorder?  Do you think that NAMBLA might succeed in getting that reference dropped by the APA like you guys did?
Click to expand...


Its already happening.

Mark


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Including the rights of one person to marry the entire adult population of the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?  Are you going to deny them their love for a 40 year old obese man?  Maybe you need to rethink your backward, religiously motivated judgment of people's lifestyles and start showing a little tolerance. Hateful pedophobes like you are the reason that child lovers have been denied equal rights in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children can not legally consent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define children.Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The legislature defines that and age of consent.
> 
> You have no worry in your absurd world about pedophiles and age of consent.
> 
> You are absurd, absurd, absurd.
> 
> The children of the next generation of your religious groups are going to be saying, "Our parents were meat heads."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you sensing the underlying current here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I am. You seem to believe your own moral beliefs trump those of others. Are you a bigot?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

In what way would you consider me a bigot?


----------



## bodecea

MaryL said:


> Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again?  this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a  self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for,  they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.


Well, I adopted our daughter in order to protect my parental rights.  Why does ANYONE "need" to adopt children?  Answer than one.


----------



## hipeter924

80zephyr said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? *Who are you to say they're love is wrong?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Age of what?  *Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand*.  Fuck five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a fuck, I have a life to lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?*[...]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet again, you are using your values of adulthood to make your determination.
> 
> You are a "bigot"[...]
Click to expand...

Meh. If I wanted to waste time I could play name games like you, but I really don't see the point.


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?*[...]
> 
> 
> 
> When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But what if a child did consent to it?  Who are you to tell that child their love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I child can not legally consent and for good reason.  They are not mature.  We - adults, parents - ARE their guardians for a reason.  So yes, it is our responsibility to protect them.  This is totally different than a relationship with two consenting adults and is nothing more than a diversion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just said that the age of consent is a social overlay, so who's to say our culture is right and the culture in Saudi Arabia is wrong? What if children are ready for sex by the age of 12?  Who are you to stand in the way of their love and their civil rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm arguing from a * scientific viewpoint* that recognizes that sexual exploitation of prebuscent children is very damaging to the child.  In addition, child marriages in areas that do allow it are often very damaging to the girl - physically (because she is not mature enough for child birth), educationally (because her education stops) and she is frequently a victim of abuse.  "Age of consent" is cultural  in that it spans an age from 12-18 (a few have no minimum) but child advocate groups are trying to make it at least 16.
Click to expand...


You are arguing from a scientific viewpoint? Me to. Men  cannot have "sex" with other men. Neither can women.

Check, Mate.

Mark


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

JakeStarkey said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that state taxes and federal taxes are different, right?
> 
> No, you don't? I can explain it to you if you need it.
> 
> 
> 
> you DO know I just said "taxes", right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you going to admit that paying taxes and obeying the law have nothing to do with the discussion, or do you still think it's relevant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you ever heard the phrase "No taxation without representation"?   Gays pay taxes too.  We are citizens.  We deserve the same civil rights and benefits, protections, etc. from the state.  You may not like it, but there it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lifestyle is not a constitutionally protected status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to marry whom you will is protected.
Click to expand...


Really?  Where?  Do you see this circling right back to underage children?  There's a reason your arguments can't escape that association.


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what if a child did consent to it?  Who are you to tell that child their love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I child can not legally consent and for good reason.  They are not mature.  We - adults, parents - ARE their guardians for a reason.  So yes, it is our responsibility to protect them.  This is totally different than a relationship with two consenting adults and is nothing more than a diversion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just said that the age of consent is a social overlay, so who's to say our culture is right and the culture in Saudi Arabia is wrong? What if children are ready for sex by the age of 12?  Who are you to stand in the way of their love and their civil rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm arguing from a * scientific viewpoint* that recognizes that sexual exploitation of prebuscent children is very damaging to the child.  In addition, child marriages in areas that do allow it are often very damaging to the girl - physically (because she is not mature enough for child birth), educationally (because her education stops) and she is frequently a victim of abuse.  "Age of consent" is cultural  in that it spans an age from 12-18 (a few have no minimum) but child advocate groups are trying to make it at least 16.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing from a scientific viewpoint? Me to. Men  cannot have "sex" with other men. Neither can women.
> 
> Check, Mate.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Oh....DO tell us more about your "qualifications" for sex.


----------



## 80zephyr

kaz said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> So women had no right to demand the vote?
> Blacks had no right to demand an end to Jim Crowe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights?  I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote.  I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain.  Seriously, you don't know the difference?
> 
> If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".
> 
> The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally.  As in - the right to vote.  The right to use public drinking fountains.  The right to marry. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.
> 
> *A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it need to be a "distinct gender"?  That automatically is discrimminatory.  Heteros can marry the person they love.  Homos can not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "the person they love"  seriously?
> 
> Give me another law that changes based on what someone wants.
Click to expand...


If a bi-sexual wants to marry based on "love", they should be able to marry the man and woman of their choice.

Anyone that limits them is a bigot.

Mark


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are you going to admit that paying taxes and obeying the law have nothing to do with the discussion, or do you still think it's relevant?
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard the phrase "No taxation without representation"?   Gays pay taxes too.  We are citizens.  We deserve the same civil rights and benefits, protections, etc. from the state.  You may not like it, but there it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lifestyle is not a constitutionally protected status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh?   So, gays have no protected civil rights?  Is that your assertion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No more than anyone else. I know, it sucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly.   Ergo, marriage rights....just like anyone else.   That was easy for you to come to now, wasn't it?
Click to expand...


They had the same rights as everyone else without gay marriage. Fail.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> you DO know I just said "taxes", right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you going to admit that paying taxes and obeying the law have nothing to do with the discussion, or do you still think it's relevant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you ever heard the phrase "No taxation without representation"?   Gays pay taxes too.  We are citizens.  We deserve the same civil rights and benefits, protections, etc. from the state.  You may not like it, but there it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lifestyle is not a constitutionally protected status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to marry whom you will is protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Where?  Do you see this circling right back to underage children?  There's a reason your arguments can't escape that association.
Click to expand...

YOU are the one who keeps bringing up underage children.


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights?  I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote.  I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain.  Seriously, you don't know the difference?
> 
> If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".
> 
> The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally.  As in - the right to vote.  The right to use public drinking fountains.  The right to marry. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.
> 
> *A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it need to be a "distinct gender"?  That automatically is discrimminatory.  Heteros can marry the person they love.  Homos can not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "the person they love"  seriously?
> 
> Give me another law that changes based on what someone wants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a bi-sexual wants to marry based on "love", they should be able to marry the man and woman of their choice.
> 
> Anyone that limits them is a bigot.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand what the word "bi-sexual" means.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard the phrase "No taxation without representation"?   Gays pay taxes too.  We are citizens.  We deserve the same civil rights and benefits, protections, etc. from the state.  You may not like it, but there it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lifestyle is not a constitutionally protected status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh?   So, gays have no protected civil rights?  Is that your assertion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No more than anyone else. I know, it sucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly.   Ergo, marriage rights....just like anyone else.   That was easy for you to come to now, wasn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They had the same rights as everyone else without gay marriage. Fail.
Click to expand...

Wrong....we have been discriminated against based on gender.   But you don't need to sign your posts anymore.  We know.


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again?  this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a  self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for,  they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I adopted our daughter in order to protect my parental rights.  Why does ANYONE "need" to adopt children?  Answer than one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that you adopted your daughter because you fucked up. Is that right?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Totally incorrect.  She was lovingly planned by my wife and I.  She had her...I adopted her.  One of the best things in our lives.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

JakeStarkey said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Age of consent is a social/cultural overlay.  However - love is wrong when it damages a person.  Pedophilia has been shown to be very damaging to children.  Children do not have the mental maturity to consent.  Adults do.  *No rights are unlimited.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Including the rights of one person to marry the entire adult population of the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? *Who are you to say they're love is wrong?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Age of what?  *Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand*.  Fuck five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a fuck, I have a life to lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?  Are you going to deny them their love for a 40 year old obese man?  Maybe you need to rethink your backward, religiously motivated judgment of people's lifestyles and start showing a little tolerance. Hateful pedophobes like you are the reason that child lovers have been denied equal rights in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children can not legally consent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define children.Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The legislature defines that and age of consent.
> 
> You have no worry in your absurd world about pedophiles and age of consent.
> 
> You are absurd, absurd, absurd.
> 
> The children of the next generation of your religious groups are going to be saying, "Our parents were meat heads."
Click to expand...


But any law can be overturned that's found to have violated somebody's "civil rights". We just witnessed that in action.  Somehow "it's the law" didn't work to stop gays from redefining marriage, so what's to stop pedophiles from doing the same?  They got your playbook and they covet your success.


----------



## 80zephyr

hipeter924 said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? *Who are you to say they're love is wrong?*
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Age of what?  *Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand*.  Fuck five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a fuck, I have a life to lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?*[...]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet again, you are using your values of adulthood to make your determination.
> 
> You are a "bigot"[...]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meh. If I wanted to waste time I could play name games like you, but I really don't see the point.
Click to expand...


Really? Translation: I have no answer. Therefore, I chose not to.

If you  have a standard that you will not cross, you are, by definition, a bigot.

Sorry that upsets you.

Mark


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lifestyle is not a constitutionally protected status.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?   So, gays have no protected civil rights?  Is that your assertion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No more than anyone else. I know, it sucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly.   Ergo, marriage rights....just like anyone else.   That was easy for you to come to now, wasn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They had the same rights as everyone else without gay marriage. Fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong....we have been discriminated against based on gender.   But you don't need to sign your posts anymore.  We know.
Click to expand...


No you haven't.  Marriage laws allow anyone to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex.  This applies no matter what your gender is. Ergo, no discrimination. Invincible logic.


----------



## hipeter924

80zephyr said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what if a child did consent to it?  Who are you to tell that child their love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I child can not legally consent and for good reason.  They are not mature.  We - adults, parents - ARE their guardians for a reason.  So yes, it is our responsibility to protect them.  This is totally different than a relationship with two consenting adults and is nothing more than a diversion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just said that the age of consent is a social overlay, so who's to say our culture is right and the culture in Saudi Arabia is wrong? What if children are ready for sex by the age of 12?  Who are you to stand in the way of their love and their civil rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm arguing from a * scientific viewpoint* that recognizes that sexual exploitation of prebuscent children is very damaging to the child.  In addition, child marriages in areas that do allow it are often very damaging to the girl - physically (because she is not mature enough for child birth), educationally (because her education stops) and she is frequently a victim of abuse.  "Age of consent" is cultural  in that it spans an age from 12-18 (a few have no minimum) but child advocate groups are trying to make it at least 16.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing from a scientific viewpoint? Me to. *Men  cannot have "sex" with other men. Neither can women.*
> 
> Check, Mate.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

False. Females can donate their eggs, and Males their sperm. Irrespective of whether someone is gay or not, the result is a baby - through artificial means: For Gay Men Becoming a Parent through Surrogacy


> *Options for family building*
> Gay couples who want to have children will need an egg donor, who provides the eggs, as well as a surrogate, who will carry the pregnancy. The egg donor and surrogate can be two different women (uses gestational surrogate), or one in the same (known as a traditional surrogate). Note that some states, however, mandate that the donor and surrogate must be two different women.
> 
> These roles may be provided for gay men by their female relatives or friends.  Alternatively, some fertility clinics, agencies and attorneys facilitate connections with surrogates and egg donors.
> 
> * 1.  Traditional surrogacy with Artificial Insemination (AI)*
> In this case the surrogate is artificially inseminated with the intended biological father's sperm.
> 
> * 2.  IVF and Egg Donation and Gestational Surrogate*
> Using this scenario, two women are involved. IVF (in vitro fertilization) is used to control the ovulatory process, removing eggs from the donor's ovaries and letting sperm fertilize them in a fluid medium (in vitro). The resulting embryos are then transferred to the surrogate's uterus with the intent to establish a successful pregnancy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bodecea said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Age of consent is a social/cultural overlay.  However - love is wrong when it damages a person.  Pedophilia has been shown to be very damaging to children.  Children do not have the mental maturity to consent.  Adults do.  *No rights are unlimited.*
> 
> 
> 
> Including the rights of one person to marry the entire adult population of the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?  Are you going to deny them their love for a 40 year old obese man?  Maybe you need to rethink your backward, religiously motivated judgment of people's lifestyles and start showing a little tolerance. Hateful pedophobes like you are the reason that child lovers have been denied equal rights in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children can not legally consent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define children.Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The legislature defines that and age of consent.
> 
> You have no worry in your absurd world about pedophiles and age of consent.
> 
> You are absurd, absurd, absurd.
> 
> The children of the next generation of your religious groups are going to be saying, "Our parents were meat heads."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you sensing the underlying current here?
Click to expand...


The desperation of fear and sweat of seeing Defeat bearing down.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again?  this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a  self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for,  they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I adopted our daughter in order to protect my parental rights.  Why does ANYONE "need" to adopt children?  Answer than one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that you adopted your daughter because you fucked up. Is that right?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally incorrect.  She was lovingly planned by my wife and I.  She had her...I adopted her.  One of the best things in our lives.
Click to expand...



Where's her father?  Whether you got sperm at a sperm bank or have a father that you keep out of the picture, one way or another you perverted the natural order to have your arrangement and delusion.  It was entirely a self centered act.


----------



## 80zephyr

bodecea said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what if a child did consent to it?  Who are you to tell that child their love is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I child can not legally consent and for good reason.  They are not mature.  We - adults, parents - ARE their guardians for a reason.  So yes, it is our responsibility to protect them.  This is totally different than a relationship with two consenting adults and is nothing more than a diversion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just said that the age of consent is a social overlay, so who's to say our culture is right and the culture in Saudi Arabia is wrong? What if children are ready for sex by the age of 12?  Who are you to stand in the way of their love and their civil rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm arguing from a * scientific viewpoint* that recognizes that sexual exploitation of prebuscent children is very damaging to the child.  In addition, child marriages in areas that do allow it are often very damaging to the girl - physically (because she is not mature enough for child birth), educationally (because her education stops) and she is frequently a victim of abuse.  "Age of consent" is cultural  in that it spans an age from 12-18 (a few have no minimum) but child advocate groups are trying to make it at least 16.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing from a scientific viewpoint? Me to. Men  cannot have "sex" with other men. Neither can women.
> 
> Check, Mate.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh....DO tell us more about your "qualifications" for sex.
Click to expand...


I don't need qualifications to understand reality.

You are not having sex. Sex is procreation. You cannot procreate.

Mark


----------



## hipeter924

80zephyr said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?*[...]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet again, you are using your values of adulthood to make your determination.
> 
> You are a "bigot"[...]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meh. If I wanted to waste time I could play name games like you, but I really don't see the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Translation: I have no answer. Therefore, I chose not to.
> 
> If you  have a standard that you will not cross, you are, by definition, a bigot.
> 
> Sorry that upsets you.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

I put you on ignore the moment you started spouting BS. If I wanted to be trolled I could visit 4chan.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Age of consent is a social/cultural overlay.  However - love is wrong when it damages a person.  Pedophilia has been shown to be very damaging to children.  Children do not have the mental maturity to consent.  Adults do.  *No rights are unlimited.*
> 
> 
> 
> Including the rights of one person to marry the entire adult population of the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?  Are you going to deny them their love for a 40 year old obese man?  Maybe you need to rethink your backward, religiously motivated judgment of people's lifestyles and start showing a little tolerance. Hateful pedophobes like you are the reason that child lovers have been denied equal rights in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children can not legally consent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define children.Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The legislature defines that and age of consent.
> 
> You have no worry in your absurd world about pedophiles and age of consent.
> 
> You are absurd, absurd, absurd.
> 
> The children of the next generation of your religious groups are going to be saying, "Our parents were meat heads."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But any law can be overturned that's found to have violated somebody's "civil rights". We just witnessed that in action.  Somehow "it's the law" didn't work to stop gays from redefining marriage, so what's to stop pedophiles from doing the same?  They got your playbook and they covet your success.
Click to expand...

Right...a law can be declared unConstitutional...with Constitutional basis.   What basis have you got to legalize pedophilia.  Share with us your reasoning.


----------



## 80zephyr

bodecea said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".
> 
> The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally.  As in - the right to vote.  The right to use public drinking fountains.  The right to marry. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.
> 
> *A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it need to be a "distinct gender"?  That automatically is discrimminatory.  Heteros can marry the person they love.  Homos can not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "the person they love"  seriously?
> 
> Give me another law that changes based on what someone wants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a bi-sexual wants to marry based on "love", they should be able to marry the man and woman of their choice.
> 
> Anyone that limits them is a bigot.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't seem to understand what the word "bi-sexual" means.
Click to expand...


I don't? Why don't you explain it to me.

Mark


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?   So, gays have no protected civil rights?  Is that your assertion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No more than anyone else. I know, it sucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly.   Ergo, marriage rights....just like anyone else.   That was easy for you to come to now, wasn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They had the same rights as everyone else without gay marriage. Fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong....we have been discriminated against based on gender.   But you don't need to sign your posts anymore.  We know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you haven't.  Marriage laws allow *anyone to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex*.  This applies no matter what your gender is. Ergo, no discrimination. Invincible logic.
Click to expand...

Not anymore in most states.


----------



## 80zephyr

bodecea said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again?  this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a  self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for,  they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I adopted our daughter in order to protect my parental rights.  Why does ANYONE "need" to adopt children?  Answer than one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that you adopted your daughter because you fucked up. Is that right?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally incorrect.  She was lovingly planned by my wife and I.  She had her...I adopted her.  One of the best things in our lives.
Click to expand...


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> Oh....DO tell us more about your "qualifications" for sex.


----------



## bodecea

JakeStarkey said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Including the rights of one person to marry the entire adult population of the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?  Are you going to deny them their love for a 40 year old obese man?  Maybe you need to rethink your backward, religiously motivated judgment of people's lifestyles and start showing a little tolerance. Hateful pedophobes like you are the reason that child lovers have been denied equal rights in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children can not legally consent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define children.Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The legislature defines that and age of consent.
> 
> You have no worry in your absurd world about pedophiles and age of consent.
> 
> You are absurd, absurd, absurd.
> 
> The children of the next generation of your religious groups are going to be saying, "Our parents were meat heads."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you sensing the underlying current here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The desperation of fear and sweat of seeing Defeat bearing down.
Click to expand...

Isn't it horrible that they cannot discriminate legally against gay citizens anymore?


----------



## 80zephyr

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again?  this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a  self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for,  they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I adopted our daughter in order to protect my parental rights.  Why does ANYONE "need" to adopt children?  Answer than one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that you adopted your daughter because you fucked up. Is that right?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally incorrect.  She was lovingly planned by my wife and I.  She had her...I adopted her.  One of the best things in our lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's her father?  Whether you got sperm at a sperm bank or have a father that you keep out of the picture, one way or another you perverted the natural order to have your arrangement and delusion.  It was entirely a self centered act.
Click to expand...


They don't care. Hence, she fucked up.

Mark


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again?  this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a  self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for,  they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I adopted our daughter in order to protect my parental rights.  Why does ANYONE "need" to adopt children?  Answer than one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that you adopted your daughter because you fucked up. Is that right?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally incorrect.  She was lovingly planned by my wife and I.  She had her...I adopted her.  One of the best things in our lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's her father?  Whether you got sperm at a sperm bank or have a father that you keep out of the picture, one way or another you perverted the natural order to have your arrangement and delusion.  It was entirely a self centered act.
Click to expand...

We had a sperm donor....a wonderful service that was actually generated decades ago for childless straight couples and now also used by gay couples.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".
> 
> The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally.  As in - the right to vote.  The right to use public drinking fountains.  The right to marry. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.
> 
> *A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it need to be a "distinct gender"?  That automatically is discrimminatory.  Heteros can marry the person they love.  Homos can not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "the person they love"  seriously?
> 
> Give me another law that changes based on what someone wants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a bi-sexual wants to marry based on "love", they should be able to marry the man and woman of their choice.
> 
> Anyone that limits them is a bigot.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't seem to understand what the word "bi-sexual" means.
Click to expand...


It means the same as Santa Clause.  Doesn't exist.


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I child can not legally consent and for good reason.  They are not mature.  We - adults, parents - ARE their guardians for a reason.  So yes, it is our responsibility to protect them.  This is totally different than a relationship with two consenting adults and is nothing more than a diversion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just said that the age of consent is a social overlay, so who's to say our culture is right and the culture in Saudi Arabia is wrong? What if children are ready for sex by the age of 12?  Who are you to stand in the way of their love and their civil rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm arguing from a * scientific viewpoint* that recognizes that sexual exploitation of prebuscent children is very damaging to the child.  In addition, child marriages in areas that do allow it are often very damaging to the girl - physically (because she is not mature enough for child birth), educationally (because her education stops) and she is frequently a victim of abuse.  "Age of consent" is cultural  in that it spans an age from 12-18 (a few have no minimum) but child advocate groups are trying to make it at least 16.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing from a scientific viewpoint? Me to. Men  cannot have "sex" with other men. Neither can women.
> 
> Check, Mate.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh....DO tell us more about your "qualifications" for sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need qualifications to understand reality.
> 
> You are not having sex. Sex is procreation. You cannot procreate.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

So sex is only for procreation?   Oh you poor beknighted soul.


----------



## 80zephyr

JakeStarkey said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Including the rights of one person to marry the entire adult population of the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?  Are you going to deny them their love for a 40 year old obese man?  Maybe you need to rethink your backward, religiously motivated judgment of people's lifestyles and start showing a little tolerance. Hateful pedophobes like you are the reason that child lovers have been denied equal rights in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children can not legally consent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define children.Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The legislature defines that and age of consent.
> 
> You have no worry in your absurd world about pedophiles and age of consent.
> 
> You are absurd, absurd, absurd.
> 
> The children of the next generation of your religious groups are going to be saying, "Our parents were meat heads."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you sensing the underlying current here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The desperation of fear and sweat of seeing Defeat bearing down.
Click to expand...


The debate is whether the decision is right or not. What society does has no bearing.

Mark


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Including the rights of one person to marry the entire adult population of the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?  Are you going to deny them their love for a 40 year old obese man?  Maybe you need to rethink your backward, religiously motivated judgment of people's lifestyles and start showing a little tolerance. Hateful pedophobes like you are the reason that child lovers have been denied equal rights in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children can not legally consent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define children.Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The legislature defines that and age of consent.
> 
> You have no worry in your absurd world about pedophiles and age of consent.
> 
> You are absurd, absurd, absurd.
> 
> The children of the next generation of your religious groups are going to be saying, "Our parents were meat heads."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But any law can be overturned that's found to have violated somebody's "civil rights". We just witnessed that in action.  Somehow "it's the law" didn't work to stop gays from redefining marriage, so what's to stop pedophiles from doing the same?  They got your playbook and they covet your success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right...a law can be declared unConstitutional...with Constitutional basis.   What basis have you got to legalize pedophilia.  Share with us your reasoning.
Click to expand...


Don't need to. That trail has already been blazed by you guys.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh....DO tell us more about your "qualifications" for sex.
Click to expand...

That reminds me of that Focus on the Family article where the Founder, James Dodson suggested that fathers shower with their young sons, show them their penis' and that would keep them straight.   He also suggested that parents teach boys to pound round pegs in round holes to keep them straight too.


----------



## hipeter924

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> No more than anyone else. I know, it sucks.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.   Ergo, marriage rights....just like anyone else.   That was easy for you to come to now, wasn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They had the same rights as everyone else without gay marriage. Fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong....we have been discriminated against based on gender.   But you don't need to sign your posts anymore.  We know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you haven't.  Marriage laws allow *anyone to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex*.  This applies no matter what your gender is. Ergo, no discrimination. Invincible logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not anymore in most states.
Click to expand...


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.
> 
> *A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it need to be a "distinct gender"?  That automatically is discrimminatory.  Heteros can marry the person they love.  Homos can not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "the person they love"  seriously?
> 
> Give me another law that changes based on what someone wants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a bi-sexual wants to marry based on "love", they should be able to marry the man and woman of their choice.
> 
> Anyone that limits them is a bigot.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't seem to understand what the word "bi-sexual" means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means the same as Santa Clause.  Doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

     "Santa Clause"


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again?  this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a  self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for,  they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I adopted our daughter in order to protect my parental rights.  Why does ANYONE "need" to adopt children?  Answer than one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that you adopted your daughter because you fucked up. Is that right?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally incorrect.  She was lovingly planned by my wife and I.  She had her...I adopted her.  One of the best things in our lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's her father?  Whether you got sperm at a sperm bank or have a father that you keep out of the picture, one way or another you perverted the natural order to have your arrangement and delusion.  It was entirely a self centered act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We had a sperm donor....a wonderful service that was actually generated decades ago for childless straight couples and now also used by gay couples.
Click to expand...


Gay couples, you mean people who intentionally set up a situation that cannot bring children into the world naturally, unlike married folks for whom childlessness was an unfortunate vicissitude.  Not quite the same, is it?


----------



## 80zephyr

hipeter924 said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?*[...]
> 
> 
> 
> When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet again, you are using your values of adulthood to make your determination.
> 
> You are a "bigot"[...]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meh. If I wanted to waste time I could play name games like you, but I really don't see the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Translation: I have no answer. Therefore, I chose not to.
> 
> If you  have a standard that you will not cross, you are, by definition, a bigot.
> 
> Sorry that upsets you.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I put you on ignore the moment you started spouting BS. If I wanted to be trolled I could visit 4chan.
Click to expand...


If opposing viewpoints bother you, I can see why you did that. Especially since you have no answer to my concerns.

Mark


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Children can not legally consent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define children.Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The legislature defines that and age of consent.
> 
> You have no worry in your absurd world about pedophiles and age of consent.
> 
> You are absurd, absurd, absurd.
> 
> The children of the next generation of your religious groups are going to be saying, "Our parents were meat heads."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But any law can be overturned that's found to have violated somebody's "civil rights". We just witnessed that in action.  Somehow "it's the law" didn't work to stop gays from redefining marriage, so what's to stop pedophiles from doing the same?  They got your playbook and they covet your success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right...a law can be declared unConstitutional...with Constitutional basis.   What basis have you got to legalize pedophilia.  Share with us your reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't need to. That trail has already been blazed by you guys.
Click to expand...

How so?  What is it SPECIFICALLY about legalized gay marriage that opens any legal door for pedophilia?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh....DO tell us more about your "qualifications" for sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That reminds me of that Focus on the Family article where the Founder, James Dodson suggested that fathers shower with their young sons, show them their penis' and that would keep them straight.   He also suggested that parents teach boys to pound round pegs in round holes to keep them straight too.
Click to expand...


James Dobson did all that?  Or are you telling more lies?


----------



## bodecea

hipeter924 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.   Ergo, marriage rights....just like anyone else.   That was easy for you to come to now, wasn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They had the same rights as everyone else without gay marriage. Fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong....we have been discriminated against based on gender.   But you don't need to sign your posts anymore.  We know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you haven't.  Marriage laws allow *anyone to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex*.  This applies no matter what your gender is. Ergo, no discrimination. Invincible logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not anymore in most states.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

And their arguments are so preciously archaic too.


----------



## hipeter924

80zephyr said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet again, you are using your values of adulthood to make your determination.
> 
> You are a "bigot"[...]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meh. If I wanted to waste time I could play name games like you, but I really don't see the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Translation: I have no answer. Therefore, I chose not to.
> 
> If you  have a standard that you will not cross, you are, by definition, a bigot.
> 
> Sorry that upsets you.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I put you on ignore the moment you started spouting BS. If I wanted to be trolled I could visit 4chan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If opposing viewpoints bother you, I can see why you did that. Especially since you have no answer to my concerns.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Two can play your game. 

I know how that upsets you.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define children.Mark
> 
> 
> 
> The legislature defines that and age of consent.
> 
> You have no worry in your absurd world about pedophiles and age of consent.
> 
> You are absurd, absurd, absurd.
> 
> The children of the next generation of your religious groups are going to be saying, "Our parents were meat heads."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But any law can be overturned that's found to have violated somebody's "civil rights". We just witnessed that in action.  Somehow "it's the law" didn't work to stop gays from redefining marriage, so what's to stop pedophiles from doing the same?  They got your playbook and they covet your success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right...a law can be declared unConstitutional...with Constitutional basis.   What basis have you got to legalize pedophilia.  Share with us your reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't need to. That trail has already been blazed by you guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?  What is it SPECIFICALLY about legalized gay marriage that opens any legal door for pedophilia?
Click to expand...


Your twisted interpretation of the 14th Amendment.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I adopted our daughter in order to protect my parental rights.  Why does ANYONE "need" to adopt children?  Answer than one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that you adopted your daughter because you fucked up. Is that right?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally incorrect.  She was lovingly planned by my wife and I.  She had her...I adopted her.  One of the best things in our lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's her father?  Whether you got sperm at a sperm bank or have a father that you keep out of the picture, one way or another you perverted the natural order to have your arrangement and delusion.  It was entirely a self centered act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We had a sperm donor....a wonderful service that was actually generated decades ago for childless straight couples and now also used by gay couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gay couples, you mean people who intentionally set up a situation that cannot bring children into the world naturally, unlike married folks for whom childlessness was an unfortunate vicissitude.  Not quite the same, is it?
Click to expand...

Legally, it is.


----------



## hipeter924

bodecea said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> They had the same rights as everyone else without gay marriage. Fail.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong....we have been discriminated against based on gender.   But you don't need to sign your posts anymore.  We know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you haven't.  Marriage laws allow *anyone to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex*.  This applies no matter what your gender is. Ergo, no discrimination. Invincible logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not anymore in most states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And their arguments are so preciously archaic too.
Click to expand...

Half the time you can't tell if they are being serious or just trolling.


----------



## 80zephyr

bodecea said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just said that the age of consent is a social overlay, so who's to say our culture is right and the culture in Saudi Arabia is wrong? What if children are ready for sex by the age of 12?  Who are you to stand in the way of their love and their civil rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm arguing from a * scientific viewpoint* that recognizes that sexual exploitation of prebuscent children is very damaging to the child.  In addition, child marriages in areas that do allow it are often very damaging to the girl - physically (because she is not mature enough for child birth), educationally (because her education stops) and she is frequently a victim of abuse.  "Age of consent" is cultural  in that it spans an age from 12-18 (a few have no minimum) but child advocate groups are trying to make it at least 16.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing from a scientific viewpoint? Me to. Men  cannot have "sex" with other men. Neither can women.
> 
> Check, Mate.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh....DO tell us more about your "qualifications" for sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need qualifications to understand reality.
> 
> You are not having sex. Sex is procreation. You cannot procreate.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sex is only for procreation?   Oh you poor beknighted soul.
Click to expand...


I can see that people who disagree with me follow a pattern of not reading what I post.

I'm used to it.

Mark


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that you adopted your daughter because you fucked up. Is that right?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> Totally incorrect.  She was lovingly planned by my wife and I.  She had her...I adopted her.  One of the best things in our lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's her father?  Whether you got sperm at a sperm bank or have a father that you keep out of the picture, one way or another you perverted the natural order to have your arrangement and delusion.  It was entirely a self centered act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We had a sperm donor....a wonderful service that was actually generated decades ago for childless straight couples and now also used by gay couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gay couples, you mean people who intentionally set up a situation that cannot bring children into the world naturally, unlike married folks for whom childlessness was an unfortunate vicissitude.  Not quite the same, is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Legally, it is.
Click to expand...


So you admit that morality is not the centerpiece of your movement.  

Not that I needed your confirmation.


----------



## 80zephyr

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that you adopted your daughter because you fucked up. Is that right?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> Totally incorrect.  She was lovingly planned by my wife and I.  She had her...I adopted her.  One of the best things in our lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's her father?  Whether you got sperm at a sperm bank or have a father that you keep out of the picture, one way or another you perverted the natural order to have your arrangement and delusion.  It was entirely a self centered act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We had a sperm donor....a wonderful service that was actually generated decades ago for childless straight couples and now also used by gay couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gay couples, you mean people who intentionally set up a situation that cannot bring children into the world naturally, unlike married folks for whom childlessness was an unfortunate vicissitude.  Not quite the same, is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Legally, it is.
Click to expand...


You are  correct.  Logically? Not so much.

Mark


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh....DO tell us more about your "qualifications" for sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That reminds me of that Focus on the Family article where the Founder, James Dodson suggested that fathers shower with their young sons, show them their penis' and that would keep them straight.   He also suggested that parents teach boys to pound round pegs in round holes to keep them straight too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> James Dobson did all that?  Or are you telling more lies?
Click to expand...

Yes, let me pull up reference to the article.  It was a hoot when it came out.

Quickest copy I found is quoted in Free Republic...  Can Homosexuality Be Treated and Prevented James Dobson Ph.D. Child Development 

.this is my favorite part:



> Meanwhile, the boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh....DO tell us more about your "qualifications" for sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That reminds me of that Focus on the Family article where the Founder, James Dodson suggested that fathers shower with their young sons, show them their penis' and that would keep them straight.   He also suggested that parents teach boys to pound round pegs in round holes to keep them straight too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> James Dobson did all that?  Or are you telling more lies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, let me pull up reference to the article.  It was a hoot when it came out.
> 
> Quickest copy I found is quoted in Free Republic...  Can Homosexuality Be Treated and Prevented James Dobson Ph.D. Child Development
> 
> .this is my favorite part:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, the boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


So you admit you were lying about James Dobson, as nothing you cited confirms what you claimed he said.

You are the demonic Left.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The legislature defines that and age of consent.
> 
> You have no worry in your absurd world about pedophiles and age of consent.
> 
> You are absurd, absurd, absurd.
> 
> The children of the next generation of your religious groups are going to be saying, "Our parents were meat heads."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But any law can be overturned that's found to have violated somebody's "civil rights". We just witnessed that in action.  Somehow "it's the law" didn't work to stop gays from redefining marriage, so what's to stop pedophiles from doing the same?  They got your playbook and they covet your success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right...a law can be declared unConstitutional...with Constitutional basis.   What basis have you got to legalize pedophilia.  Share with us your reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't need to. That trail has already been blazed by you guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?  What is it SPECIFICALLY about legalized gay marriage that opens any legal door for pedophilia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your twisted interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...

Hello?   I'm not seeing your SPECIFIC point in legalized gay marriage that opens the legal door for pedophilia.   Did you forget to post it?


----------



## 80zephyr

hipeter924 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?*[...]
> 
> 
> 
> When you can find an infant that can actually have sex with an adult and consent to it, let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But what if a child did consent to it?  Who are you to tell that child their love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't love, it is taking advantage of a child below the age of consent (which is 16-18 in most states). Children below that age have underdeveloped brains, and can easily be taken advantage of or abused by adults - children can be conditioned to view their abusers behavior as normal or even acceptable but that doesn't make it right.
> 
> Then there is always Stockholm syndrome: Stockholm syndrome - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Stockholm syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of _Kreditbanken_ at Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm, Sweden, in which several bank employees were held hostage in a bank vault from August 23 to 28, 1973, while their captors negotiated with police. *During this standoff, the victims became emotionally attached to their captors, rejected assistance from government officials at one point, and even defended their captors after they were freed from their six-day ordeal.*[6] The term was coined by the criminologist and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot as "Norrmalmstorgssyndromet" (Swedish), directly translated as The Norrmalmstorg Syndrome, but then later became known abroad as the Stockholm syndrome.[7] It was originally defined by psychiatrist Frank Ochberg to aid the management of hostage situations.[8]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you saying that children wanting to have sex with an adult is a mental disorder?  Do you think that NAMBLA might succeed in getting that reference dropped by the APA like you guys did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all child molesters are pedophiles, and even if they are pedophiles they can still be attracted to other adults.
Click to expand...


Well, I am sure its comforting to them.

Mark


----------



## bodecea

hipeter924 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong....we have been discriminated against based on gender.   But you don't need to sign your posts anymore.  We know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you haven't.  Marriage laws allow *anyone to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex*.  This applies no matter what your gender is. Ergo, no discrimination. Invincible logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not anymore in most states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And their arguments are so preciously archaic too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Half the time you can't tell if they are being serious or just trolling.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing one is a troll, or they may be tag-teaming.


----------



## MaryL

I am baffled, why is this even an issue?  All Americans have the same rights, end of story. I don't buy the pro gay propaganda, that BS that they are being "denied" love. Homos can and DO LOVE anyone they want, and I am not getting in their way. A lot of Americans find that KIND  love rather disgusting, if not self indulgent. And we are not sure how allowing what we think of as  narcissistic sexual perverts the same gravitas as Civil rights for WOMEN, Blacks or immigrants  fair or logical. Homosexual rights are a phony self sustaining argument. And I don't care to ague about it anymore.


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights?  I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote.  I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain.  Seriously, you don't know the difference?
> 
> If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".
> 
> The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally.  As in - the right to vote.  The right to use public drinking fountains.  The right to marry. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.
> 
> *A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it need to be a "distinct gender"?  That automatically is discrimminatory.  Heteros can marry the person they love.  Homos can not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "the person they love"  seriously?
> 
> Give me another law that changes based on what someone wants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is ALL about what someone wants.
Click to expand...


Who says? You? What gives you the authority to make such a claim?

Mark


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Totally incorrect.  She was lovingly planned by my wife and I.  She had her...I adopted her.  One of the best things in our lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where's her father?  Whether you got sperm at a sperm bank or have a father that you keep out of the picture, one way or another you perverted the natural order to have your arrangement and delusion.  It was entirely a self centered act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We had a sperm donor....a wonderful service that was actually generated decades ago for childless straight couples and now also used by gay couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gay couples, you mean people who intentionally set up a situation that cannot bring children into the world naturally, unlike married folks for whom childlessness was an unfortunate vicissitude.  Not quite the same, is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Legally, it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit that morality is not the centerpiece of your movement.
> 
> Not that I needed your confirmation.
Click to expand...

This IS a country of laws, you know.  And we ARE talking legal marriage, you know.


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights?  I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote.  I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain.  Seriously, you don't know the difference?
> 
> If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".
> 
> The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally.  As in - the right to vote.  The right to use public drinking fountains.  The right to marry. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.
> 
> *A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it need to be a "distinct gender"?  That automatically is discrimminatory.  Heteros can marry the person they love.  Homos can not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "the person they love"  seriously?
> 
> Give me another law that changes based on what someone wants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blacks wanting freedom, Women wanting the vote,  Mixed-race couples wanting to marry, women wanting legal abortions, the US wanting a nation governed by men and not a king.  Shall I continue, dumbass?
Click to expand...


Yes, please continue.

Mark


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh....DO tell us more about your "qualifications" for sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That reminds me of that Focus on the Family article where the Founder, James Dodson suggested that fathers shower with their young sons, show them their penis' and that would keep them straight.   He also suggested that parents teach boys to pound round pegs in round holes to keep them straight too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> James Dobson did all that?  Or are you telling more lies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, let me pull up reference to the article.  It was a hoot when it came out.
> 
> Quickest copy I found is quoted in Free Republic...  Can Homosexuality Be Treated and Prevented James Dobson Ph.D. Child Development
> 
> .this is my favorite part:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, the boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit you were lying about James Dobson, as nothing you cited confirms what you claimed he said.
> 
> You are the demonic Left.
Click to expand...

Not lying at all.   He did say that as I quoted.   Did you take the time to read the entire piece?  Doesn't seem like you had enough time to before replying.


----------



## JakeStarkey

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Age of consent is a social/cultural overlay.  However - love is wrong when it damages a person.  Pedophilia has been shown to be very damaging to children.  Children do not have the mental maturity to consent.  Adults do.  *No rights are unlimited.*
> 
> 
> 
> Including the rights of one person to marry the entire adult population of the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is sexually harassing minors
> No, it is a biological reality rather than a 'line in the sand', children have to go through puberty - and brain development takes even longer. At one stage of human civilization, such as the Middle Ages and earlier there were childhood marriages - but back then there was also a short life span.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say it's sexually harassing, but what if they consent to it?  Are you going to deny them their love for a 40 year old obese man?  Maybe you need to rethink your backward, religiously motivated judgment of people's lifestyles and start showing a little tolerance. Hateful pedophobes like you are the reason that child lovers have been denied equal rights in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children can not legally consent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define children.Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The legislature defines that and age of consent.
> 
> You have no worry in your absurd world about pedophiles and age of consent.
> 
> You are absurd, absurd, absurd.
> 
> The children of the next generation of your religious groups are going to be saying, "Our parents were meat heads."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But any law can be overturned that's found to have violated somebody's "civil rights". We just witnessed that in action.  Somehow "it's the law" didn't work to stop gays from redefining marriage, so what's to stop pedophiles from doing the same?  They got your playbook and they covet your success.
Click to expand...


The Constitution is the play book, and you are guilty of fallacy of absurd comparison.


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> "the person they love"  seriously?
> 
> Give me another law that changes based on what someone wants.
> 
> 
> 
> He's already argued that there are loveless hetero marriages.
> 
> *Here's the dealio: For every single point made in arguing for gay marriage, the exact same argument can be made for unlimited plural marriage.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come to think of it...all those arguments apply to hetero marriage too - OMG - why have ANY marriage?
Click to expand...



Wrong again. But, you already knew that.

Mark


----------



## bodecea

MaryL said:


> I am baffled, why is this even an issue?  All Americans have the same rights, end of story. I don't buy the pro gay propaganda, that BS that they are being "denied" love. Homos can and DO LOVE anyone they want, and I am not getting in their way. A lot of Americans find that KIND  love rather disgusting, if not self indulgent. And we are not sure how allowing what we think of as  narcissistic sexual perverts the same gravitas as Civil rights for WOMEN, Blacks or immigrants  makes any sense. Homosexual rights are a phony self sustaining argument. And I don't care to ague about it anymore.


So, you do not get in the way of legalized gay marriage.  Good.


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".
> 
> The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally.  As in - the right to vote.  The right to use public drinking fountains.  The right to marry. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.
> 
> *A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it need to be a "distinct gender"?  That automatically is discrimminatory.  Heteros can marry the person they love.  Homos can not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "the person they love"  seriously?
> 
> Give me another law that changes based on what someone wants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is ALL about what someone wants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who says? You? What gives you the authority to make such a claim?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Well, it USED to be about what the parents wanted.


----------



## 80zephyr

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> But any law can be overturned that's found to have violated somebody's "civil rights". We just witnessed that in action.  Somehow "it's the law" didn't work to stop gays from redefining marriage, so what's to stop pedophiles from doing the same?  They got your playbook and they covet your success.
> 
> 
> 
> Right...a law can be declared unConstitutional...with Constitutional basis.   What basis have you got to legalize pedophilia.  Share with us your reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't need to. That trail has already been blazed by you guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?  What is it SPECIFICALLY about legalized gay marriage that opens any legal door for pedophilia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your twisted interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hello?   I'm not seeing your SPECIFIC point in legalized gay marriage that opens the legal door for pedophilia.   Did you forget to post it?
Click to expand...


And, I didn't see your specific point that heterosexual marriage leads to homosexual marriage.

Did you forget to post it?

Mark


----------



## JakeStarkey

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was entirely a self centered act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Son, many conceptions are self centered acts.

You are talking zany.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That reminds me of that Focus on the Family article where the Founder, James Dodson suggested that fathers shower with their young sons, show them their penis' and that would keep them straight.   He also suggested that parents teach boys to pound round pegs in round holes to keep them straight too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> James Dobson did all that?  Or are you telling more lies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, let me pull up reference to the article.  It was a hoot when it came out.
> 
> Quickest copy I found is quoted in Free Republic...  Can Homosexuality Be Treated and Prevented James Dobson Ph.D. Child Development
> 
> .this is my favorite part:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, the boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit you were lying about James Dobson, as nothing you cited confirms what you claimed he said.
> 
> You are the demonic Left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not lying at all.   He did say that as I quoted.   Did you take the time to read the entire piece?  Doesn't seem like you had enough time to before replying.
Click to expand...


I'm a fast reader.  Plus I've been a devoted reader of James Dobson for over 20 years and know what he teaches.  Why don't you quote exactly where he says what you claimed he said? I can't prove a negative, you idiot.


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right...a law can be declared unConstitutional...with Constitutional basis.   What basis have you got to legalize pedophilia.  Share with us your reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't need to. That trail has already been blazed by you guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?  What is it SPECIFICALLY about legalized gay marriage that opens any legal door for pedophilia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your twisted interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hello?   I'm not seeing your SPECIFIC point in legalized gay marriage that opens the legal door for pedophilia.   Did you forget to post it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, I didn't see your specific point that heterosexual marriage leads to homosexual marriage.
> 
> Did you forget to post it?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

What?    Where do you jump from Point A to Persimmons?


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> That reminds me of that Focus on the Family article where the Founder, James Dodson suggested that fathers shower with their young sons, show them their penis' and that would keep them straight.   He also suggested that parents teach boys to pound round pegs in round holes to keep them straight too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Dobson did all that?  Or are you telling more lies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, let me pull up reference to the article.  It was a hoot when it came out.
> 
> Quickest copy I found is quoted in Free Republic...  Can Homosexuality Be Treated and Prevented James Dobson Ph.D. Child Development
> 
> .this is my favorite part:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, the boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit you were lying about James Dobson, as nothing you cited confirms what you claimed he said.
> 
> You are the demonic Left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not lying at all.   He did say that as I quoted.   Did you take the time to read the entire piece?  Doesn't seem like you had enough time to before replying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a fast reader.  Plus I've been a devoted reader of James Dobson for over 20 years and know what he teaches.  Why don't you quote exactly where he says what you claimed he said? I can't prove a negative, you idiot.
Click to expand...

I put a quote in there....did you not see it? 

So you like the ideas of showering with Jr. and show him the family jewels?


----------



## 80zephyr

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where's her father?  Whether you got sperm at a sperm bank or have a father that you keep out of the picture, one way or another you perverted the natural order to have your arrangement and delusion.  It was entirely a self centered act.
> 
> 
> 
> We had a sperm donor....a wonderful service that was actually generated decades ago for childless straight couples and now also used by gay couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gay couples, you mean people who intentionally set up a situation that cannot bring children into the world naturally, unlike married folks for whom childlessness was an unfortunate vicissitude.  Not quite the same, is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Legally, it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit that morality is not the centerpiece of your movement.
> 
> Not that I needed your confirmation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This IS a country of laws, you know.  And we ARE talking legal marriage, you know.
Click to expand...


Did you feel the same way when gays were not allowed to marry? Or is this a recent development?

Mark


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

MaryL said:


> I am baffled, why is this even an issue?  All Americans have the same rights, end of story. I don't buy the pro gay propaganda, that BS that they are being "denied" love. Homos can and DO LOVE anyone they want, and I am not getting in their way. A lot of Americans find that KIND  love rather disgusting, if not self indulgent. And we are not sure how allowing what we think of as  narcissistic sexual perverts the same gravitas as Civil rights for WOMEN, Blacks or immigrants  fair or logical. . Homosexual rights are a phony self sustaining argument. And I don't care to ague about it anymore.




Because the worst bullies guilty of the most heinous atrocities have always been "victims". People do horrible things while claiming they're the objects of persecution.


----------



## JakeStarkey

80zephyr said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Children can not legally consent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define children.Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The legislature defines that and age of consent.
> 
> You have no worry in your absurd world about pedophiles and age of consent.
> 
> You are absurd, absurd, absurd.
> 
> The children of the next generation of your religious groups are going to be saying, "Our parents were meat heads."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you sensing the underlying current here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The desperation of fear and sweat of seeing Defeat bearing down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The debate is whether the decision is right or not. What society does has no bearing.Mark
Click to expand...


Then you will lose, Mark.  You don't have the Constitution, the courts, or the people anymore.


----------



## 80zephyr

bodecea said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't need to. That trail has already been blazed by you guys.
> 
> 
> 
> How so?  What is it SPECIFICALLY about legalized gay marriage that opens any legal door for pedophilia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your twisted interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hello?   I'm not seeing your SPECIFIC point in legalized gay marriage that opens the legal door for pedophilia.   Did you forget to post it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, I didn't see your specific point that heterosexual marriage leads to homosexual marriage.
> 
> Did you forget to post it?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What?    Where do you jump from Point A to Persimmons?
Click to expand...


I asked the same question as you. What part is unclear?

Mark


----------



## boedicca

Oops.  Wrong thread.  I thought this was about how the homosexual community was ashamed to admit that Howey is a member.


----------



## 80zephyr

JakeStarkey said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define children.Mark
> 
> 
> 
> The legislature defines that and age of consent.
> 
> You have no worry in your absurd world about pedophiles and age of consent.
> 
> You are absurd, absurd, absurd.
> 
> The children of the next generation of your religious groups are going to be saying, "Our parents were meat heads."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you sensing the underlying current here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The desperation of fear and sweat of seeing Defeat bearing down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The debate is whether the decision is right or not. What society does has no bearing.Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you will lose, Mark.  You don't have the Constitution, the courts, or the people anymore.
Click to expand...


I don't need courts to know right from wrong.

Dred Scott proved that.

Mark


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so?  What is it SPECIFICALLY about legalized gay marriage that opens any legal door for pedophilia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your twisted interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hello?   I'm not seeing your SPECIFIC point in legalized gay marriage that opens the legal door for pedophilia.   Did you forget to post it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, I didn't see your specific point that heterosexual marriage leads to homosexual marriage.
> 
> Did you forget to post it?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What?    Where do you jump from Point A to Persimmons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked the same question as you. What part is unclear?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Once again.  What is it SPECIFICALLY about legalized gay marriage that opens any legal door for pedophilia as you claimed?


----------



## bodecea

boedicca said:


> Oops.  Wrong thread.  I thought this was about how the homosexual community was ashamed to admit that Howey is a member.


Howey's cool.   He gets a lot of RW pearls a clutchin'


----------



## mdk

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> James Dobson did all that?  Or are you telling more lies?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, let me pull up reference to the article.  It was a hoot when it came out.
> 
> Quickest copy I found is quoted in Free Republic...  Can Homosexuality Be Treated and Prevented James Dobson Ph.D. Child Development
> 
> .this is my favorite part:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, the boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit you were lying about James Dobson, as nothing you cited confirms what you claimed he said.
> 
> You are the demonic Left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not lying at all.   He did say that as I quoted.   Did you take the time to read the entire piece?  Doesn't seem like you had enough time to before replying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a fast reader.  Plus I've been a devoted reader of James Dobson for over 20 years and know what he teaches.  Why don't you quote exactly where he says what you claimed he said? I can't prove a negative, you idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I put a quote in there....did you not see it?
> 
> So you like the ideas of showering with Jr. and show him the family jewels?
Click to expand...


The old Focus on the Family Jewels letter. Classic. I am still a fan of when WND claimed soy sauce causes homosexuality.  Too funny.


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The legislature defines that and age of consent.
> 
> You have no worry in your absurd world about pedophiles and age of consent.
> 
> You are absurd, absurd, absurd.
> 
> The children of the next generation of your religious groups are going to be saying, "Our parents were meat heads."
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sensing the underlying current here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The desperation of fear and sweat of seeing Defeat bearing down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The debate is whether the decision is right or not. What society does has no bearing.Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you will lose, Mark.  You don't have the Constitution, the courts, or the people anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need courts to know right from wrong.
> 
> Dred Scott proved that.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

And Dred Scott was eventually struck down by the approval of the 13th Amendment.


----------



## bodecea

mdk said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, let me pull up reference to the article.  It was a hoot when it came out.
> 
> Quickest copy I found is quoted in Free Republic...  Can Homosexuality Be Treated and Prevented James Dobson Ph.D. Child Development
> 
> .this is my favorite part:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit you were lying about James Dobson, as nothing you cited confirms what you claimed he said.
> 
> You are the demonic Left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not lying at all.   He did say that as I quoted.   Did you take the time to read the entire piece?  Doesn't seem like you had enough time to before replying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a fast reader.  Plus I've been a devoted reader of James Dobson for over 20 years and know what he teaches.  Why don't you quote exactly where he says what you claimed he said? I can't prove a negative, you idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I put a quote in there....did you not see it?
> 
> So you like the ideas of showering with Jr. and show him the family jewels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The old Focus on the Family Jewels letter. Classic. I am still a fan of when WND claimed soy sauce causes homosexuality.  Too funny.
Click to expand...

That was a good one too.


----------



## 80zephyr

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:
> 
> “But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up. I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.”
> 
> This fails as a slippery slope fallacy, and in fact is a lie.
> 
> There is no 'right' to have sex with children, there is a right to equal protection of the law, in this case marriage law.
> 
> Unlike un-Constitutional measures that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying, laws prohibiting adults from having sex with children are applied to everyone equally, no protected class of persons is singled out for exclusion, where such laws are rationally based and pursue a proper legislative end.
> 
> And no, pedophiles do not constitute a 'protected class of persons.'



Well, not yet. The APA is working to accomplish that.

Mark


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> James Dobson did all that?  Or are you telling more lies?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, let me pull up reference to the article.  It was a hoot when it came out.
> 
> Quickest copy I found is quoted in Free Republic...  Can Homosexuality Be Treated and Prevented James Dobson Ph.D. Child Development
> 
> .this is my favorite part:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, the boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit you were lying about James Dobson, as nothing you cited confirms what you claimed he said.
> 
> You are the demonic Left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not lying at all.   He did say that as I quoted.   Did you take the time to read the entire piece?  Doesn't seem like you had enough time to before replying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a fast reader.  Plus I've been a devoted reader of James Dobson for over 20 years and know what he teaches.  Why don't you quote exactly where he says what you claimed he said? I can't prove a negative, you idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I put a quote in there....did you not see it?
> 
> So you like the ideas of showering with Jr. and show him the family jewels?
Click to expand...


You said: 



bodecea said:


> That reminds me of that Focus on the Family article where the Founder, James Dodson suggested that fathers shower with their young sons, show them their penis' and that would keep them straight.   He also suggested that parents teach boys to pound round pegs in round holes to keep them straight too.



Not quite the same, it's not an act of exhibitionism. 

And by the way, my own family is "clothing optional" and as such, human body parts are not a scandal, not obscene, and not something to be hidden like a dark secret.  The power of sexual perversion is the pretense of obscenity that shouldn't exist.  If that's the worst you have on James Dobson, you are getting VERY desperate.


----------



## 80zephyr

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I child can not legally consent and for good reason.  They are not mature.  We - adults, parents - ARE their guardians for a reason.  So yes, it is our responsibility to protect them.  This is totally different than a relationship with two consenting adults and is nothing more than a diversion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just said that the age of consent is a social overlay, so who's to say our culture is right and the culture in Saudi Arabia is wrong? What if children are ready for sex by the age of 12?  Who are you to stand in the way of their love and their civil rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm arguing from a * scientific viewpoint* that recognizes that sexual exploitation of prebuscent children is very damaging to the child.  In addition, child marriages in areas that do allow it are often very damaging to the girl - physically (because she is not mature enough for child birth), educationally (because her education stops) and she is frequently a victim of abuse.  "Age of consent" is cultural  in that it spans an age from 12-18 (a few have no minimum) but child advocate groups are trying to make it at least 16.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *But why aren't we letting HER decide when she's mature enough?  *If she's old enough to have a constitutional right to an abortion without her parents' permission, isn't she old enough to decide when she's ready for sex with a 30 year old man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because by legal definition she isn't.
> 
> The other is an attempt to side track this into another argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, right. The "social overlay" again.
> 
> Isn't that subjective and therefore an insufficient reason to deny that 12 year old girl her 14th Amendment rights to sex with an adult?
Click to expand...


Not if you're a bigot.

Mark


----------



## boedicca

bodecea said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oops.  Wrong thread.  I thought this was about how the homosexual community was ashamed to admit that Howey is a member.
> 
> 
> 
> Howey's cool.   He gets a lot of RW pearls a clutchin'
Click to expand...



He's a vulgar moron.


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:
> 
> “But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up. I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.”
> 
> This fails as a slippery slope fallacy, and in fact is a lie.
> 
> There is no 'right' to have sex with children, there is a right to equal protection of the law, in this case marriage law.
> 
> Unlike un-Constitutional measures that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying, laws prohibiting adults from having sex with children are applied to everyone equally, no protected class of persons is singled out for exclusion, where such laws are rationally based and pursue a proper legislative end.
> 
> And no, pedophiles do not constitute a 'protected class of persons.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not yet. The APA is working to accomplish that.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Oh?   Is this more insider info?


----------



## bodecea

boedicca said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oops.  Wrong thread.  I thought this was about how the homosexual community was ashamed to admit that Howey is a member.
> 
> 
> 
> Howey's cool.   He gets a lot of RW pearls a clutchin'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He's a vulgar moron.
Click to expand...

Well, he DOES get under some skins, doesn't he?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Me: "Then you will lose, Mark. You don't have the Constitution, the courts, or the people anymore."
_
Mark: I don't need courts to know right from wrong.  Dred Scott proved that._

Me: Yep, the slavers felt the same way.

If you want to be happy, Mark and GreenBean and Where R My Keys, marry the opposite sex.


----------



## boedicca

bodecea said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oops.  Wrong thread.  I thought this was about how the homosexual community was ashamed to admit that Howey is a member.
> 
> 
> 
> Howey's cool.   He gets a lot of RW pearls a clutchin'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He's a vulgar moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, he DOES get under some skins, doesn't he?
Click to expand...



Gross, considering that he's a walking talking disease vector.


----------



## 80zephyr

Coyote said:


> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> "the person they love"  seriously?
> 
> Give me another law that changes based on what someone wants.
> 
> 
> 
> He's already argued that there are loveless hetero marriages.
> 
> *Here's the dealio: For every single point made in arguing for gay marriage, the exact same argument can be made for unlimited plural marriage.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come to think of it...all those arguments apply to hetero marriage too - OMG - why have ANY marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what keys has been saying.
> 
> And yet...and yet. If the government doesn't have the right to deny two people equal rights, how then does it have the right to deny millions, or billions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality.
> 
> We can take anything - any law - to the point of absurbity.  But the chances of it happening are virtually nil.  So because of that do you have no laws?
> 
> I don't have an issue with polygamy if people want it. But that's also another argument.  If people want polygamy then they need to make a compelling case for it on it's own merits.  The case for same sex marriage is being argued on it's own merits - not alongside polygamy.
Click to expand...


When we allow homosexuals to marry, we are taking law to the point of absurdity.  And, less than 20 years ago, everyone thought the chances of it happening were virtually nil.

It appears you "logic" has serious flaws in it.

Mark


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

JakeStarkey said:


> "Then you will lose, Mark. You don't have the Constitution, the courts, or the people anymore.
> _I don't need courts to know right from wrong."
> 
> Dred Scott proved that._
> 
> Yep, the slavers felt the same way.



Really? Who took the Constitution from him?


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, let me pull up reference to the article.  It was a hoot when it came out.
> 
> Quickest copy I found is quoted in Free Republic...  Can Homosexuality Be Treated and Prevented James Dobson Ph.D. Child Development
> 
> .this is my favorite part:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit you were lying about James Dobson, as nothing you cited confirms what you claimed he said.
> 
> You are the demonic Left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not lying at all.   He did say that as I quoted.   Did you take the time to read the entire piece?  Doesn't seem like you had enough time to before replying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a fast reader.  Plus I've been a devoted reader of James Dobson for over 20 years and know what he teaches.  Why don't you quote exactly where he says what you claimed he said? I can't prove a negative, you idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I put a quote in there....did you not see it?
> 
> So you like the ideas of showering with Jr. and show him the family jewels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> That reminds me of that Focus on the Family article where the Founder, James Dodson suggested that fathers shower with their young sons, show them their penis' and that would keep them straight.   He also suggested that parents teach boys to pound round pegs in round holes to keep them straight too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not quite the same, it's not an act of exhibitionism.
> 
> And by the way, my own family is "clothing optional" and as such, human body parts are not a scandal, not obscene, and not something to be hidden like a dark secret.  The power of sexual perversion is the pretense of obscenity that shouldn't exist.  If that's the worst you have on James Dobson, you are getting VERY desperate.
Click to expand...

Not desperate at all.....the picture of the peg board reminded me of that GREAT article of his.   Focus on the Family Jewels.


----------



## 80zephyr

bodecea said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sensing the underlying current here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The desperation of fear and sweat of seeing Defeat bearing down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The debate is whether the decision is right or not. What society does has no bearing.Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you will lose, Mark.  You don't have the Constitution, the courts, or the people anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need courts to know right from wrong.
> 
> Dred Scott proved that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And Dred Scott was eventually struck down by the approval of the 13th Amendment.
Click to expand...


Matters not. That the courts ruled it at one time proves my point.

Mark


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit you were lying about James Dobson, as nothing you cited confirms what you claimed he said.
> 
> You are the demonic Left.
> 
> 
> 
> Not lying at all.   He did say that as I quoted.   Did you take the time to read the entire piece?  Doesn't seem like you had enough time to before replying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a fast reader.  Plus I've been a devoted reader of James Dobson for over 20 years and know what he teaches.  Why don't you quote exactly where he says what you claimed he said? I can't prove a negative, you idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I put a quote in there....did you not see it?
> 
> So you like the ideas of showering with Jr. and show him the family jewels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> That reminds me of that Focus on the Family article where the Founder, James Dodson suggested that fathers shower with their young sons, show them their penis' and that would keep them straight.   He also suggested that parents teach boys to pound round pegs in round holes to keep them straight too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not quite the same, it's not an act of exhibitionism.
> 
> And by the way, my own family is "clothing optional" and as such, human body parts are not a scandal, not obscene, and not something to be hidden like a dark secret.  The power of sexual perversion is the pretense of obscenity that shouldn't exist.  If that's the worst you have on James Dobson, you are getting VERY desperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not desperate at all.....the picture of the peg board reminded me of that GREAT article of his.   Focus on the Family Jewels.
Click to expand...


If you think nudity in the family is obscene or scandalous, you prove your own sexual perversion.  James Dobson was talking to an audience not besotted by the perversion holding sway over you.


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> "the person they love"  seriously?
> 
> Give me another law that changes based on what someone wants.
> 
> 
> 
> He's already argued that there are loveless hetero marriages.
> 
> *Here's the dealio: For every single point made in arguing for gay marriage, the exact same argument can be made for unlimited plural marriage.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come to think of it...all those arguments apply to hetero marriage too - OMG - why have ANY marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what keys has been saying.
> 
> And yet...and yet. If the government doesn't have the right to deny two people equal rights, how then does it have the right to deny millions, or billions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality.
> 
> We can take anything - any law - to the point of absurbity.  But the chances of it happening are virtually nil.  So because of that do you have no laws?
> 
> I don't have an issue with polygamy if people want it. But that's also another argument.  If people want polygamy then they need to make a compelling case for it on it's own merits.  The case for same sex marriage is being argued on it's own merits - not alongside polygamy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When we allow homosexuals to marry, *we are taking law to the point of absurdity.*  And, less than 20 years ago, everyone thought the chances of it happening were virtually nil.
> 
> It appears you "logic" has serious flaws in it.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Why?  And yes....twenty years ago it didn't look possible....and 100 years ago, women didn't look like they'd get the vote...and 250 years ago, it didn't look like the U.S. would ever separate from Great Britain.  

Progress marches on.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Mark has proved his side will lose, for they have no law and no sustainable logic with which to wage their fight.

He will not win and will still be wrong on this issue.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not lying at all.   He did say that as I quoted.   Did you take the time to read the entire piece?  Doesn't seem like you had enough time to before replying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a fast reader.  Plus I've been a devoted reader of James Dobson for over 20 years and know what he teaches.  Why don't you quote exactly where he says what you claimed he said? I can't prove a negative, you idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I put a quote in there....did you not see it?
> 
> So you like the ideas of showering with Jr. and show him the family jewels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> That reminds me of that Focus on the Family article where the Founder, James Dodson suggested that fathers shower with their young sons, show them their penis' and that would keep them straight.   He also suggested that parents teach boys to pound round pegs in round holes to keep them straight too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not quite the same, it's not an act of exhibitionism.
> 
> And by the way, my own family is "clothing optional" and as such, human body parts are not a scandal, not obscene, and not something to be hidden like a dark secret.  The power of sexual perversion is the pretense of obscenity that shouldn't exist.  If that's the worst you have on James Dobson, you are getting VERY desperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not desperate at all.....the picture of the peg board reminded me of that GREAT article of his.   Focus on the Family Jewels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think nudity in the family is obscene or scandalous, you prove your own sexual perversion.  James Dobson was talking to an audience not besotted by the perversion holding sway over you.
Click to expand...

Focus on the Family Jewels.     Now some things are becoming much clearer about your posting history.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a fast reader.  Plus I've been a devoted reader of James Dobson for over 20 years and know what he teaches.  Why don't you quote exactly where he says what you claimed he said? I can't prove a negative, you idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> I put a quote in there....did you not see it?
> 
> So you like the ideas of showering with Jr. and show him the family jewels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> That reminds me of that Focus on the Family article where the Founder, James Dodson suggested that fathers shower with their young sons, show them their penis' and that would keep them straight.   He also suggested that parents teach boys to pound round pegs in round holes to keep them straight too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not quite the same, it's not an act of exhibitionism.
> 
> And by the way, my own family is "clothing optional" and as such, human body parts are not a scandal, not obscene, and not something to be hidden like a dark secret.  The power of sexual perversion is the pretense of obscenity that shouldn't exist.  If that's the worst you have on James Dobson, you are getting VERY desperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not desperate at all.....the picture of the peg board reminded me of that GREAT article of his.   Focus on the Family Jewels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think nudity in the family is obscene or scandalous, you prove your own sexual perversion.  James Dobson was talking to an audience not besotted by the perversion holding sway over you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Focus on the Family Jewels.     Now some things are becoming much clearer about your posting history.
Click to expand...


Like what?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

JakeStarkey said:


> Mark has proved his side will lose, for they have no law and no sustainable logic with which to wage their fight.
> 
> He will not win and will still be wrong on this issue.



Someone took the law away from him too? The constitution AND the law?  Who is this bandit?


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I put a quote in there....did you not see it?
> 
> So you like the ideas of showering with Jr. and show him the family jewels?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> That reminds me of that Focus on the Family article where the Founder, James Dodson suggested that fathers shower with their young sons, show them their penis' and that would keep them straight.   He also suggested that parents teach boys to pound round pegs in round holes to keep them straight too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not quite the same, it's not an act of exhibitionism.
> 
> And by the way, my own family is "clothing optional" and as such, human body parts are not a scandal, not obscene, and not something to be hidden like a dark secret.  The power of sexual perversion is the pretense of obscenity that shouldn't exist.  If that's the worst you have on James Dobson, you are getting VERY desperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not desperate at all.....the picture of the peg board reminded me of that GREAT article of his.   Focus on the Family Jewels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think nudity in the family is obscene or scandalous, you prove your own sexual perversion.  James Dobson was talking to an audience not besotted by the perversion holding sway over you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Focus on the Family Jewels.     Now some things are becoming much clearer about your posting history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like what?
Click to expand...


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

JakeStarkey said:


> Dobson is a creepy pervert.
> 
> Read his words about men in the shower with their sons and talking about penis size.
> 
> He is a pedophile in lust waiting his time: poor boys.



Sounds like the pervert is you.


----------



## bodecea

JakeStarkey said:


> Dobson is a creepy pervert.
> 
> Read his words about men in the shower with their sons and talking about penis size.
> 
> He is a pedophile in lust waiting his time: poor boys.


Now now.....apparently family nudity is healthy.

Especially the part about Daddy taking Jr. into the shower to show him his big penis so he doesn't turn gay.


----------



## JakeStarkey

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dobson is a creepy pervert.
> 
> Read his words about men in the shower with their sons and talking about penis size.
> 
> He is a pedophile in lust waiting his time: poor boys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the pervert is you.
Click to expand...

 I am not the one telling men to shower with their sons so the latter may notice the size of the dad's penis.

That's just creepy, folks.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Dobson should not be giving such counsel.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dobson is a creepy pervert.
> 
> Read his words about men in the shower with their sons and talking about penis size.
> 
> He is a pedophile in lust waiting his time: poor boys.
> 
> 
> 
> Now now.....apparently family nudity is healthy.
> 
> Especially the part about Daddy taking Jr. into the shower to show him his big penis so he doesn't turn gay.
Click to expand...


Would you like to have a rational discussion on this?  I married a very liberal wife who introduced me to family naturism, the natural way she was raised.  For those who have perverted minds that can't separate sex from nudity, this would be a scandal, which apparently it is for you.  Not very progressive of you, is it? So exactly what problem do you have with family naturism? 

If you can't have a rational, non combative discussion on this, please just tell me.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

JakeStarkey said:


> Dobson should not be giving such counsel.



Why?


----------



## bodecea

JakeStarkey said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dobson is a creepy pervert.
> 
> Read his words about men in the shower with their sons and talking about penis size.
> 
> He is a pedophile in lust waiting his time: poor boys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the pervert is you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one saying "let's shower, son" with excited eyes.
Click to expand...

Another famous comment was by the President of CWA (Concerned Women of America)....now this was on a radio program, don't know if there's a transcript out there.  She said that gay marriage should never become legalized or else DROVES of women would divorce their husbands and marry each other.   I dropped my jaw at that one and started laughing so hard, I had tears.


----------



## JakeStarkey

It's nice to know you realize you have lost this OP, st mike, you and your whole tribe.

Marriage Equality is inevitable.

The children of the far right and their grandchildren will be saying "what a stupid fight."


----------



## JakeStarkey

All of sudden crickets.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

JakeStarkey said:


> It's nice to know you realize you have lost this OP, st mike, you and your whole tribe.
> 
> Marriage Equality is inevitable.
> 
> The children of the far right and their grandchildren will be saying "what a stupid fight."



You keep claiming victory.  Like...over and over and over again.  Eventually the very mendacity of that claim must sink in even for you.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dobson is a creepy pervert.
> 
> Read his words about men in the shower with their sons and talking about penis size.
> 
> He is a pedophile in lust waiting his time: poor boys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the pervert is you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one saying "let's shower, son" with excited eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another famous comment was by the President of CWA (Concerned Women of America)....now this was on a radio program, don't know if there's a transcript out there.  She said that gay marriage should never become legalized or else DROVES of women would divorce their husbands and marry each other.   I dropped my jaw at that one and started laughing so hard, I had tears.
Click to expand...



That was probably a wise choice for you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's nice to know you realize you have lost this OP, st mike, you and your whole tribe.
> 
> Marriage Equality is inevitable.
> 
> The children of the far right and their grandchildren will be saying "what a stupid fight."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep claiming victory.  Like...over and over and over again.  Eventually the very mendacity of that claim must sink in even for you.
Click to expand...


The mendacity is all yours, old boy, as the good tribe has smacked all of your arguments out of the park.

You have nothing positive on your side (no scholars, almost no judges, no SCOTUS, loads of decisions against you, plenty of derision, and lots of absurdist fallacies).

Tough to be you.

It is going to get worse.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

JakeStarkey said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's nice to know you realize you have lost this OP, st mike, you and your whole tribe.
> 
> Marriage Equality is inevitable.
> 
> The children of the far right and their grandchildren will be saying "what a stupid fight."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep claiming victory.  Like...over and over and over again.  Eventually the very mendacity of that claim must sink in even for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mendacity is all yours, old boy, as the good tribe has smacked all of your arguments out of the park.
> 
> You have nothing positive on your side (no scholars, almost no judges, no SCOTUS, loads of decisions against you, plenty of derision, and lots of absurdist fallacies).
> 
> Tough to be you.
> 
> It is going to get worse.
Click to expand...


So.... you just did it again.  Got it.

I got stuff to do. Bye.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Mr. Mendacious admits defeat and runs away.

Marriage Equality will happen before fall nationwide.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:
> 
> “But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up. I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.”
> 
> This fails as a slippery slope fallacy, and in fact is a lie.



There is no fallacious potential, where the appeal to the slippery nature of the slope, exists.

That the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a very real and very determined movement, whose goals are to strip the Western Culture of all standards of sexual propriety.

Your own public professions are further evidence of this, in that where you have the opportunity to state the standards which you recognize as being essential... you merely denied that what is inarguably happening, is not happening.

So we can rest assured that your position is either one from ignorance, or that it is one from deceit.

Either way, it's deceptive... thus an invalid form of discourse where the purpose is the pursuit of the truth.


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:
> 
> “But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up. I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.”
> 
> This fails as a slippery slope fallacy, and in fact is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no fallacious potential, where the appeal to the slippery nature of the slope, exists.
> 
> That the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a very real and very determined movement, who goals are to strip the Western Culture of all standards of sexual propriety.
> 
> Your own public professions are further evidence of this, in that where you have the opportunity to state the standards which you recognize as being essential... you merely denied that what is inarguably happening, is not happening.
> 
> So we can rest assured that your position is either one from ignorance, or that it is one from deceit.
> 
> Either way, it's deceptive... thus an invalid form of discourse where the purpose is the pursuit of the truth.
Click to expand...

The best standards are the Golden Rule and ensure that what you do harms no others.   How hard is that?


----------



## JakeStarkey

It's not.  Bodecea, you will find the least of the far right crowd, Where R, has appeared.  I intend to go about my other chores tonight since he understands neither Revelation 3 nor Peter.  Let him stumble about and see where he goes.


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> Mr. Mendacious admits defeat and runs away.
> 
> Marriage Equality will happen before fall nationwide.


 
The USA has had marriage equality for years.  A union of two men or two women is not a marriage any more than a union of 6 men and 8 women is a marriage, or a union of a man and his horse is a marriage.

A marriage is one man and one woman----------always has been, always will be.


----------



## Redfish

bodecea said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:
> 
> “But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up. I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.”
> 
> This fails as a slippery slope fallacy, and in fact is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no fallacious potential, where the appeal to the slippery nature of the slope, exists.
> 
> That the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a very real and very determined movement, who goals are to strip the Western Culture of all standards of sexual propriety.
> 
> Your own public professions are further evidence of this, in that where you have the opportunity to state the standards which you recognize as being essential... you merely denied that what is inarguably happening, is not happening.
> 
> So we can rest assured that your position is either one from ignorance, or that it is one from deceit.
> 
> Either way, it's deceptive... thus an invalid form of discourse where the purpose is the pursuit of the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The best standards are the Golden Rule and ensure that what you do harms no others.   How hard is that?
Click to expand...

 
Gay marriage harms society by  putting abnormal behavior on a par with normal behavior.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Mendacious admits defeat and runs away.
> 
> Marriage Equality will happen before fall nationwide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The USA has had marriage equality for years.  A union of two men or two women is not a marriage any more than a union of 6 men and 8 women is a marriage, or a union of a man and his horse is a marriage.
> 
> A marriage is one man and one woman----------always has been, always will be.
Click to expand...


You don't speak for the legislature or for God.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish said:


> Gay marriage harms society by  putting abnormal behavior on a par with normal behavior.


  Share that with SCOTUS, because your opinion has no weight in law.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Redfish said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:
> 
> “But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up. I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.”
> 
> This fails as a slippery slope fallacy, and in fact is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no fallacious potential, where the appeal to the slippery nature of the slope, exists.
> 
> That the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a very real and very determined movement, who goals are to strip the Western Culture of all standards of sexual propriety.
> 
> Your own public professions are further evidence of this, in that where you have the opportunity to state the standards which you recognize as being essential... you merely denied that what is inarguably happening, is not happening.
> 
> So we can rest assured that your position is either one from ignorance, or that it is one from deceit.
> 
> Either way, it's deceptive... thus an invalid form of discourse where the purpose is the pursuit of the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The best standards are the Golden Rule and ensure that what you do harms no others.   How hard is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gay marriage harms society by  putting abnormal behavior on a par with normal behavior.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

That you perceive homosexuality as 'abnormal' is subjective and irrelevant, it in no way justifies denying same-sex couples their right to equal protection of the law.

“[T]he fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice.” _Lawrence v. Texas_ (2003).


----------



## Carla_Danger

Redfish said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:
> 
> “But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up. I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.”
> 
> This fails as a slippery slope fallacy, and in fact is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no fallacious potential, where the appeal to the slippery nature of the slope, exists.
> 
> That the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a very real and very determined movement, who goals are to strip the Western Culture of all standards of sexual propriety.
> 
> Your own public professions are further evidence of this, in that where you have the opportunity to state the standards which you recognize as being essential... you merely denied that what is inarguably happening, is not happening.
> 
> So we can rest assured that your position is either one from ignorance, or that it is one from deceit.
> 
> Either way, it's deceptive... thus an invalid form of discourse where the purpose is the pursuit of the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The best standards are the Golden Rule and ensure that what you do harms no others.   How hard is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gay marriage harms society by  putting abnormal behavior on a par with normal behavior.
Click to expand...



If you don't like it, don't it.  How hard is that?


----------



## GreenBean

Coyote said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The human genome is complete and the Human Genome Project is over .... Most of the major science journals reported on the progress in the field of genetics, .... The *one piece of information that never materialized from the Human Genome Project was the identification of the so-called gay gene.*  There is none, Homosexuality is not truly a genetic issue, but as Freud and Socarides theorized - it's a Mental disorder.
> 
> Science vs. the Gay Gene
> 
> Pathology of Homosexuality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it hard to take anything seriously from a site that considers evolution a myth
> 
> Here's some stuff for thought:
> How our genes could make us gay or straight - The Washington Post
> A gay Gene - Is Homosexuality Inherited Assault On Gay America FRONTLINE PBS
> 
> Most scientists seem to think that homosexuality is a combination of genetics (likely not one gene), enviroment, and biology.  It's hard to untangle causes but they're pretty much in agreement that it's hard-wired, not a mental disorder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it hard to take anything seriously from a site that considers evolution a myth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coyote - WTF are you babbling about ?   Stop howling at the moon and spit it out little fella
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> - The True.Origin Archive -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay - so what has that to do with what I posted ?
> 
> I don't always you agree with what you post - in fact some of your stuff is off the wall - does that mean you lose ALL credibility.  The article YOU linked to is not the article I linked to -  if you can't refute the content and they are presenting valid evidence who cares what their other opinions are ?
> 
> And just for the record - I'm not a Christian and have written against Christianity on an independent blog I maintain - so don't even try the Bible thumper argument .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What has to do with what you posted is the articles I linked to after the comment.  I haven't called you a bible thumper - but sources matter and when you choose a bad one, it can come back to smack you.
> 
> Most of what that article is saying is that there is no "gay gene" -- but that is not what the scientists are claiming.  What studies have been done seem to show some genetic influence on sexual orientation and genetic influences are not always simple dominant/recessive modes of inheritance.  For example some traits may only show up or become activiated under certain environmental influences (piglets show one phenotype when they are kept in domestic conditions, but if they become feral, other genes switch on and change the phenotype quite drastically).
> 
> Your source is picking apart studies largely by focusing on searching for "a gay gene".  It also takes a critical look at "ex-gay" type therapies.  The conclusion it draws from those are that some - a very tiny proportion - of self selected gays can change their orientation for at least 5 years and it attempts to use that to imply it's malleable.
> 
> _Robert Spitzer conducted a study on 200 self-selected individuals (143 males, 57 females) in an effort to see if participants could change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual (2003, 32:403-417).  He reported some minimal change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation that lasted at least five years (p. 403).  Spitzer observed:_​
> _The majority of participants gave reports of change from a predominantly or exclusively homosexual orientation before therapy to a predominantly or exclusively heterosexual orientation in the past year (p. 403)._​
> _In summarizing his findings, Spitzer declared: “Thus, there is evidence that change in sexual orientation following some form of reparative therapy does occur in some gay men and lesbians.” He thus concluded: “This study provides evidence that some gay men and lesbians are able to also change the core features of sexual orientation” (p. 415). _​
> However, that study has been widely politicized and misrepresented:
> 
> Spitzer s Apology Changes Ex-Gay Debate NPR
> _Dr. Robert Spitzer's research was widely cited by those who conduct conversion therapy as proof that it worked. Dr. Spitzer says his findings were misinterpreted, and apologized. The American Psychological Association has said there is no evidence that it's possible to change sexual orientation._​
> Can some gay people change their orientation?  Apparently.  But it's also likely that homosexuality overlaps with bisexuality and people who self-identify as homosexual are in reality bisexual.
Click to expand...




> What studies have been done seem to show some genetic influence on sexual orientation



One major study I am aware of  looked for associations re :transmission of homosexuality via the maternal side . They found a inordinate amount of queer brothers that shared the same DNA "markers,"on  the X chromosome.  They claim the possibility that this observation could have occurred by chance - which was about 1 in 10M .  

The study was conducted by Gene Hammer -* a geneticist and a propagandist *which is evidenced by his films and campaigns re: HIV and AIDS.  He has produced a number of propaganda films for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender perverts - it is not known if he himself is a pervert or just a useful idiot.

No qualified researcher has dared to challenge his findings -at least not publicly anyway - it is an unwritten law in the scientific community that "*Thou shalt not speak out against LGBT*"  under penalty of Academic Death.  Nor have very many endorsed his findings or has any qualified researcher been able to duplicate them.




> The conclusion it draws from those are that some - a very tiny proportion - of self selected gays can change their orientation for at least 5 years and it attempts to use that to imply it's malleable.



*They were only tracked for 5 years in most cases* - the success rates are comparable to that of substance abusers - naturally there are relapses.



> The American Psychological Association has said there is no evidence that it's possible to change sexual orientation.



*Don't even go there* the APA is *not* a Scientific organization - it is a laughing stock that lost any vestiges of credibility long ago -  it has even been censured by the US congress.

Nicholas Cummings, former President of the American Psychological Association and one of the people who led the movement to have homosexuality declassified as a mental illness speaking to an audience of fellow professionals in 2005, stated the profession of Mental Health, psychology, psychiatry is dominated by social-activist groups. Dr. Cummings stated that he has had a life long commitment to promoting diversity, and has been appalled to see activists commandeer organizations such as the APA to further their own social agenda.

As per Dr. Cummings, when the APA conducts research, they do so only "when they know what the outcome is going to be...only predictably favorable outcomes are permissible."

Dr. Rogers Wright - co author of Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well Intentioned Path to Harm





stated that "psychology has been ultra-liberal" Wright described the difficulties he has encountered with the American Psychological Association 

Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. In his talk entitled "Judicial Abuse of Scientific Literature on Homosexuality by the American Mental Health Professional Organizations," he offered a tediously referenced description of ethics and morals breeches in recent legal cases that have led to landmark changes in family-law policy.

Dr. Satinover stated that mental-health organizations had allowed themselves to be manipulated and commandeered by the gay agenda which has deliberately distorted research findings to serve their own goals.

Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons has stated said that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has continuously ignored evidence that homosexuality is a manifestation of a psychiatric disorder. In their recent call for the legalization of homosexual marriage, "the APA has revealed a political bias that is of no service to homosexuals,"

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality is one group which has been highly critical of the APA and it's perversion of the Truth.  [See: http://americansfortruth.com/2012/1...y-disorder-from-dsm-v-on-janet-mefford-show/]


----------



## GreenBean

GreenBean said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it hard to take anything seriously from a site that considers evolution a myth
> 
> Here's some stuff for thought:
> How our genes could make us gay or straight - The Washington Post
> A gay Gene - Is Homosexuality Inherited Assault On Gay America FRONTLINE PBS
> 
> Most scientists seem to think that homosexuality is a combination of genetics (likely not one gene), enviroment, and biology.  It's hard to untangle causes but they're pretty much in agreement that it's hard-wired, not a mental disorder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it hard to take anything seriously from a site that considers evolution a myth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coyote - WTF are you babbling about ?   Stop howling at the moon and spit it out little fella
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> - The True.Origin Archive -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay - so what has that to do with what I posted ?
> 
> I don't always you agree with what you post - in fact some of your stuff is off the wall - does that mean you lose ALL credibility.  The article YOU linked to is not the article I linked to -  if you can't refute the content and they are presenting valid evidence who cares what their other opinions are ?
> 
> And just for the record - I'm not a Christian and have written against Christianity on an independent blog I maintain - so don't even try the Bible thumper argument .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What has to do with what you posted is the articles I linked to after the comment.  I haven't called you a bible thumper - but sources matter and when you choose a bad one, it can come back to smack you.
> 
> Most of what that article is saying is that there is no "gay gene" -- but that is not what the scientists are claiming.  What studies have been done seem to show some genetic influence on sexual orientation and genetic influences are not always simple dominant/recessive modes of inheritance.  For example some traits may only show up or become activiated under certain environmental influences (piglets show one phenotype when they are kept in domestic conditions, but if they become feral, other genes switch on and change the phenotype quite drastically).
> 
> Your source is picking apart studies largely by focusing on searching for "a gay gene".  It also takes a critical look at "ex-gay" type therapies.  The conclusion it draws from those are that some - a very tiny proportion - of self selected gays can change their orientation for at least 5 years and it attempts to use that to imply it's malleable.
> 
> _Robert Spitzer conducted a study on 200 self-selected individuals (143 males, 57 females) in an effort to see if participants could change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual (2003, 32:403-417).  He reported some minimal change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation that lasted at least five years (p. 403).  Spitzer observed:_​
> _The majority of participants gave reports of change from a predominantly or exclusively homosexual orientation before therapy to a predominantly or exclusively heterosexual orientation in the past year (p. 403)._​
> _In summarizing his findings, Spitzer declared: “Thus, there is evidence that change in sexual orientation following some form of reparative therapy does occur in some gay men and lesbians.” He thus concluded: “This study provides evidence that some gay men and lesbians are able to also change the core features of sexual orientation” (p. 415). _​
> However, that study has been widely politicized and misrepresented:
> 
> Spitzer s Apology Changes Ex-Gay Debate NPR
> _Dr. Robert Spitzer's research was widely cited by those who conduct conversion therapy as proof that it worked. Dr. Spitzer says his findings were misinterpreted, and apologized. The American Psychological Association has said there is no evidence that it's possible to change sexual orientation._​
> Can some gay people change their orientation?  Apparently.  But it's also likely that homosexuality overlaps with bisexuality and people who self-identify as homosexual are in reality bisexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What studies have been done seem to show some genetic influence on sexual orientation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One major study I am aware of  looked for associations re :transmission of homosexuality via the maternal side . They found a inordinate amount of queer brothers that shared the same DNA "markers,"on  the X chromosome.  They claim the possibility that this observation could have occurred by chance - which was about 1 in 10M .
> 
> The study was conducted by Gene Hammer -* a geneticist and a propagandist *which is evidenced by his films and campaigns re: HIV and AIDS.  He has produced a number of propaganda films for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender perverts - it is not known if he himself is a pervert or just a useful idiot.
> 
> No qualified researcher has dared to challenge his findings -at least not publicly anyway - it is an unwritten law in the scientific community that "*Thou shalt not speak out against LGBT*"  under penalty of Academic Death.  Nor have very many endorsed his findings or has any qualified researcher been able to duplicate them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The conclusion it draws from those are that some - a very tiny proportion - of self selected gays can change their orientation for at least 5 years and it attempts to use that to imply it's malleable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *They were only tracked for 5 years in most cases* - the success rates are comparable to that of substance abusers - naturally there are relapses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The American Psychological Association has said there is no evidence that it's possible to change sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Don't even go there* the APA is *not* a Scientific organization - it is a laughing stock that lost any vestiges of credibility long ago -  it has even been censured by the US congress.
> 
> Nicholas Cummings, former President of the American Psychological Association and one of the people who led the movement to have homosexuality declassified as a mental illness speaking to an audience of fellow professionals in 2005, stated the profession of Mental Health, psychology, psychiatry is dominated by social-activist groups. Dr. Cummings stated that he has had a life long commitment to promoting diversity, and has been appalled to see activists commandeer organizations such as the APA to further their own social agenda.
> 
> As per Dr. Cummings, when the APA conducts research, they do so only "when they know what the outcome is going to be...only predictably favorable outcomes are permissible."
> 
> Dr. Rogers Wright - co author of Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well Intentioned Path to Harm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stated that "psychology has been ultra-liberal" Wright described the difficulties he has encountered with the American Psychological Association
> 
> Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. In his talk entitled "Judicial Abuse of Scientific Literature on Homosexuality by the American Mental Health Professional Organizations," he offered a tediously referenced description of ethics and morals breeches in recent legal cases that have led to landmark changes in family-law policy.
> 
> Dr. Satinover stated that mental-health organizations had allowed themselves to be manipulated and commandeered by the gay agenda which has deliberately distorted research findings to serve their own goals.
> 
> Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons has stated said that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has continuously ignored evidence that homosexuality is a manifestation of a psychiatric disorder. In their recent call for the legalization of homosexual marriage, "the APA has revealed a political bias that is of no service to homosexuals,"
> 
> Americans For Truth About Homosexuality is one group which has been highly critical of the APA and it's perversion of the Truth.  [See: http://americansfortruth.com/2012/1...y-disorder-from-dsm-v-on-janet-mefford-show/]
Click to expand...



Yo Coyote !  - you never answered the question 

The Homosexual Dilemma Page 193 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I'll take your non reply as a Yes ?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yo, right wing sillies: does not matter whether genetic or choice.

Don't mattah none, you all.

Only the 14th matters.

And guess what?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> That you perceive homosexuality as 'abnormal' is subjective...



That is LUDICROUS!

There is no more objective standard than the standard of the human physiological design.

That design provides that the human sexuality norm is comprised of two complimenting genders.

Not only does Homosexuality DEVIATE FROM THAT NORM: IT DEVIATES AS FAR FROM THE NORM AS IS POSSIBLE, WHERE THE SEXUALITY SUBJECT IS CONTAINED TO "HUMAN BEINGS".

In fact: Hetero-sexual pedophilia is LITERALLY a smaller deviation from that standard than  homosexuality.  

Therefore, Homosexuality is a FAR greater indicator of sexual abnormality, and that homosexual pedophilia is so massively disproportionate than hetero-sexual pedophilia, demonstrates such PERFECTLY.

Setting to lie, the APA 'feelings' that homosexuality is not a function of a mental disorder, as it is the purest presentation of precisely that.


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really should have researched further...
> 
> *Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.
> 
> Homosexuality is not "special".
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People can choose who to have sex with.
> 
> There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.
> 
> Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.
> 
> No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will use the "age of consent" as an excuse.  The age of consent is nothing more than an arbitrary number society agrees on to set policy.
> 
> Sorta like when society deemed marriage was limited to one man and one woman.
> 
> See, its OK to change policy when you agree with it, not so much when you don't. They are simply "bigots" just like us, only their moral standards are a shade lower.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It hasn't sunk in yet that the same method they used for interpreting the 14th Amendment to protect gay marriage will also be used with not dissimilar methods to protect pedophilia and just about anything else.  It's a recipe for anarchy to apply such myopic exegesis to the Constitution as to render it a document that allows just about anything, rather than a document that limits the power of government in our lives and protects a few essential rights.
Click to expand...



So you don't understand that they can make that argument with or without gays? Either they have a valid argument or they don't, gays have nothing to do with it. 

Did you know that when the 14th was written, there was a guy that tried to stop it because he was sure it would lead to interracial marriage becoming legal? 

Again, gays have been marrying for over a decade. Are siblings marrying? Is the age of consent being lowered? Where is this "slippery slope" you're sure is going to happen?


----------



## Seawytch

bodecea said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You go first, stop advocating your views.  Then talk.
> 
> 
> 
> People aren't allowed to advocate their views now?  Or only uppity gays?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She keeps telling me to stop advocating my views.  I keep saying fine, you go first.  And you ask me that question?
> 
> Seawytch, the one too lazy to read the conversation before jumping in has a question for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I haven't. I think you should advocate your views MORE. I don't think just sniveling about how gays get exactly what you get is enough and that you should be picketing county clerk offices. I mean, how dedicated to stopping "gubmit" marriage are you? (outside your own, of course)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> strawman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is a "strawman" about actually doing something about your beliefs?
Click to expand...


That's his standard response to anything he finds too uncomfortable to answer...that and "begging the question".


----------



## Seawytch

Lilah said:


> Would a hermaphrodite be wired for straight or gay sex?



The current prevailing wisdom when it comes to intersexed children (hermaphrodite is not used anymore) is to wait to allow their sexuality to develop before any surgeries are performed. It used to be doctors would just cut...and then the child would grow up and end up being gay because they lopped the wrong parts.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> People aren't allowed to advocate their views now?  Or only uppity gays?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She keeps telling me to stop advocating my views.  I keep saying fine, you go first.  And you ask me that question?
> 
> Seawytch, the one too lazy to read the conversation before jumping in has a question for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I haven't. I think you should advocate your views MORE. I don't think just sniveling about how gays get exactly what you get is enough and that you should be picketing county clerk offices. I mean, how dedicated to stopping "gubmit" marriage are you? (outside your own, of course)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> strawman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is a "strawman" about actually doing something about your beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's his standard response to anything he finds too uncomfortable to answer...that and "begging the question".
Click to expand...


Strawman.  

They are actually specific answers, if you don't know what they mean, google them.

They are the two primary tools in your belt, which is why you get them so often.  You say I said things I didn't say (strawman) like here where you ask me "what is a "strawman" about actually doing something about your beliefs?"  I never said that nor anything like it.  So I informed you specifically it was a strawman.

You also like to ignore my answer and repeat your question assuming the truth of your own position, which is begging the question.  Since I've already addressed it, I inform you of that by telling you that you begged the question, so if you want to go back and actually address my argument I'll give you more.

In both cases, you ignored what I actually said.  Then you whine I don't address your non-response.   You want an actual response from me?  Give me an actual response to my point.


----------



## Seawytch

MaryL said:


> Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again?  this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a  self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for,  they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.




Gays DO have children...I've had five. Why are our families less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage? 

Also, can you please name for us the state or locality that requires procreation in order to apply for a civil marriage license? Can you cite one instance of a civil marriage license being revoked due to the couple's inability or refusal to procreate?


----------



## Seawytch

80zephyr said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights?  I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote.  I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain.  Seriously, you don't know the difference?
> 
> If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".
> 
> The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally.  As in - the right to vote.  The right to use public drinking fountains.  The right to marry. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.
> 
> *A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it need to be a "distinct gender"?  That automatically is discrimminatory.  Heteros can marry the person they love.  Homos can not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "the person they love"  seriously?
> 
> Give me another law that changes based on what someone wants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a bi-sexual wants to marry based on "love", they should be able to marry the man and woman of their choice.
> 
> Anyone that limits them is a bigot.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Do you fall in love with more than one woman at a time or do you limit yourself to just one? Why do you think that just because someone is bisexual that they will automatically fall in love with both sexes simultaneously? 

Current marriage law does not allow for more than one spouse. If you believe that should change, I wish you luck with your struggle.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> She keeps telling me to stop advocating my views.  I keep saying fine, you go first.  And you ask me that question?
> 
> Seawytch, the one too lazy to read the conversation before jumping in has a question for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I haven't. I think you should advocate your views MORE. I don't think just sniveling about how gays get exactly what you get is enough and that you should be picketing county clerk offices. I mean, how dedicated to stopping "gubmit" marriage are you? (outside your own, of course)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> strawman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is a "strawman" about actually doing something about your beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's his standard response to anything he finds too uncomfortable to answer...that and "begging the question".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman.
> 
> They are actually specific answers, if you don't know what they mean, google them.
> 
> They are the two primary tools in your belt, which is why you get them so often.  You say I said things I didn't say (strawman) like here where you ask me "what is a "strawman" about actually doing something about your beliefs?"  I never said that nor anything like it.  So I informed you specifically it was a strawman.
> 
> You also like to ignore my answer and repeat your question assuming the truth of your own position, which is begging the question.  Since I've already addressed it, I inform you of that by telling you that you begged the question, so if you want to go back and actually address my argument I'll give you more.
> 
> In both cases, you ignored what I actually said.  Then you whine I don't address your non-response.   You want an actual response from me?  Give me an actual response to my point.
Click to expand...



I'm aware of what they mean and I know why you use them. I agree, you've addressed everything. Now get out there and push your agenda. Picket those county clerks...we did.


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again?  this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a  self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for,  they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I adopted our daughter in order to protect my parental rights.  Why does ANYONE "need" to adopt children?  Answer than one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that you adopted your daughter because you fucked up. Is that right?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally incorrect.  She was lovingly planned by my wife and I.  She had her...I adopted her.  One of the best things in our lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's her father?  Whether you got sperm at a sperm bank or have a father that you keep out of the picture, one way or another you perverted the natural order to have your arrangement and delusion.  It was entirely a self centered act.
Click to expand...



Really? So the millions of heterosexuals that use IVF and AI are "selfish" and "delusional" as well? Our children have two parents, which studies have shown provides the best outcomes for children, two *parents*. 

Why did you have children? I'm going to bet you dollars to donuts that you did it for all the same reasons that gays have children. Do you want to take our children away from us?


----------



## Seawytch

bodecea said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Children can not legally consent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define children.Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The legislature defines that and age of consent.
> 
> You have no worry in your absurd world about pedophiles and age of consent.
> 
> You are absurd, absurd, absurd.
> 
> The children of the next generation of your religious groups are going to be saying, "Our parents were meat heads."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you sensing the underlying current here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The desperation of fear and sweat of seeing Defeat bearing down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't it horrible that they cannot discriminate legally against gay citizens anymore?
Click to expand...


Yes, it is for them...and it's just going to get worse. They need to make a series of "It Gets Worse" videos for old bigots like the "It Gets Better" videos for LGBTQ youth.


----------



## Seawytch

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again?  this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a  self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for,  they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I adopted our daughter in order to protect my parental rights.  Why does ANYONE "need" to adopt children?  Answer than one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that you adopted your daughter because you fucked up. Is that right?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally incorrect.  She was lovingly planned by my wife and I.  She had her...I adopted her.  One of the best things in our lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's her father?  Whether you got sperm at a sperm bank or have a father that you keep out of the picture, one way or another you perverted the natural order to have your arrangement and delusion.  It was entirely a self centered act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We had a sperm donor....a wonderful service that was actually generated decades ago for childless straight couples and now also used by gay couples.
Click to expand...


We used an even older system than that for our kids...the gay guy friend. 

Quite a different process than the IVF process I went through as a surrogate. The "old fashioned way" of a turkey baster is so much easier.


----------



## Freewill

JakeStarkey said:


> *The Homosexual Dilemma exists only in the minds of those who dislike marriage equality, much like folks who disliked interracial marriage.
> 
> Tough for them back then and tough for you today because we are never going back.
> 
> Get over it and don't marry someone you don't love is the best advice you can get.*



Once again jaketherightwinger, does it need explained to you that being black and being gay are not the same thing by a long shot?  How long are the blacks going to take the insults from left wing operatives.  I really have to wonder what is wrong with blacks that ignore such insults.


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> That you perceive homosexuality as 'abnormal' is subjective...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is LUDICROUS!
> 
> There is no more objective standard than the standard of the human physiological design.
> 
> That design provides that the human sexuality norm is comprised of two complimenting genders.
> 
> Not only does Homosexuality DEVIATE FROM THAT NORM: IT DEVIATES AS FAR FROM THE NORM AS IS POSSIBLE, WHERE THE SEXUALITY SUBJECT IS CONTAINED TO "HUMAN BEINGS".
> 
> *In fact: Hetero-sexual pedophilia is LITERALLY a smaller deviation from that standard than  homosexuality*.
> 
> Therefore, Homosexuality is a FAR greater indicator of sexual abnormality, and that homosexual pedophilia is so massively disproportionate than hetero-sexual pedophilia, demonstrates such PERFECTLY.
> 
> Setting to lie, the APA 'feelings' that homosexuality is not a function of a mental disorder, as it is the purest presentation of precisely that.
Click to expand...

Is that why 1 in 4 girls are sexually abused before they reach 18?


----------



## Seawytch

80zephyr said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> "the person they love"  seriously?
> 
> Give me another law that changes based on what someone wants.
> 
> 
> 
> He's already argued that there are loveless hetero marriages.
> 
> *Here's the dealio: For every single point made in arguing for gay marriage, the exact same argument can be made for unlimited plural marriage.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come to think of it...all those arguments apply to hetero marriage too - OMG - why have ANY marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what keys has been saying.
> 
> And yet...and yet. If the government doesn't have the right to deny two people equal rights, how then does it have the right to deny millions, or billions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality.
> 
> We can take anything - any law - to the point of absurbity.  But the chances of it happening are virtually nil.  So because of that do you have no laws?
> 
> I don't have an issue with polygamy if people want it. But that's also another argument.  If people want polygamy then they need to make a compelling case for it on it's own merits.  The case for same sex marriage is being argued on it's own merits - not alongside polygamy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When we allow homosexuals to marry, we are taking law to the point of absurdity.  And, less than 20 years ago, everyone thought the chances of it happening were virtually nil.
> 
> It appears you "logic" has serious flaws in it.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


And you just stepped full footed into what is commonly referred to as a slippery slope fallacy. If you give a mouse a cookie, you don't have to do all the other things. Allowing non familial consenting adult couples to civilly marry is not going to lead to cats and dogs living together anymore than not locking up first time drug offenders will not lead to legalized murder. 

Put your skirt back on, Nancy, the house isn't on fire.


----------



## Seawytch

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit you were lying about James Dobson, as nothing you cited confirms what you claimed he said.
> 
> You are the demonic Left.
> 
> 
> 
> Not lying at all.   He did say that as I quoted.   Did you take the time to read the entire piece?  Doesn't seem like you had enough time to before replying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a fast reader.  Plus I've been a devoted reader of James Dobson for over 20 years and know what he teaches.  Why don't you quote exactly where he says what you claimed he said? I can't prove a negative, you idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I put a quote in there....did you not see it?
> 
> So you like the ideas of showering with Jr. and show him the family jewels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> That reminds me of that Focus on the Family article where the Founder, James Dodson suggested that fathers shower with their young sons, show them their penis' and that would keep them straight.   He also suggested that parents teach boys to pound round pegs in round holes to keep them straight too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not quite the same, it's not an act of exhibitionism.
> 
> And by the way, my own family is "clothing optional" and as such, human body parts are not a scandal, not obscene, and not something to be hidden like a dark secret.  The power of sexual perversion is the pretense of obscenity that shouldn't exist.  If that's the worst you have on James Dobson, you are getting VERY desperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not desperate at all.....the picture of the peg board reminded me of that GREAT article of his.   Focus on the Family Jewels.
Click to expand...



I went there too as soon as I saw the picture.


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not lying at all.   He did say that as I quoted.   Did you take the time to read the entire piece?  Doesn't seem like you had enough time to before replying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a fast reader.  Plus I've been a devoted reader of James Dobson for over 20 years and know what he teaches.  Why don't you quote exactly where he says what you claimed he said? I can't prove a negative, you idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I put a quote in there....did you not see it?
> 
> So you like the ideas of showering with Jr. and show him the family jewels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> That reminds me of that Focus on the Family article where the Founder, James Dodson suggested that fathers shower with their young sons, show them their penis' and that would keep them straight.   He also suggested that parents teach boys to pound round pegs in round holes to keep them straight too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not quite the same, it's not an act of exhibitionism.
> 
> And by the way, my own family is "clothing optional" and as such, human body parts are not a scandal, not obscene, and not something to be hidden like a dark secret.  The power of sexual perversion is the pretense of obscenity that shouldn't exist.  If that's the worst you have on James Dobson, you are getting VERY desperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not desperate at all.....the picture of the peg board reminded me of that GREAT article of his.   Focus on the Family Jewels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think nudity in the family is obscene or scandalous, you prove your own sexual perversion.  James Dobson was talking to an audience not besotted by the perversion holding sway over you.
Click to expand...


If you think showing your son your penis in the shower is going to keep him from being gay...well, do I really need to finish that statement?


----------



## bodecea

Freewill said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Homosexual Dilemma exists only in the minds of those who dislike marriage equality, much like folks who disliked interracial marriage.
> 
> Tough for them back then and tough for you today because we are never going back.
> 
> Get over it and don't marry someone you don't love is the best advice you can get.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again jaketherightwinger, does it need explained to you that being black and being gay are not the same thing by a long shot?  How long are the blacks going to take the insults from left wing operatives.  I really have to wonder what is wrong with blacks that ignore such insults.
Click to expand...

Civil rights are civil rights regardless whether it is based on race or gender or religion or national origin or handicap condition.  And yes, some blacks get upset.  If you were around in the 70s, some of them were upset about the comparison of the black civil rights movement and the women's rights movement.  Everyone wants to feel that their struggle is unique.


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dobson is a creepy pervert.
> 
> Read his words about men in the shower with their sons and talking about penis size.
> 
> He is a pedophile in lust waiting his time: poor boys.
> 
> 
> 
> Now now.....apparently family nudity is healthy.
> 
> Especially the part about Daddy taking Jr. into the shower to show him his big penis so he doesn't turn gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you like to have a rational discussion on this?  I married a very liberal wife who introduced me to family naturism, the natural way she was raised.  For those who have perverted minds that can't separate sex from nudity, this would be a scandal, which apparently it is for you.  Not very progressive of you, is it? So exactly what problem do you have with family naturism?
> 
> If you can't have a rational, non combative discussion on this, please just tell me.
Click to expand...


Do  you actually believe that is what Dobson was advocating, naturalism? You are a "huge fan", right? Is he a big nudist guy? And he wasn't advocating "naturalism" in that quote. He was very specifically saying that showing your son your penis will help him from becoming gay. Do you think that will work?


----------



## Seawytch

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Mendacious admits defeat and runs away.
> 
> Marriage Equality will happen before fall nationwide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The USA has had marriage equality for years.  A union of two men or two women is not a marriage any more than a union of 6 men and 8 women is a marriage, or a union of a man and his horse is a marriage.
> 
> A marriage is one man and one woman----------always has been, always will be.
Click to expand...


Except it isn't legally...and never has been religiously. I attended a lesbian wedding at a Southern Baptist Church in 1986...long before any legal recognition. 


20 years from now, Catholic Churches will be marrying gays, you watch.


----------



## bodecea

Redfish said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:
> 
> “But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up. I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.”
> 
> This fails as a slippery slope fallacy, and in fact is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no fallacious potential, where the appeal to the slippery nature of the slope, exists.
> 
> That the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a very real and very determined movement, who goals are to strip the Western Culture of all standards of sexual propriety.
> 
> Your own public professions are further evidence of this, in that where you have the opportunity to state the standards which you recognize as being essential... you merely denied that what is inarguably happening, is not happening.
> 
> So we can rest assured that your position is either one from ignorance, or that it is one from deceit.
> 
> Either way, it's deceptive... thus an invalid form of discourse where the purpose is the pursuit of the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The best standards are the Golden Rule and ensure that what you do harms no others.   How hard is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gay marriage harms society by  putting abnormal behavior on a par with normal behavior.
Click to expand...

And yet we allow quicky marriages and the marriages of criminals.


----------



## Seawytch

bodecea said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:
> 
> “But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up. I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.”
> 
> This fails as a slippery slope fallacy, and in fact is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no fallacious potential, where the appeal to the slippery nature of the slope, exists.
> 
> That the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a very real and very determined movement, who goals are to strip the Western Culture of all standards of sexual propriety.
> 
> Your own public professions are further evidence of this, in that where you have the opportunity to state the standards which you recognize as being essential... you merely denied that what is inarguably happening, is not happening.
> 
> So we can rest assured that your position is either one from ignorance, or that it is one from deceit.
> 
> Either way, it's deceptive... thus an invalid form of discourse where the purpose is the pursuit of the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The best standards are the Golden Rule and ensure that what you do harms no others.   How hard is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gay marriage harms society by  putting abnormal behavior on a par with normal behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet we allow quicky marriages and the marriages of criminals.
Click to expand...


What?


----------



## Freewill

bodecea said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Homosexual Dilemma exists only in the minds of those who dislike marriage equality, much like folks who disliked interracial marriage.
> 
> Tough for them back then and tough for you today because we are never going back.
> 
> Get over it and don't marry someone you don't love is the best advice you can get.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again jaketherightwinger, does it need explained to you that being black and being gay are not the same thing by a long shot?  How long are the blacks going to take the insults from left wing operatives.  I really have to wonder what is wrong with blacks that ignore such insults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil rights are civil rights regardless whether it is based on race or gender or religion or national origin or handicap condition.  And yes, some blacks get upset.  If you were around in the 70s, some of them were upset about the comparison of the black civil rights movement and the women's rights movement.  Everyone wants to feel that their struggle is unique.
Click to expand...


If this is true then why don't I ever hear the comparison of Gay rights to women's rights?

No one brought gays here as slaves.  No one denied gays the right to vote.  No one fought a war to free gays.  If we go under the presumption that being gay is a choice then fine, but parading down the street or announcing a person's gayness certainly is a choice.  I person can keep their gayness to themselves, if they so wish, it is their choice, it is their freedom. A black man can't keep his color to themselves.

I am all for equal rights in hiring, education or any  other program provided by the government, regardless of sexual persuasion. But don't try and tell me that marriage, as always defined by law, is anything other then between a man and a woman.


----------



## Seawytch

Freewill said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Homosexual Dilemma exists only in the minds of those who dislike marriage equality, much like folks who disliked interracial marriage.
> 
> Tough for them back then and tough for you today because we are never going back.
> 
> Get over it and don't marry someone you don't love is the best advice you can get.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again jaketherightwinger, does it need explained to you that being black and being gay are not the same thing by a long shot?  How long are the blacks going to take the insults from left wing operatives.  I really have to wonder what is wrong with blacks that ignore such insults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil rights are civil rights regardless whether it is based on race or gender or religion or national origin or handicap condition.  And yes, some blacks get upset.  If you were around in the 70s, some of them were upset about the comparison of the black civil rights movement and the women's rights movement.  Everyone wants to feel that their struggle is unique.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If this is true then why don't I ever hear the comparison of Gay rights to women's rights?
> 
> No one brought gays here as slaves.  No one denied gays the right to vote.  No one fought a war to free gays.  If we go under the presumption that being gay is a choice then fine, but parading down the street or announcing a person's gayness certainly is a choice.  I person can keep their gayness to themselves, if they so wish, it is their choice, it is their freedom. A black man can't keep his color to themselves.
> 
> I am all for equal rights in hiring, education or any  other program provided by the government, regardless of sexual persuasion. But don't try and tell me that marriage, as always defined by law, is anything other then between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...


We'll keep our "gayness" to ourselves when you keep your straightness to yourself. 

Guess what? The law now defines marriage as between two consenting adults in 35 out of 50 states. You can pretend it is not a fact, but the fact remains.


----------



## bodecea

Freewill said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Homosexual Dilemma exists only in the minds of those who dislike marriage equality, much like folks who disliked interracial marriage.
> 
> Tough for them back then and tough for you today because we are never going back.
> 
> Get over it and don't marry someone you don't love is the best advice you can get.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again jaketherightwinger, does it need explained to you that being black and being gay are not the same thing by a long shot?  How long are the blacks going to take the insults from left wing operatives.  I really have to wonder what is wrong with blacks that ignore such insults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil rights are civil rights regardless whether it is based on race or gender or religion or national origin or handicap condition.  And yes, some blacks get upset.  If you were around in the 70s, some of them were upset about the comparison of the black civil rights movement and the women's rights movement.  Everyone wants to feel that their struggle is unique.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If this is true then why don't I ever hear the comparison of Gay rights to women's rights?*
> 
> No one brought gays here as slaves.  No one denied gays the right to vote.  No one fought a war to free gays.  If we go under the presumption that being gay is a choice then fine, but parading down the street or announcing a person's gayness certainly is a choice.  I person can keep their gayness to themselves, if they so wish, it is their choice, it is their freedom. A black man can't keep his color to themselves.
> 
> I am all for equal rights in hiring, education or any  other program provided by the government, regardless of sexual persuasion. But don't try and tell me that marriage, as always defined by law, is anything other then between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

Then you haven't been listening.  The two have been compared quite a bit....don't we say again and again that it's an issue of gender equality?  Just. Like. The. Women's. Movement.  And the rights of women and the rights of lesbians have been closely entwined since the beginning, sometimes unhappily....but it's been there.  Some of the gays' best allies are women from the women's movement.  Some of our worst enemies are enemies of the women's movement too.  Phyllis Schlafly comes to mind right there.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I haven't. I think you should advocate your views MORE. I don't think just sniveling about how gays get exactly what you get is enough and that you should be picketing county clerk offices. I mean, how dedicated to stopping "gubmit" marriage are you? (outside your own, of course)
> 
> 
> 
> strawman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is a "strawman" about actually doing something about your beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's his standard response to anything he finds too uncomfortable to answer...that and "begging the question".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman.
> 
> They are actually specific answers, if you don't know what they mean, google them.
> 
> They are the two primary tools in your belt, which is why you get them so often.  You say I said things I didn't say (strawman) like here where you ask me "what is a "strawman" about actually doing something about your beliefs?"  I never said that nor anything like it.  So I informed you specifically it was a strawman.
> 
> You also like to ignore my answer and repeat your question assuming the truth of your own position, which is begging the question.  Since I've already addressed it, I inform you of that by telling you that you begged the question, so if you want to go back and actually address my argument I'll give you more.
> 
> In both cases, you ignored what I actually said.  Then you whine I don't address your non-response.   You want an actual response from me?  Give me an actual response to my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aware of what they mean and I know why you use them. I agree, you've addressed everything. Now get out there and push your agenda. Picket those county clerks...we did.
Click to expand...


So my choices are to demonstrate or shut up.  I reject that as the crap that it is.  I think my strategy is far more effective, changing minds.  Not your mind, you are an ideologue, your intelligence is not in play.  But I get comments all the time from people that they always assumed that this or that had to be a government function because it is, and I had a valid point that maybe it didn't need to be.  That to me is a huge win every time it happens.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carib Gyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's already argued that there are loveless hetero marriages.
> 
> *Here's the dealio: For every single point made in arguing for gay marriage, the exact same argument can be made for unlimited plural marriage.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come to think of it...all those arguments apply to hetero marriage too - OMG - why have ANY marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what keys has been saying.
> 
> And yet...and yet. If the government doesn't have the right to deny two people equal rights, how then does it have the right to deny millions, or billions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality.
> 
> We can take anything - any law - to the point of absurbity.  But the chances of it happening are virtually nil.  So because of that do you have no laws?
> 
> I don't have an issue with polygamy if people want it. But that's also another argument.  If people want polygamy then they need to make a compelling case for it on it's own merits.  The case for same sex marriage is being argued on it's own merits - not alongside polygamy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When we allow homosexuals to marry, we are taking law to the point of absurdity.  And, less than 20 years ago, everyone thought the chances of it happening were virtually nil.
> 
> It appears you "logic" has serious flaws in it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you just stepped full footed into what is commonly referred to as a slippery slope fallacy. If you give a mouse a cookie, you don't have to do all the other things. Allowing non familial consenting adult couples to civilly marry is not going to lead to cats and dogs living together anymore than not locking up first time drug offenders will not lead to legalized murder.
> 
> Put your skirt back on, Nancy, the house isn't on fire.
Click to expand...


Right, because you're a full fledged hypocrite.  You only want yours, the whole thing about people making their own choices was crap the whole time.  That is why you are no different than the man/woman crowd, you just draw an arbitrary line in a different spot.  You torpedoed every argument you made as a lie.


----------



## bodecea

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> strawman
> 
> 
> 
> What is a "strawman" about actually doing something about your beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's his standard response to anything he finds too uncomfortable to answer...that and "begging the question".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman.
> 
> They are actually specific answers, if you don't know what they mean, google them.
> 
> They are the two primary tools in your belt, which is why you get them so often.  You say I said things I didn't say (strawman) like here where you ask me "what is a "strawman" about actually doing something about your beliefs?"  I never said that nor anything like it.  So I informed you specifically it was a strawman.
> 
> You also like to ignore my answer and repeat your question assuming the truth of your own position, which is begging the question.  Since I've already addressed it, I inform you of that by telling you that you begged the question, so if you want to go back and actually address my argument I'll give you more.
> 
> In both cases, you ignored what I actually said.  Then you whine I don't address your non-response.   You want an actual response from me?  Give me an actual response to my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aware of what they mean and I know why you use them. I agree, you've addressed everything. Now get out there and push your agenda. Picket those county clerks...we did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So my choices are to demonstrate or shut up.  I reject that as the crap that it is.  I think my strategy is far more effective, changing minds.  Not your mind, you are an ideologue, your intelligence is not in play.  But I get comments all the time from people that they always assumed that this or that had to be a government function because it is, and I had a valid point that maybe it didn't need to be.  That to me is a huge win every time it happens.
Click to expand...

If one feels strongly about something, they do something about it.  You just like to kvetch?


----------



## kaz

bodecea said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a "strawman" about actually doing something about your beliefs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's his standard response to anything he finds too uncomfortable to answer...that and "begging the question".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman.
> 
> They are actually specific answers, if you don't know what they mean, google them.
> 
> They are the two primary tools in your belt, which is why you get them so often.  You say I said things I didn't say (strawman) like here where you ask me "what is a "strawman" about actually doing something about your beliefs?"  I never said that nor anything like it.  So I informed you specifically it was a strawman.
> 
> You also like to ignore my answer and repeat your question assuming the truth of your own position, which is begging the question.  Since I've already addressed it, I inform you of that by telling you that you begged the question, so if you want to go back and actually address my argument I'll give you more.
> 
> In both cases, you ignored what I actually said.  Then you whine I don't address your non-response.   You want an actual response from me?  Give me an actual response to my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aware of what they mean and I know why you use them. I agree, you've addressed everything. Now get out there and push your agenda. Picket those county clerks...we did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So my choices are to demonstrate or shut up.  I reject that as the crap that it is.  I think my strategy is far more effective, changing minds.  Not your mind, you are an ideologue, your intelligence is not in play.  But I get comments all the time from people that they always assumed that this or that had to be a government function because it is, and I had a valid point that maybe it didn't need to be.  That to me is a huge win every time it happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If one feels strongly about something, they do something about it.  You just like to kvetch?
Click to expand...


Begging the question


----------



## NYcarbineer

Freewill said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Homosexual Dilemma exists only in the minds of those who dislike marriage equality, much like folks who disliked interracial marriage.
> 
> Tough for them back then and tough for you today because we are never going back.
> 
> Get over it and don't marry someone you don't love is the best advice you can get.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again jaketherightwinger, does it need explained to you that being black and being gay are not the same thing by a long shot?  How long are the blacks going to take the insults from left wing operatives.  I really have to wonder what is wrong with blacks that ignore such insults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil rights are civil rights regardless whether it is based on race or gender or religion or national origin or handicap condition.  And yes, some blacks get upset.  If you were around in the 70s, some of them were upset about the comparison of the black civil rights movement and the women's rights movement.  Everyone wants to feel that their struggle is unique.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If this is true then why don't I ever hear the comparison of Gay rights to women's rights?
> 
> No one brought gays here as slaves.  No one denied gays the right to vote.  No one fought a war to free gays.  If we go under the presumption that being gay is a choice then fine, but parading down the street or announcing a person's gayness certainly is a choice.  I person can keep their gayness to themselves, if they so wish, it is their choice, it is their freedom. A black man can't keep his color to themselves.
> 
> I am all for equal rights in hiring, education or any  other program provided by the government, regardless of sexual persuasion. But don't try and tell me that marriage, as always defined by law, is anything other then between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...


You want people to keep their sexual orientation to themselves?  Good one. lol


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again?  this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a  self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for,  they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays DO have children...I've had five. Why are our families less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
> 
> Also, can you please name for us the state or locality that requires procreation in order to apply for a civil marriage license? Can you cite one instance of a civil marriage license being revoked due to the couple's inability or refusal to procreate?
Click to expand...

Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again?  this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a  self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for,  they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I adopted our daughter in order to protect my parental rights.  Why does ANYONE "need" to adopt children?  Answer than one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that you adopted your daughter because you fucked up. Is that right?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally incorrect.  She was lovingly planned by my wife and I.  She had her...I adopted her.  One of the best things in our lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's her father?  Whether you got sperm at a sperm bank or have a father that you keep out of the picture, one way or another you perverted the natural order to have your arrangement and delusion.  It was entirely a self centered act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So the millions of heterosexuals that use IVF and AI are "selfish" and "delusional" as well? Our children have two parents, which studies have shown provides the best outcomes for children, two *parents*.
> 
> Why did you have children? I'm going to bet you dollars to donuts that you did it for all the same reasons that gays have children. Do you want to take our children away from us?
Click to expand...

I married a woman, therefore setting into play a union that can bring children into the world. You deliberately set up a union that can't under any condition produce children naturally. The law should prohibited people like you from having children, deliberately depriving them of a father or a mother.


----------



## Freewill

NYcarbineer said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Homosexual Dilemma exists only in the minds of those who dislike marriage equality, much like folks who disliked interracial marriage.
> 
> Tough for them back then and tough for you today because we are never going back.
> 
> Get over it and don't marry someone you don't love is the best advice you can get.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again jaketherightwinger, does it need explained to you that being black and being gay are not the same thing by a long shot?  How long are the blacks going to take the insults from left wing operatives.  I really have to wonder what is wrong with blacks that ignore such insults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil rights are civil rights regardless whether it is based on race or gender or religion or national origin or handicap condition.  And yes, some blacks get upset.  If you were around in the 70s, some of them were upset about the comparison of the black civil rights movement and the women's rights movement.  Everyone wants to feel that their struggle is unique.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If this is true then why don't I ever hear the comparison of Gay rights to women's rights?
> 
> No one brought gays here as slaves.  No one denied gays the right to vote.  No one fought a war to free gays.  If we go under the presumption that being gay is a choice then fine, but parading down the street or announcing a person's gayness certainly is a choice.  I person can keep their gayness to themselves, if they so wish, it is their choice, it is their freedom. A black man can't keep his color to themselves.
> 
> I am all for equal rights in hiring, education or any  other program provided by the government, regardless of sexual persuasion. But don't try and tell me that marriage, as always defined by law, is anything other then between a man and a woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want people to keep their sexual orientation to themselves?  Good one. lol
Click to expand...


More like, not make it a defining issue.  Micheal Sams was made a big issue because he "came out."  Following what I believe to be your implication why would Sams need to "come out?"

Here are players that did come out and did play, according to wikpedia

Wade DavisNFLCornerback[30]Ed GallagherNCAA Division IOffensive tackle[31]Alan GendreauNCAA Division IPlacekicker[32]Kwame HarrisNFLOffensive tackle[33]David KopayNFLRunning back[34]Ray McDonaldNFLRunning back[35]Conner MertensNCAA Division IIIPlacekicker[21]Michael SamNFL




Defensive end[36]Chip SarafinNCAA Division IOffensive lineman[29]Roy SimmonsNFLGuard[37]Brian SimsNCAA Division IIDefensive tackle[38]Jerry Smith*NFLTight end[39]Esera TuaoloNFLDefensive tackle[40]

Homosexuality in American football - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a fast reader.  Plus I've been a devoted reader of James Dobson for over 20 years and know what he teaches.  Why don't you quote exactly where he says what you claimed he said? I can't prove a negative, you idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> I put a quote in there....did you not see it?
> 
> So you like the ideas of showering with Jr. and show him the family jewels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> That reminds me of that Focus on the Family article where the Founder, James Dodson suggested that fathers shower with their young sons, show them their penis' and that would keep them straight.   He also suggested that parents teach boys to pound round pegs in round holes to keep them straight too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not quite the same, it's not an act of exhibitionism.
> 
> And by the way, my own family is "clothing optional" and as such, human body parts are not a scandal, not obscene, and not something to be hidden like a dark secret.  The power of sexual perversion is the pretense of obscenity that shouldn't exist.  If that's the worst you have on James Dobson, you are getting VERY desperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not desperate at all.....the picture of the peg board reminded me of that GREAT article of his.   Focus on the Family Jewels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think nudity in the family is obscene or scandalous, you prove your own sexual perversion.  James Dobson was talking to an audience not besotted by the perversion holding sway over you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think showing your son your penis in the shower is going to keep him from being gay...well, do I really need to finish that statement?
Click to expand...

I think that affirming my sons' maleness is important no matter what they turn out to be and I don't agree with James Dobson on everything. Evangelical Christians can be wrong too, Exodus International being a good example.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Mendacious admits defeat and runs away.
> 
> Marriage Equality will happen before fall nationwide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The USA has had marriage equality for years.  A union of two men or two women is not a marriage any more than a union of 6 men and 8 women is a marriage, or a union of a man and his horse is a marriage.
> 
> A marriage is one man and one woman----------always has been, always will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except it isn't legally...and never has been religiously. I attended a lesbian wedding at a Southern Baptist Church in 1986...long before any legal recognition.
> 
> 
> 20 years from now, Catholic Churches will be marrying gays, you watch.
Click to expand...

Actually the Catholic Church has demonstrated it can remain true to its teachings impervious to the tide of popular trends. This isn't the first battle we've had with a depraved culture engrossed in homosexuality.


----------



## JakeStarkey

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again?  this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a  self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for,  they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays DO have children...I've had five. Why are our families less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
> 
> Also, can you please name for us the state or locality that requires procreation in order to apply for a civil marriage license? Can you cite one instance of a civil marriage license being revoked due to the couple's inability or refusal to procreate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
Click to expand...


Stop the lies.

Folks argue all the time on the Board that reproduction is a requirement.  Pop23 lives and dies by that stupdiity.

People who can't have children get married and adopt, hetero and homo.

Parents, homo and hetero, abuse children.

The issue is bad parenting, not sexual orientation.

Your conclusions do not hold up.


----------



## The Rabbi

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again?  this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a  self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for,  they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays DO have children...I've had five. Why are our families less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
> 
> Also, can you please name for us the state or locality that requires procreation in order to apply for a civil marriage license? Can you cite one instance of a civil marriage license being revoked due to the couple's inability or refusal to procreate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
Click to expand...

Oh good lord, not this shit again.

This point has been explained over and over.  I can only conclude that homosexuality is a mental illness that prevents people from following logical arguments, much less responding to them.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

The Rabbi said:


> Oh good lord, not this shit again.
> 
> This point has been explained over and over.  I can only conclude that homosexuality is a mental illness that prevents people from following logical arguments, much less responding to them.








​


----------



## PGreen

The homosexualism is not a dilemma, it's a sin, it's immoral and wrong behaviour. Period. America will fall because of gays.


----------



## bodecea

kaz said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's his standard response to anything he finds too uncomfortable to answer...that and "begging the question".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman.
> 
> They are actually specific answers, if you don't know what they mean, google them.
> 
> They are the two primary tools in your belt, which is why you get them so often.  You say I said things I didn't say (strawman) like here where you ask me "what is a "strawman" about actually doing something about your beliefs?"  I never said that nor anything like it.  So I informed you specifically it was a strawman.
> 
> You also like to ignore my answer and repeat your question assuming the truth of your own position, which is begging the question.  Since I've already addressed it, I inform you of that by telling you that you begged the question, so if you want to go back and actually address my argument I'll give you more.
> 
> In both cases, you ignored what I actually said.  Then you whine I don't address your non-response.   You want an actual response from me?  Give me an actual response to my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aware of what they mean and I know why you use them. I agree, you've addressed everything. Now get out there and push your agenda. Picket those county clerks...we did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So my choices are to demonstrate or shut up.  I reject that as the crap that it is.  I think my strategy is far more effective, changing minds.  Not your mind, you are an ideologue, your intelligence is not in play.  But I get comments all the time from people that they always assumed that this or that had to be a government function because it is, and I had a valid point that maybe it didn't need to be.  That to me is a huge win every time it happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If one feels strongly about something, they do something about it.  You just like to kvetch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Begging the question
Click to expand...

I'll take that as a yes.  Kvetch away.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again?  this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a  self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for,  they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays DO have children...I've had five. Why are our families less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
> 
> Also, can you please name for us the state or locality that requires procreation in order to apply for a civil marriage license? Can you cite one instance of a civil marriage license being revoked due to the couple's inability or refusal to procreate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another strawman. *Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. *What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
Click to expand...


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I adopted our daughter in order to protect my parental rights.  Why does ANYONE "need" to adopt children?  Answer than one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that you adopted your daughter because you fucked up. Is that right?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally incorrect.  She was lovingly planned by my wife and I.  She had her...I adopted her.  One of the best things in our lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's her father?  Whether you got sperm at a sperm bank or have a father that you keep out of the picture, one way or another you perverted the natural order to have your arrangement and delusion.  It was entirely a self centered act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So the millions of heterosexuals that use IVF and AI are "selfish" and "delusional" as well? Our children have two parents, which studies have shown provides the best outcomes for children, two *parents*.
> 
> Why did you have children? I'm going to bet you dollars to donuts that you did it for all the same reasons that gays have children. Do you want to take our children away from us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I married a woman, therefore setting into play a union that can bring children into the world. You deliberately set up a union that can't under any condition produce children naturally. The law should prohibited people like you from having children, deliberately depriving them of a father or a mother.
Click to expand...

You're one of those "small government" conservatives, aren't you?


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Mendacious admits defeat and runs away.
> 
> Marriage Equality will happen before fall nationwide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The USA has had marriage equality for years.  A union of two men or two women is not a marriage any more than a union of 6 men and 8 women is a marriage, or a union of a man and his horse is a marriage.
> 
> A marriage is one man and one woman----------always has been, always will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except it isn't legally...and never has been religiously. I attended a lesbian wedding at a Southern Baptist Church in 1986...long before any legal recognition.
> 
> 
> 20 years from now, Catholic Churches will be marrying gays, you watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually the Catholic Church has demonstrated it can remain true to its teachings impervious to the tide of popular trends. This isn't the first battle we've had with a depraved culture engrossed in homosexuality.
Click to expand...

The Catholic Church has sure demonstrated something.....with its protection of pedophile priests.


----------



## The Rabbi

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Mendacious admits defeat and runs away.
> 
> Marriage Equality will happen before fall nationwide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The USA has had marriage equality for years.  A union of two men or two women is not a marriage any more than a union of 6 men and 8 women is a marriage, or a union of a man and his horse is a marriage.
> 
> A marriage is one man and one woman----------always has been, always will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except it isn't legally...and never has been religiously. I attended a lesbian wedding at a Southern Baptist Church in 1986...long before any legal recognition.
> 
> 
> 20 years from now, Catholic Churches will be marrying gays, you watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually the Catholic Church has demonstrated it can remain true to its teachings impervious to the tide of popular trends. This isn't the first battle we've had with a depraved culture engrossed in homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Catholic Church has sure demonstrated something.....with its protection of pedophile priests.
Click to expand...

Deflection.
Do you have anything else to add?  I mean, we can discuss the contributions made by homosexuals like the pedophile Harvey Milk all day long.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The Rabbi said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again?  this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a  self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for,  they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays DO have children...I've had five. Why are our families less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
> 
> Also, can you please name for us the state or locality that requires procreation in order to apply for a civil marriage license? Can you cite one instance of a civil marriage license being revoked due to the couple's inability or refusal to procreate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh good lord, not this shit again.
> 
> This point has been explained over and over.  I can only conclude that homosexuality is a mental illness that prevents people from following logical arguments, much less responding to them.
Click to expand...


I agree that Pop23 and others who continually argue this point are mentally disturbed.

The mentally ill believe that same sex attraction is a problem although the APA and AMA say it is not.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The social cons are entitled to believe as they do but not entitled to take away others' rights re marriage equality.


----------



## Lilah

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again?  this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a  self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for,  they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays DO have children...I've had five. Why are our families less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
> 
> Also, can you please name for us the state or locality that requires procreation in order to apply for a civil marriage license? Can you cite one instance of a civil marriage license being revoked due to the couple's inability or refusal to procreate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
Click to expand...


You are one heartless form of human flesh.  Too many women are unable to bear children; therefore, thanks to today's technology, they are able to use other means to process their eggs.  Shame on you for manifesting your egomaniacal, abysmally smug, self-righteous, judgmental thinking into hate speech.


----------



## Lilah

PGreen said:


> The homosexualism is not a dilemma, it's a sin, it's immoral and wrong behaviour. Period. America will fall because of gays.



Any failure(s) can and will be traced back to miscreants like you.


----------



## The Rabbi

Lilah said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again?  this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a  self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for,  they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays DO have children...I've had five. Why are our families less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
> 
> Also, can you please name for us the state or locality that requires procreation in order to apply for a civil marriage license? Can you cite one instance of a civil marriage license being revoked due to the couple's inability or refusal to procreate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are one heartless form of human flesh.  Too many women are unable to bear children; therefore, thanks to today's technology, they are able to use other means to process their eggs.  Shame on you for manifesting your egomaniacal, abysmally smug, self-righteous, judgmental thinking into hate speech.
Click to expand...

You didnt actually understand his comment, did you?  Be honest.


----------



## Lilah

The Rabbi said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again?  this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a  self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for,  they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays DO have children...I've had five. Why are our families less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
> 
> Also, can you please name for us the state or locality that requires procreation in order to apply for a civil marriage license? Can you cite one instance of a civil marriage license being revoked due to the couple's inability or refusal to procreate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are one heartless form of human flesh.  Too many women are unable to bear children; therefore, thanks to today's technology, they are able to use other means to process their eggs.  Shame on you for manifesting your egomaniacal, abysmally smug, self-righteous, judgmental thinking into hate speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didnt actually understand his comment, did you?  Be honest.
Click to expand...


Parse it for me, please


----------



## g5000

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage.



The claim is frequently made that marriage tax breaks are to encourage procreation.



saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.



This is a bigoted bare assertion with no supporting evidence.  Please support this idiotic claim with evidence that gay parent households are any more abusive than heterosexual households.


----------



## The Rabbi

Lilah said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again?  this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a  self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for,  they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays DO have children...I've had five. Why are our families less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
> 
> Also, can you please name for us the state or locality that requires procreation in order to apply for a civil marriage license? Can you cite one instance of a civil marriage license being revoked due to the couple's inability or refusal to procreate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are one heartless form of human flesh.  Too many women are unable to bear children; therefore, thanks to today's technology, they are able to use other means to process their eggs.  Shame on you for manifesting your egomaniacal, abysmally smug, self-righteous, judgmental thinking into hate speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didnt actually understand his comment, did you?  Be honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Parse it for me, please
Click to expand...

So that's a no.

The argument here runs like this: The state has an interest in fostering some kinds of relationships over other kinds of relationships.  Specifically heterosexual relationships tend (note the word tend) to produce future generations of citizens, which is why the state fosters it.  Homsoexual relationships tend (note the word tend) not to.  Ergo the state has a proper interest in discriminating between the two  The fact that some heterosexual couples are childless and some homosexual couples have children or some sort is irrelevent because we arent making a rule that is absolute, only making rules for the general population.


----------



## g5000

The Rabbi said:


> You didnt actually understand his comment, did you?  Be honest.



We understand all too well.

You, too.  Prove that gay parents are more abusive than straight parents.  

Go ahead.


----------



## g5000

The Rabbi said:


> So that's a no.
> 
> The argument here runs like this: The state has an interest in fostering some kinds of relationships over other kinds of relationships.  Specifically heterosexual relationships tend (note the word tend) to produce future generations of citizens, which is why the state fosters it.  Homsoexual relationships tend (note the word tend) not to.  Ergo the state has a proper interest in discriminating between the two  The fact that some heterosexual couples are childless and some homosexual couples have children or some sort is irrelevent because we arent making a rule that is absolute, only making rules for the general population.


Wow.  It just gets dumber and dumber.

Are you really this retarded?

I guess I should not be surprised that a bigot is retarded enough to believe that people will stop making kids if the government doesn't interfere in their marriages and institute a behavioral modification program to reward them with cash for fucking and procreating.

I guess you retards think the human race almost died out before all this government involvement in marriage, eh?

The illegitimacy rate must have been much higher before the government came along and encouraged people to get married.  And the divorce rate, too, since there was no incentive to stay married until the government started paying people to stay married.  It's a good thing the government got involved in marriage and brought those rates down, eh?


----------



## hipeter924

Lilah said:


> PGreen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The homosexualism is not a dilemma, it's a sin, it's immoral and wrong behaviour. Period. America will fall because of gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any failure(s) can and will be traced back to miscreants like you.
Click to expand...

Well, holding back scientific advancement would destroy America for sure, as stem cells and artificial insemination increase life spans or birth rates. Under a crazed theocracy, life saving methods would be 'heresy' as would the use of most technology. 

Read Anthem by Ayn Rand, even if you don't like her philosophy, as it pictures a world where religious theocrats and 'altruists' run everything.


----------



## The Rabbi

g5000 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> So that's a no.
> 
> The argument here runs like this: The state has an interest in fostering some kinds of relationships over other kinds of relationships.  Specifically heterosexual relationships tend (note the word tend) to produce future generations of citizens, which is why the state fosters it.  Homsoexual relationships tend (note the word tend) not to.  Ergo the state has a proper interest in discriminating between the two  The fact that some heterosexual couples are childless and some homosexual couples have children or some sort is irrelevent because we arent making a rule that is absolute, only making rules for the general population.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  It just gets dumber and dumber.
> 
> Are you really this retarded?
> 
> I guess I should not be surprised that a bigot is retarded enough to believe that people will stop making kids if the government doesn't interfere in their marriages and institute a behavioral modification program to reward them with cash for fucking and procreating.
> 
> I guess you retards think the human race almost died out before all this government involvement in marriage, eh?
Click to expand...

You really are one stupid piece of shit, arent you?  Don;t lie.  We know it's true.


----------



## The Rabbi

g5000 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didnt actually understand his comment, did you?  Be honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We understand all too well.
> 
> You, too.  Prove that gay parents are more abusive than straight parents.
> 
> Go ahead.
Click to expand...

Straw man. I never claimed that.


----------



## g5000

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.


It's like I keep saying.

Behind the mask of every anti-gay marriage bigot is a Westboro Baptist.  You just have to keep them talking long enough for the mask to slip.


----------



## WorldWatcher

The Rabbi said:


> The argument here runs like this: The state has an interest in fostering some kinds of relationships over other kinds of relationships.  Specifically heterosexual relationships tend (note the word tend) to produce future generations of citizens, which is why the state fosters it.  Homsoexual relationships tend (note the word tend) not to.  Ergo the state has a proper interest in discriminating between the two  The fact that some heterosexual couples are childless and some homosexual couples have children or some sort is irrelevent because we arent making a rule that is absolute, only making rules for the general population.




So different-sex couples are exempt from the procreation "rule".

However that is a standard that will be required of same-sex couples.

Ya, that logic doesn't work.  Especially since there are laws that require different-sex couples to be infertile before they are allowed to Civilly Marry.


>>>>>


----------



## g5000

The Rabbi said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didnt actually understand his comment, did you?  Be honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We understand all too well.
> 
> You, too.  Prove that gay parents are more abusive than straight parents.
> 
> Go ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw man. I never claimed that.
Click to expand...

Well, well, well.  It looks like YOU are the one who didn't know what SaintMichaelDefendThem was saying.


----------



## The Rabbi

g5000 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
> 
> 
> 
> It's like I keep saying.
> 
> Behind the mask of every anti-gay marriage bigot is a Westboro Baptist.  You just have to keep them talking long enough for the mask to slip.
Click to expand...

More stupid shit from today's shit-talker.  Hey, shit talker, you think you can actually respond to the post, or are you too fucking stupid to even comprehend what he wrote?


----------



## The Rabbi

WorldWatcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The argument here runs like this: The state has an interest in fostering some kinds of relationships over other kinds of relationships.  Specifically heterosexual relationships tend (note the word tend) to produce future generations of citizens, which is why the state fosters it.  Homsoexual relationships tend (note the word tend) not to.  Ergo the state has a proper interest in discriminating between the two  The fact that some heterosexual couples are childless and some homosexual couples have children or some sort is irrelevent because we arent making a rule that is absolute, only making rules for the general population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So different-sex couples are exempt from the procreation "rule".
> 
> However that is a standard that will be required of same-sex couples.
> 
> Ya, that logic doesn't work.  Especially since there are laws that require different-sex couples to be infertile before they are allowed to Civilly Marry.
> 
> 
> >>>>>
Click to expand...

That post made no sense.  There is no "procreation rule."  You made that up.


----------



## g5000

The Rabbi said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> So that's a no.
> 
> The argument here runs like this: The state has an interest in fostering some kinds of relationships over other kinds of relationships.  Specifically heterosexual relationships tend (note the word tend) to produce future generations of citizens, which is why the state fosters it.  Homsoexual relationships tend (note the word tend) not to.  Ergo the state has a proper interest in discriminating between the two  The fact that some heterosexual couples are childless and some homosexual couples have children or some sort is irrelevent because we arent making a rule that is absolute, only making rules for the general population.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  It just gets dumber and dumber.
> 
> Are you really this retarded?
> 
> I guess I should not be surprised that a bigot is retarded enough to believe that people will stop making kids if the government doesn't interfere in their marriages and institute a behavioral modification program to reward them with cash for fucking and procreating.
> 
> I guess you retards think the human race almost died out before all this government involvement in marriage, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really are one stupid piece of shit, arent you?  Don;t lie.  We know it's true.
Click to expand...

This is Rabbi's default response after getting his ass handed to him.


----------



## The Rabbi

g5000 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didnt actually understand his comment, did you?  Be honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We understand all too well.
> 
> You, too.  Prove that gay parents are more abusive than straight parents.
> 
> Go ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw man. I never claimed that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, well, well.  It looks like YOU are the one who didn't know what SaintMichaelDefendThem was saying.
Click to expand...

I know what he wrote.  So what?  I am not responsible for what other posters write.  Deal with it, shit talker.


----------



## g5000

The Rabbi said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
> 
> 
> 
> It's like I keep saying.
> 
> Behind the mask of every anti-gay marriage bigot is a Westboro Baptist.  You just have to keep them talking long enough for the mask to slip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More stupid shit from today's shit-talker.  Hey, shit talker, you think you can actually respond to the post, or are you too fucking stupid to even comprehend what he wrote?
Click to expand...

He is quite plainly saying that gay parents are abusive to children for the sole reason that letting your kids know you are gay is abusive.

It does not get more Westboro Baptist than that!


----------



## The Rabbi

g5000 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> So that's a no.
> 
> The argument here runs like this: The state has an interest in fostering some kinds of relationships over other kinds of relationships.  Specifically heterosexual relationships tend (note the word tend) to produce future generations of citizens, which is why the state fosters it.  Homsoexual relationships tend (note the word tend) not to.  Ergo the state has a proper interest in discriminating between the two  The fact that some heterosexual couples are childless and some homosexual couples have children or some sort is irrelevent because we arent making a rule that is absolute, only making rules for the general population.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  It just gets dumber and dumber.
> 
> Are you really this retarded?
> 
> I guess I should not be surprised that a bigot is retarded enough to believe that people will stop making kids if the government doesn't interfere in their marriages and institute a behavioral modification program to reward them with cash for fucking and procreating.
> 
> I guess you retards think the human race almost died out before all this government involvement in marriage, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really are one stupid piece of shit, arent you?  Don;t lie.  We know it's true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is Rabbi's default response after getting his ass handed to him.
Click to expand...

I've never had my ass handed to me.  Certainly not by a shit talker like you who couldn't argue with a rock and win.


----------



## The Rabbi

g5000 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
> 
> 
> 
> It's like I keep saying.
> 
> Behind the mask of every anti-gay marriage bigot is a Westboro Baptist.  You just have to keep them talking long enough for the mask to slip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More stupid shit from today's shit-talker.  Hey, shit talker, you think you can actually respond to the post, or are you too fucking stupid to even comprehend what he wrote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is quite plainly saying that gay parents are abusive to children.
Click to expand...

OK.  Do you know they're not?


----------



## The Rabbi

g5000 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
> 
> 
> 
> It's like I keep saying.
> 
> Behind the mask of every anti-gay marriage bigot is a Westboro Baptist.  You just have to keep them talking long enough for the mask to slip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More stupid shit from today's shit-talker.  Hey, shit talker, you think you can actually respond to the post, or are you too fucking stupid to even comprehend what he wrote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is quite plainly saying that gay parents are abusive to children for the sole reason that letting your kids know you are gay is abusive.
> 
> It does not get more Westboro Baptist than that!
Click to expand...

So demonstrate he is wrong.  Go ahead.


----------



## Syriusly

The Rabbi said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays DO have children...I've had five. Why are our families less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
> 
> Also, can you please name for us the state or locality that requires procreation in order to apply for a civil marriage license? Can you cite one instance of a civil marriage license being revoked due to the couple's inability or refusal to procreate?
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are one heartless form of human flesh.  Too many women are unable to bear children; therefore, thanks to today's technology, they are able to use other means to process their eggs.  Shame on you for manifesting your egomaniacal, abysmally smug, self-righteous, judgmental thinking into hate speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didnt actually understand his comment, did you?  Be honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Parse it for me, please
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So that's a no.
> 
> The argument here runs like this: The state has an interest in fostering some kinds of relationships over other kinds of relationships.  Specifically heterosexual relationships tend (note the word tend) to produce future generations of citizens, which is why the state fosters it.  Homsoexual relationships tend (note the word tend) not to.  Ergo the state has a proper interest in discriminating between the two  The fact that some heterosexual couples are childless and some homosexual couples have children or some sort is irrelevent because we arent making a rule that is absolute, only making rules for the general population.
Click to expand...


That sounds exactly like what it is- a rationalization for discrimination against gay couples. 

Essentially applying one set of standards to a group that the majority identifies with- and applying a second set of standards to a group the majority doesn't identify with.

And that of course is why such arguments have been failing in court.


----------



## g5000

SMDT believes that telling your children that being gay is not evil or wrong is abusive.

Like I said.  Westboro Baptist.


----------



## WorldWatcher

The Rabbi said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The argument here runs like this: The state has an interest in fostering some kinds of relationships over other kinds of relationships.  Specifically heterosexual relationships tend (note the word tend) to produce future generations of citizens, which is why the state fosters it.  Homsoexual relationships tend (note the word tend) not to.  Ergo the state has a proper interest in discriminating between the two  The fact that some heterosexual couples are childless and some homosexual couples have children or some sort is irrelevent because we arent making a rule that is absolute, only making rules for the general population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So different-sex couples are exempt from the procreation "rule".
> 
> However that is a standard that will be required of same-sex couples.
> 
> Ya, that logic doesn't work.  Especially since there are laws that require different-sex couples to be infertile before they are allowed to Civilly Marry.
> 
> 
> >>>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That post made no sense.  There is no "procreation rule."  You made that up.
Click to expand...



Nope, you said we are "only making rules for the general population".

Well "rules" are rules, either they apply or they don't.  If the rule is that you have to be able to procreate with the other member of the couple.  That's fine.  Apply the same rule equally.  On the other hand if there are exceptions to the rule for different-sex couples that can't procreate, then equal exceptions should be allowed for same-sex couples that can't procreate.  (Of course that means there really isn't a "rule" doesn't it.)

Let alone "rules" (well actually laws in this case) that require different-sex couples to be infertile together before being allowed to Civilly Marry.


>>>>


----------



## Syriusly

The Rabbi said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Mendacious admits defeat and runs away.
> 
> Marriage Equality will happen before fall nationwide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The USA has had marriage equality for years.  A union of two men or two women is not a marriage any more than a union of 6 men and 8 women is a marriage, or a union of a man and his horse is a marriage.
> 
> A marriage is one man and one woman----------always has been, always will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except it isn't legally...and never has been religiously. I attended a lesbian wedding at a Southern Baptist Church in 1986...long before any legal recognition.
> 
> 
> 20 years from now, Catholic Churches will be marrying gays, you watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually the Catholic Church has demonstrated it can remain true to its teachings impervious to the tide of popular trends. This isn't the first battle we've had with a depraved culture engrossed in homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Catholic Church has sure demonstrated something.....with its protection of pedophile priests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deflection.
> Do you have anything else to add?  I mean, we can discuss the contributions made by homosexuals like the pedophile Harvey Milk all day long.
Click to expand...


Harvey Milk has as much to do with this discussion as Elvis Presley does. 

Just a strawman thrown out by homophobes when they have run out of legitimate talking points.


----------



## g5000

The Rabbi said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
> 
> 
> 
> It's like I keep saying.
> 
> Behind the mask of every anti-gay marriage bigot is a Westboro Baptist.  You just have to keep them talking long enough for the mask to slip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More stupid shit from today's shit-talker.  Hey, shit talker, you think you can actually respond to the post, or are you too fucking stupid to even comprehend what he wrote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is quite plainly saying that gay parents are abusive to children for the sole reason that letting your kids know you are gay is abusive.
> 
> It does not get more Westboro Baptist than that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So demonstrate he is wrong.  Go ahead.
Click to expand...

Argument from ignorance.

He made the claim. You supported it.  So prove that gay households are any more abusive than straight ones.

Please prove that telling kids that gays are not evil is abusive to kids, and do so while trying not to sound like a Westboro Baptist.

Good luck with that!


----------



## The Rabbi

g5000 said:


> SMDT believes that telling your children that being okay is not evil or wrong is abusive.
> 
> Like I said.  Westboro Baptist.


That isnt a demonstration of anything.  That is a mere assertion.
Try again.


----------



## The Rabbi

WorldWatcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The argument here runs like this: The state has an interest in fostering some kinds of relationships over other kinds of relationships.  Specifically heterosexual relationships tend (note the word tend) to produce future generations of citizens, which is why the state fosters it.  Homsoexual relationships tend (note the word tend) not to.  Ergo the state has a proper interest in discriminating between the two  The fact that some heterosexual couples are childless and some homosexual couples have children or some sort is irrelevent because we arent making a rule that is absolute, only making rules for the general population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So different-sex couples are exempt from the procreation "rule".
> 
> However that is a standard that will be required of same-sex couples.
> 
> Ya, that logic doesn't work.  Especially since there are laws that require different-sex couples to be infertile before they are allowed to Civilly Marry.
> 
> 
> >>>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That post made no sense.  There is no "procreation rule."  You made that up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you said we are "only making rules for the general population".
> 
> Well "rules" are rules, either they apply or they don't.  If the rule is that you have to be able to procreate with the other member of the couple.  That's fine.  Apply the same rule equally.  On the other hand if there are exceptions to the rule for different-sex couples that can't procreate, then equal exceptions should be allowed for same-sex couples that can't procreate.  (Of course that means there really isn't a "rule" doesn't it.)
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

You are one stupid shit who cant read.  That much is obvious.


----------



## The Rabbi

g5000 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
> 
> 
> 
> It's like I keep saying.
> 
> Behind the mask of every anti-gay marriage bigot is a Westboro Baptist.  You just have to keep them talking long enough for the mask to slip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More stupid shit from today's shit-talker.  Hey, shit talker, you think you can actually respond to the post, or are you too fucking stupid to even comprehend what he wrote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is quite plainly saying that gay parents are abusive to children for the sole reason that letting your kids know you are gay is abusive.
> 
> It does not get more Westboro Baptist than that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So demonstrate he is wrong.  Go ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Argument from ignorance.
> 
> He made the claim. You supported it.  So prove that gay households are any more abusive than straight ones.
> 
> Please prove that telling kids that gays are not evil is abusive to kids, and do so while trying not to sound like a Westboro Baptist.
> 
> Good luck with that!
Click to expand...

You're failing badly here.  I never made the claim nor did I support it.  I invited you to refute it and so far you have failed.


----------



## Syriusly

PGreen said:


> The homosexualism is not a dilemma, it's a sin, it's immoral and wrong behaviour. Period. America will fall because of gays.



Wow...that is some power you think that homosexuals have over America.

Or maybe you think that Jesus- even though he never mentioned homosexuals once- will rain pestulance and disease on America because two men are allowed to marry?

Me?

I think America is actually an amazing and strong country- able to survive both homosexuals and the religious zealots that would persecute them if it were not for that pesky Constitution.


----------



## g5000

The Rabbi said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> SMDT believes that telling your children that being okay is not evil or wrong is abusive.
> 
> Like I said.  Westboro Baptist.
> 
> 
> 
> That isnt a demonstration of anything.  That is a mere assertion.
> Try again.
Click to expand...

An assertion is a claim.  So prove that telling a kid that "being gay is not evil" is abusive.


----------



## g5000

PGreen said:


> The homosexualism is not a dilemma, it's a sin, it's immoral and wrong behaviour. Period. America will fall because of gays.


See?

Westboro Baptist.


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Mendacious admits defeat and runs away.
> 
> Marriage Equality will happen before fall nationwide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The USA has had marriage equality for years.  A union of two men or two women is not a marriage any more than a union of 6 men and 8 women is a marriage, or a union of a man and his horse is a marriage.
> 
> A marriage is one man and one woman----------always has been, always will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't speak for the legislature or for God.
Click to expand...

 

correct, I speak for myself, just as you only speak for yourself.   My views a just as valid as yours


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

bodecea said:


> The Catholic Church has sure demonstrated something.....with its protection of pedophile priests.



ROFL!

I NEVER tire of this rationalization... 

They point out the sexually Abnormal Priests as if "Catholicism" produced them... when IN FACT: THE PRIESTS ARE ... (wait for it...) ... THEM! OKA: The Sexually Abnormal.

Now Homosexuality is as DEVIANT a sexual abnormality as human sexuality can GET, where all of the subjects at issue are HUMAN!

So... it follows that putting such individuals in positions of ANY FORM of responsibility or authority where such includes children is RIDICULOUSLY ABSURD!  (I added 'ridiculously', because ABSURD does not begin to describe how OBVIOUSLY foolish it is.

The Catholic Church is NOT advocating for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality... it merely requires that Priest turn from ALL form of sexuality... that priests remain celibate.  

So, I expect that because of THAT, the Catholics likely did not feel that sexuality was an issue.
UNFORTUNATELY, the did not realize, perhaps... that the Homosexual is SEXUALLY ABNORMAL.  Thus is prone toward the predisposition to reject standards regarding sexuality... which of course Priestly celibacy would fall directly into that category which the Sexually Abnormal DO NOT RECOGNIZE AS BEING RELEVANT TO THEM!

So.... there they are, pointing fingers at the Catholics as if THEY were somehow producing SEXUALLY ABNORMAL PRIESTS, when in truth, the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality demanded that the Catholic Church allow Homosexuals to participate in their clergy and VIOLA!  Pedophile Priests!

Now... it should be noted that they did so intentionally... and yes, it was a conspiracy which sought to take the Catholic Church down a notch... Evil has long had a hard on the Catholics and has a long history of fornicating that flock.  

More recently of course it tried to do the same thing to the Boy Scouts of America, who thankfully found the strength of Character to bounce the Homosexuals... as has they failed to do so, their organization would already be TOAST!


----------



## WorldWatcher

The Rabbi said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The argument here runs like this: The state has an interest in fostering some kinds of relationships over other kinds of relationships.  Specifically heterosexual relationships tend (note the word tend) to produce future generations of citizens, which is why the state fosters it.  Homsoexual relationships tend (note the word tend) not to.  Ergo the state has a proper interest in discriminating between the two  The fact that some heterosexual couples are childless and some homosexual couples have children or some sort is irrelevent because we arent making a rule that is absolute, only making rules for the general population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So different-sex couples are exempt from the procreation "rule".
> 
> However that is a standard that will be required of same-sex couples.
> 
> Ya, that logic doesn't work.  Especially since there are laws that require different-sex couples to be infertile before they are allowed to Civilly Marry.
> 
> 
> >>>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That post made no sense.  There is no "procreation rule."  You made that up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you said we are "only making rules for the general population".
> 
> Well "rules" are rules, either they apply or they don't.  If the rule is that you have to be able to procreate with the other member of the couple.  That's fine.  Apply the same rule equally.  On the other hand if there are exceptions to the rule for different-sex couples that can't procreate, then equal exceptions should be allowed for same-sex couples that can't procreate.  (Of course that means there really isn't a "rule" doesn't it.)
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are one stupid shit who cant read.  That much is obvious.
Click to expand...


I read just fine.  As demonstrated by your need to revert to personal insults when a point is logically refuted.

The point was a double-standard was to be applied.  Different-sex couples that cannot (or required not to) procreate are exempted from the "rule".  But the "rule" applies to same-sex couples barring them from the same Civil Marriage available to different-sex couples.

Clearly the application of a double-standard.


>>>>


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again?  this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a  self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for,  they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays DO have children...I've had five. Why are our families less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
> 
> Also, can you please name for us the state or locality that requires procreation in order to apply for a civil marriage license? Can you cite one instance of a civil marriage license being revoked due to the couple's inability or refusal to procreate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
Click to expand...


So an Iraqi war vet whose testicles were blown off serving our country should not get married since that would be constructing a union that can't produce children, and he shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into his deivant apparatus utilizing artificial means?

Or do you mean- you just want to discriminate against homosexuals who use sperm donations?


----------



## g5000

The Rabbi said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's like I keep saying.
> 
> Behind the mask of every anti-gay marriage bigot is a Westboro Baptist.  You just have to keep them talking long enough for the mask to slip.
> 
> 
> 
> More stupid shit from today's shit-talker.  Hey, shit talker, you think you can actually respond to the post, or are you too fucking stupid to even comprehend what he wrote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is quite plainly saying that gay parents are abusive to children for the sole reason that letting your kids know you are gay is abusive.
> 
> It does not get more Westboro Baptist than that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So demonstrate he is wrong.  Go ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Argument from ignorance.
> 
> He made the claim. You supported it.  So prove that gay households are any more abusive than straight ones.
> 
> Please prove that telling kids that gays are not evil is abusive to kids, and do so while trying not to sound like a Westboro Baptist.
> 
> Good luck with that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're failing badly here.  I never made the claim nor did I support it.  I invited you to refute it and so far you have failed.
Click to expand...

Again, argument from ignorance.  You clearly need to look up what that means.  Neither your nor SMDT has proven the claim he made which you supported.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Catholic Church has sure demonstrated something.....with its protection of pedophile priests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> I NEVER tire of this rationalization...
> 
> They point out the sexually Abnormal Priests as if "Catholicism" produced them... when IN FACT: THE PRIESTS ARE ... (wait for it...) ... THEM! OKA: The Sexually Abnormal.
> 
> Now Homosexuality is as DEVIANT a sexual abnormality as human sexuality can GET, where all of the subjects at issue are HUMAN!
> 
> So... it follows that putting such individuals in positions of ANY FORM of responsibility or authority where such includes children is RIDICULOUSLY ABSURD!  (I added 'ridiculously', because ABSURD does not begin to describe how OBVIOUSLY foolish it is.
> 
> The Catholic Church is NOT advocating for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality... it merely requires that Priest turn from ALL form of sexuality... that priests remain celibate.
> 
> So, I expect that because of THAT, the Catholics likely did not feel that sexuality was an issue.
> UNFORTUNATELY, the did not realize, perhaps... that the Homosexual is SEXUALLY ABNORMAL.  Thus is prone toward the predisposition to reject standards regarding sexuality... which of course Priestly celibacy would fall directly into that category which the Sexually Abnormal DO NOT RECOGNIZE AS BEING RELEVANT TO THEM!
> 
> So.... there they are, pointing fingers at the Catholics as if THEY were somehow producing SEXUALLY ABNORMAL PRIESTS, when in truth, the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality demanded that the Catholic Church allow Homosexuals to participate in their clergy and VIOLA!  Pedophile Priests!
> 
> Now... it should be noted that they did so intentionally... and yes, it was a conspiracy which sought to take the Catholic Church down a notch... Evil has long had a hard on the Catholics and has a long history of fornicating that flock.
> 
> More recently of course it tried to do the same thing to the Boy Scouts of America, who thankfully found the strength of Character to bounce the Homosexuals... as has they failed to do so, their organization would already be TOAST!
Click to expand...


Bat shit crazy Keys post.


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage harms society by  putting abnormal behavior on a par with normal behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> Share that with SCOTUS, because your opinion has no weight in law.
Click to expand...

 
Laws are made by people.   A society decides what is right and wrong for that society.  Currently a majority of human beings consider homosexuality an abnormal behavior.  

What you personally think has zero value on this topic,  you are but one person.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I adopted our daughter in order to protect my parental rights.  Why does ANYONE "need" to adopt children?  Answer than one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that you adopted your daughter because you fucked up. Is that right?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally incorrect.  She was lovingly planned by my wife and I.  She had her...I adopted her.  One of the best things in our lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's her father?  Whether you got sperm at a sperm bank or have a father that you keep out of the picture, one way or another you perverted the natural order to have your arrangement and delusion.  It was entirely a self centered act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So the millions of heterosexuals that use IVF and AI are "selfish" and "delusional" as well? Our children have two parents, which studies have shown provides the best outcomes for children, two *parents*.
> 
> Why did you have children? I'm going to bet you dollars to donuts that you did it for all the same reasons that gays have children. Do you want to take our children away from us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I married a woman, therefore setting into play a union that can bring children into the world. You deliberately set up a union that can't under any condition produce children naturally. The law should prohibited people like you from having children, deliberately depriving them of a father or a mother.
Click to expand...


And there we have it- Saint wants Big Brother to tell Americans when and how they can have children.

Bravo for the Conservatives......


----------



## Dante

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> You ask many people,...



and they will wonder why you are so public with your dilemma with homosexuals and what they do in their bedrooms


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Lilah said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again?  this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a  self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for,  they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays DO have children...I've had five. Why are our families less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
> 
> Also, can you please name for us the state or locality that requires procreation in order to apply for a civil marriage license? Can you cite one instance of a civil marriage license being revoked due to the couple's inability or refusal to procreate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are one heartless form of human flesh.  Too many women are unable to bear children; therefore, thanks to today's technology, they are able to use other means to process their eggs.  Shame on you for manifesting your egomaniacal, abysmally smug, self-righteous, judgmental thinking into hate speech.
Click to expand...


So you feel that it's hateful, to point out that two women are not designed by nature to procreate?

What other facts do you feel represent an irrational feeling of dislike?  Besides "the Sun is the fundamental basis of the earth's climate temperature", of course.


----------



## Redfish

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:
> 
> “But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not?Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up. I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.”
> 
> This fails as a slippery slope fallacy, and in fact is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no fallacious potential, where the appeal to the slippery nature of the slope, exists.
> 
> That the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a very real and very determined movement, who goals are to strip the Western Culture of all standards of sexual propriety.
> 
> Your own public professions are further evidence of this, in that where you have the opportunity to state the standards which you recognize as being essential... you merely denied that what is inarguably happening, is not happening.
> 
> So we can rest assured that your position is either one from ignorance, or that it is one from deceit.
> 
> Either way, it's deceptive... thus an invalid form of discourse where the purpose is the pursuit of the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The best standards are the Golden Rule and ensure that what you do harms no others.   How hard is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gay marriage harms society by  putting abnormal behavior on a par with normal behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> That you perceive homosexuality as 'abnormal' is subjective and irrelevant, it in no way justifies denying same-sex couples their right to equal protection of the law.
> 
> “[T]he fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice.” _Lawrence v. Texas_ (2003).
Click to expand...

 

We disagree.   its OK to disagree.   thats why we vote


----------



## g5000

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage harms society by  putting abnormal behavior on a par with normal behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> Share that with SCOTUS, because your opinion has no weight in law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws are made by people.   A society decides what is right and wrong for that society.  Currently a majority of human beings consider homosexuality an abnormal behavior.
Click to expand...


Abnormal =/= evil.  Sorry about that!


----------



## g5000

Redfish said:


> We disagree.   its OK to disagree.   thats why we vote


You cannot vote away rights.  Sorry about that!


----------



## Syriusly

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage harms society by  putting abnormal behavior on a par with normal behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> Share that with SCOTUS, because your opinion has no weight in law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws are made by people.   A society decides what is right and wrong for that society.  Currently a majority of human beings consider homosexuality an abnormal behavior.
> 
> What you personally think has zero value on this topic,  you are but one person.
Click to expand...


Laws are made by people and their representatives- but in America- all laws are subject to both the U.S. Consittution and individual state constitutions. Whether the majority of Americans find homosexuality, or Judaism an abnormal behavior is irrelevant, if the laws enacted violate the Consitution.

Laws to have Big Brother policing how Americans can have sex in the privacy of their bedroom are unconstitutional. 

I think that is a good thing.


----------



## Syriusly

The Rabbi said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again?  this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a  self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for,  they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays DO have children...I've had five. Why are our families less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
> 
> Also, can you please name for us the state or locality that requires procreation in order to apply for a civil marriage license? Can you cite one instance of a civil marriage license being revoked due to the couple's inability or refusal to procreate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh good lord, not this shit again.
> 
> This point has been explained over and over.  I can only conclude that homosexuality is a mental illness that prevents people from following logical arguments, much less responding to them.
Click to expand...


Bigots come to that conclusion all the time- the rest of us have concluded that it is bigotry that prevents people from following logical arguments- hence they both argue that procreation is related to marriage- and it isn't.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

g5000 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The claim is frequently made that marriage tax breaks are to encourage procreation.
Click to expand...


The claim is that Marriage is the natural result of the natural human physiological design, which serves the biological imperative to propagate the species.

That in no way requires procreation be the purpose of marriage, only that such DEFINES MARRIAGE.

Now... with that said, there would be nothing wrong with that being the case.  As it certainly follows... but just because marriage is opened to people who do not intend to have children, that does not mean that marriage must include those who nature specifically designed to BE INCAPABLE of producing children.

This is really VERY SIMPLE stuff, yet it seems to be WELL beyond your means to grasp.

I thought we agreed that you'd stay in the "Fire HOT! - WATER WET!" thread?  You do SO well over there.  Why do you insist on cognitively swimming beyond your intellectual depth?


----------



## g5000

We have "redefined marriage" before.  In my own lifetime, in fact.  There were states who defined marriage as the union of two people_ of the same race_.

The argument of "traditional marriage" doesn't hold water for many reasons.  First, the Bible has quite a few versions of marriage.  Polygamy and concubines are all over the Good Book.

Secondly, "we've always done it that way" is the last argument of an oppressor as their reason for continuing their oppression.  "We've always had slaves.  There were slaves in the bible."  Blah blah blah.

Tradition is one thing, long term oppression is another.  The bogus "tradition" argument is just an excuse to keep oppressing a minority.  Simple as that.

The oppressors have no rational basis for continuing that "tradition".


----------



## bodecea

The Rabbi said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Mendacious admits defeat and runs away.
> 
> Marriage Equality will happen before fall nationwide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The USA has had marriage equality for years.  A union of two men or two women is not a marriage any more than a union of 6 men and 8 women is a marriage, or a union of a man and his horse is a marriage.
> 
> A marriage is one man and one woman----------always has been, always will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except it isn't legally...and never has been religiously. I attended a lesbian wedding at a Southern Baptist Church in 1986...long before any legal recognition.
> 
> 
> 20 years from now, Catholic Churches will be marrying gays, you watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually the Catholic Church has demonstrated it can remain true to its teachings impervious to the tide of popular trends. This isn't the first battle we've had with a depraved culture engrossed in homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Catholic Church has sure demonstrated something.....with its protection of pedophile priests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deflection.
> Do you have anything else to add?  I mean, we can discuss the contributions made by homosexuals like the pedophile Harvey Milk all day long.
Click to expand...

Let's see....Harvey Milk vs. the millions, if not billions the Catholic Church has spent over the last 50+ years protecting their pedophile priests.  Hmmmmmmm.


----------



## g5000

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The claim is frequently made that marriage tax breaks are to encourage procreation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The claim is that Marriage is the natural result of the natural human physiological design, which serves the biological imperative to propagate the species.
> 
> That in no way requires procreation be the purpose of marriage, only that such DEFINES MARRIAGE.
> 
> Now... with that said, there would be nothing wrong with that being the case.  As it certainly follows... but just because marriage is opened to people who do not intend to have children, that does not mean that marriage must include those who nature specifically designed to BE INCAPABLE of producing children.
> 
> This is really VERY SIMPLE stuff, yet it seems to be WELL beyond your means to grasp.
> 
> I thought we agreed that you'd stay in the "Fire HOT! - WATER WET!" thread?  You do SO well over there.  Why do you insist on cognitively swimming beyond your intellectual depth?
Click to expand...

Please explain how the State is necessary to marriage or procreation. How did the human race survive before the joint tax return and Social Security survivor benefits, oh wise one?


----------



## bodecea

The Rabbi said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Mendacious admits defeat and runs away.
> 
> Marriage Equality will happen before fall nationwide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The USA has had marriage equality for years.  A union of two men or two women is not a marriage any more than a union of 6 men and 8 women is a marriage, or a union of a man and his horse is a marriage.
> 
> A marriage is one man and one woman----------always has been, always will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except it isn't legally...and never has been religiously. I attended a lesbian wedding at a Southern Baptist Church in 1986...long before any legal recognition.
> 
> 
> 20 years from now, Catholic Churches will be marrying gays, you watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually the Catholic Church has demonstrated it can remain true to its teachings impervious to the tide of popular trends. This isn't the first battle we've had with a depraved culture engrossed in homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Catholic Church has sure demonstrated something.....with its protection of pedophile priests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deflection.
> Do you have anything else to add?  I mean, we can discuss the contributions made by homosexuals like the pedophile Harvey Milk all day long.
Click to expand...

Oh...and Harvey Milk was not a pedophile.  Thanks for playing.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

WorldWatcher said:


> So different-sex couples are exempt from the procreation "rule".
> 
> However that is a standard that will be required of same-sex couples.



No, it cannot, as that standard is irrelevant to coupling of the same gender, because:

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.​


----------



## The Rabbi

g5000 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> More stupid shit from today's shit-talker.  Hey, shit talker, you think you can actually respond to the post, or are you too fucking stupid to even comprehend what he wrote?
> 
> 
> 
> He is quite plainly saying that gay parents are abusive to children for the sole reason that letting your kids know you are gay is abusive.
> 
> It does not get more Westboro Baptist than that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So demonstrate he is wrong.  Go ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Argument from ignorance.
> 
> He made the claim. You supported it.  So prove that gay households are any more abusive than straight ones.
> 
> Please prove that telling kids that gays are not evil is abusive to kids, and do so while trying not to sound like a Westboro Baptist.
> 
> Good luck with that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're failing badly here.  I never made the claim nor did I support it.  I invited you to refute it and so far you have failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, argument from ignorance.  You clearly need to look up what that means.  Neither your nor SMDT has proven the claim he made which you supported.
Click to expand...

There was no argument.  I merely point out you failed to refute his point.
C'mon.  It cant be that hard, can it?


----------



## The Rabbi

WorldWatcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The argument here runs like this: The state has an interest in fostering some kinds of relationships over other kinds of relationships.  Specifically heterosexual relationships tend (note the word tend) to produce future generations of citizens, which is why the state fosters it.  Homsoexual relationships tend (note the word tend) not to.  Ergo the state has a proper interest in discriminating between the two  The fact that some heterosexual couples are childless and some homosexual couples have children or some sort is irrelevent because we arent making a rule that is absolute, only making rules for the general population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So different-sex couples are exempt from the procreation "rule".
> 
> However that is a standard that will be required of same-sex couples.
> 
> Ya, that logic doesn't work.  Especially since there are laws that require different-sex couples to be infertile before they are allowed to Civilly Marry.
> 
> 
> >>>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That post made no sense.  There is no "procreation rule."  You made that up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you said we are "only making rules for the general population".
> 
> Well "rules" are rules, either they apply or they don't.  If the rule is that you have to be able to procreate with the other member of the couple.  That's fine.  Apply the same rule equally.  On the other hand if there are exceptions to the rule for different-sex couples that can't procreate, then equal exceptions should be allowed for same-sex couples that can't procreate.  (Of course that means there really isn't a "rule" doesn't it.)
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are one stupid shit who cant read.  That much is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read just fine.  As demonstrated by your need to revert to personal insults when a point is logically refuted.
> 
> The point was a double-standard was to be applied.  Different-sex couples that cannot (or required not to) procreate are exempted from the "rule".  But the "rule" applies to same-sex couples barring them from the same Civil Marriage available to different-sex couples.
> 
> Clearly the application of a double-standard.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

No, you read what you want.  I wrote the word "tend" specifically to foil moves like yours.  You didnt get the memo.  Get back to me when you understand the argument.


----------



## g5000

The Rabbi said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is quite plainly saying that gay parents are abusive to children for the sole reason that letting your kids know you are gay is abusive.
> 
> It does not get more Westboro Baptist than that!
> 
> 
> 
> So demonstrate he is wrong.  Go ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Argument from ignorance.
> 
> He made the claim. You supported it.  So prove that gay households are any more abusive than straight ones.
> 
> Please prove that telling kids that gays are not evil is abusive to kids, and do so while trying not to sound like a Westboro Baptist.
> 
> Good luck with that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're failing badly here.  I never made the claim nor did I support it.  I invited you to refute it and so far you have failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, argument from ignorance.  You clearly need to look up what that means.  Neither your nor SMDT has proven the claim he made which you supported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no argument.  I merely point out you failed to refute his point.
> C'mon.  It cant be that hard, can it?
Click to expand...

I do not have to refute a claim that has not been proven.  Thus, argument from ignorance.

Seriously.  How many times have I asked you to take a course in Logic?  

You really, really should.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again?  this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a  self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for,  they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays DO have children...I've had five. Why are our families less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
> 
> Also, can you please name for us the state or locality that requires procreation in order to apply for a civil marriage license? Can you cite one instance of a civil marriage license being revoked due to the couple's inability or refusal to procreate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are one heartless form of human flesh.  Too many women are unable to bear children; therefore, thanks to today's technology, they are able to use other means to process their eggs.  Shame on you for manifesting your egomaniacal, abysmally smug, self-righteous, judgmental thinking into hate speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you feel that it's hateful, to point out that two women are not designed by nature to procreate?
> 
> What other facts do you feel represent an irrational feeling of dislike?  Besides "the Sun is the fundamental basis of the earth's climate temperature", of course.
Click to expand...


It's also a fundamental fact that the human species does not depend on all humans to reproduce in order to sustain the species, therefore,

if your main argument is about 'nature', then the 'nature' of the human species is that it has plenty of room to naturally allow many individuals to choose not to reproduce, whether they are homosexual, heterosexual couples who prefer to remain childless, or celibates.


----------



## bodecea

The Rabbi said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again?  this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a  self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for,  they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays DO have children...I've had five. Why are our families less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
> 
> Also, can you please name for us the state or locality that requires procreation in order to apply for a civil marriage license? Can you cite one instance of a civil marriage license being revoked due to the couple's inability or refusal to procreate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are one heartless form of human flesh.  Too many women are unable to bear children; therefore, thanks to today's technology, they are able to use other means to process their eggs.  Shame on you for manifesting your egomaniacal, abysmally smug, self-righteous, judgmental thinking into hate speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didnt actually understand his comment, did you?  Be honest.
Click to expand...

So...you think it's bad if gays use artificial insemination or adoption....but it's quite ok if the same is used by straights.   That's the definition of discriminatory behavior.


----------



## The Rabbi

bodecea said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> The USA has had marriage equality for years.  A union of two men or two women is not a marriage any more than a union of 6 men and 8 women is a marriage, or a union of a man and his horse is a marriage.
> 
> A marriage is one man and one woman----------always has been, always will be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except it isn't legally...and never has been religiously. I attended a lesbian wedding at a Southern Baptist Church in 1986...long before any legal recognition.
> 
> 
> 20 years from now, Catholic Churches will be marrying gays, you watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually the Catholic Church has demonstrated it can remain true to its teachings impervious to the tide of popular trends. This isn't the first battle we've had with a depraved culture engrossed in homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Catholic Church has sure demonstrated something.....with its protection of pedophile priests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deflection.
> Do you have anything else to add?  I mean, we can discuss the contributions made by homosexuals like the pedophile Harvey Milk all day long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh...and Harvey Milk was not a pedophile.  Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

Oh, and yes he was.
Anti-gay group calls for boycott of Harvey Milk stamp MSNBC
Thanks for failing.


----------



## Redfish

g5000 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> We disagree.   its OK to disagree.   thats why we vote
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot vote away rights.  Sorry about that!
Click to expand...

 

bullshit,   rights are established by voting.  the constitution was put in effect by a vote, the bill of rights was put in place by a vote.

but since you know so much about 'rights"  quote where any of our founding documents or statutes make gay marriage a "right"


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

g5000 said:


> Please explain how the State is necessary to marriage or procreation. How did the human race survive before the joint tax return and Social Security survivor benefits, oh wise one?



The State is Irrelevant from Marriage.  

However, the community; defined as the sum of a free people who govern themselves... is entitled to establish policy which promotes a healthy, viability... thus where Marriage is recognized as being the core essential to a sound and viable culture, OKA: Civilization, it follows that the policies of such would tend to offer what incentives are available as a means to promote marriage.

Again... read it slowly, to give yourself the best chance to understand it.  But when ya fail to do so, just go back to participating in threads which deal with issues within your intellectual means.


----------



## NYcarbineer

g5000 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The claim is frequently made that marriage tax breaks are to encourage procreation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The claim is that Marriage is the natural result of the natural human physiological design, which serves the biological imperative to propagate the species.
> 
> That in no way requires procreation be the purpose of marriage, only that such DEFINES MARRIAGE.
> 
> Now... with that said, there would be nothing wrong with that being the case.  As it certainly follows... but just because marriage is opened to people who do not intend to have children, that does not mean that marriage must include those who nature specifically designed to BE INCAPABLE of producing children.
> 
> This is really VERY SIMPLE stuff, yet it seems to be WELL beyond your means to grasp.
> 
> I thought we agreed that you'd stay in the "Fire HOT! - WATER WET!" thread?  You do SO well over there.  Why do you insist on cognitively swimming beyond your intellectual depth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please explain how the State is necessary to marriage or procreation. How did the human race survive before the joint tax return and Social Security survivor benefits, oh wise one?
Click to expand...


Not to mention the fact that many heterosexual couples choose not to marry, and yet still choose to have children.


----------



## The Rabbi

g5000 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> So demonstrate he is wrong.  Go ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> Argument from ignorance.
> 
> He made the claim. You supported it.  So prove that gay households are any more abusive than straight ones.
> 
> Please prove that telling kids that gays are not evil is abusive to kids, and do so while trying not to sound like a Westboro Baptist.
> 
> Good luck with that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're failing badly here.  I never made the claim nor did I support it.  I invited you to refute it and so far you have failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, argument from ignorance.  You clearly need to look up what that means.  Neither your nor SMDT has proven the claim he made which you supported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no argument.  I merely point out you failed to refute his point.
> C'mon.  It cant be that hard, can it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not have to refute a claim that has not been proven.  Thus, argument from ignorance.
> 
> Seriously.  How many times have I asked you to take a course in Logic?
> 
> You really, really should.
Click to expand...

He made a claim.  You failed to disprove the claim.  How hard is that?
But I see you cannot disprove the claim.  How do I know?  Because if you could you would have done so already instead of carping about who said what.
Like I said, you a re a stupid shit talker.


----------



## Redfish

g5000 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage harms society by  putting abnormal behavior on a par with normal behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> Share that with SCOTUS, because your opinion has no weight in law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws are made by people.   A society decides what is right and wrong for that society.  Currently a majority of human beings consider homosexuality an abnormal behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abnormal =/= evil.  Sorry about that!
Click to expand...

 

I never said that abnormal was evil.


----------



## g5000

Redfish said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage harms society by  putting abnormal behavior on a par with normal behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> Share that with SCOTUS, because your opinion has no weight in law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws are made by people.   A society decides what is right and wrong for that society.  Currently a majority of human beings consider homosexuality an abnormal behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abnormal =/= evil.  Sorry about that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that abnormal was evil.
Click to expand...

You clearly were trying to establish linkage when you prefaced with "society decides what is right and wrong for that society".

Who do you think you are fooling?


----------



## The Rabbi

bodecea said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again?  this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a  self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for,  they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays DO have children...I've had five. Why are our families less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
> 
> Also, can you please name for us the state or locality that requires procreation in order to apply for a civil marriage license? Can you cite one instance of a civil marriage license being revoked due to the couple's inability or refusal to procreate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are one heartless form of human flesh.  Too many women are unable to bear children; therefore, thanks to today's technology, they are able to use other means to process their eggs.  Shame on you for manifesting your egomaniacal, abysmally smug, self-righteous, judgmental thinking into hate speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didnt actually understand his comment, did you?  Be honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...you think it's bad if gays use artificial insemination or adoption....but it's quite ok if the same is used by straights.   That's the definition of discriminatory behavior.
Click to expand...

Who said anything like that?
How many couples have children by artificial means vs natural means?  There's the crux.
You clearly dont understand the argument, confirming what I wrote above that gays have a mental illness preventing them from understanding logic.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Redfish said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> We disagree.   its OK to disagree.   thats why we vote
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot vote away rights.  Sorry about that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit,   rights are established by voting.  the constitution was put in effect by a vote, the bill of rights was put in place by a vote.
> 
> but since you know so much about 'rights"  quote where any of our founding documents or statutes make gay marriage a "right"
Click to expand...


lol, don't let your RWnut pals hear you say that.  The government gives you rights??!!  lol


----------



## g5000

"A society decides what is right and wrong for that society".

"A majority of human beings consider homosexuality an abnormal behavior".

Redfish, you clearly were equating "abnormal" with "wrong".

Nobody is fooled here.

Abnormal =/= wrong.  Sorry about that!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Redfish said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> We disagree.   its OK to disagree.   thats why we vote
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot vote away rights.  Sorry about that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit,   rights are established by voting.  the constitution was put in effect by a vote, the bill of rights was put in place by a vote.
> 
> but since you know so much about 'rights"  quote where any of our founding documents or statutes make gay marriage a "right"
Click to expand...


Rights are established where God endows those rights.  Federal protections of the individual's means to exercise those rights are established by law.  

There is no right; meaning that there is no potential for a right, where in the exercising of the right, one injures the means of another to exercise their own right.

Therefore, where delusion is harmful, the Advocacy to force others into delusion has NO POTENTIAL as a right.

Thus, the Advocacy to force people to believe that what is ABNORMAL is NORMAL... is NOT a RIGHT!  Be it required by law or not.

And that is because the LAW is only valid where it serves justice, thus a law which serves to injure the innocent is not valid.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how the State is necessary to marriage or procreation. How did the human race survive before the joint tax return and Social Security survivor benefits, oh wise one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The State is Irrelevant from Marriage.
> 
> However, the community; defined as the sum of a free people who govern themselves... is entitled to establish policy which promotes a healthy, viability... thus where Marriage is recognized as being the core essential to a sound and viable culture, OKA: Civilization, it follows that the policies of such would tend to offer what incentives are available as a means to promote marriage.
> 
> Again... read it slowly, to give yourself the best chance to understand it.  But when ya fail to do so, just go back to participating in threads which deal with issues within your intellectual means.
Click to expand...


China has legal marriage AND a one child policy.


----------



## g5000

The Rabbi said:


> Who said anything like that?
> How many couples have children by artificial means vs natural means?  There's the crux.



First, so what?  What is wrong with artificial means?  Show harm.

Second, you left out a very crucial word that SMDT used: deviant, which context implied was harmful.  Again, show harm.

Don't be obtuse.


----------



## bodecea

g5000 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
> 
> 
> 
> It's like I keep saying.
> 
> Behind the mask of every anti-gay marriage bigot is a Westboro Baptist.  You just have to keep them talking long enough for the mask to slip.
Click to expand...

Or a theologist who envies what Iran has got going.


----------



## The Rabbi

g5000 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said anything like that?
> How many couples have children by artificial means vs natural means?  There's the crux.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, so what?  What is wrong with artificial means?  Show harm.
> 
> Second, you left out a very crucial word that SMDT used: deviant, which context implied was harmful.  Again, show harm.
> 
> Don't be obtuse.
Click to expand...

No need to show harm.  That is a strawman argument, which seems to be the only argument you can make.
It is simply fact that aritificial insemination is the exception, not the norm, in reproduction.


----------



## Redfish

g5000 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage harms society by  putting abnormal behavior on a par with normal behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> Share that with SCOTUS, because your opinion has no weight in law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws are made by people.   A society decides what is right and wrong for that society.  Currently a majority of human beings consider homosexuality an abnormal behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abnormal =/= evil.  Sorry about that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that abnormal was evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You clearly were trying to establish linkage when you prefaced with "society decides what is right and wrong for that society".
> 
> Who do you think you are fooling?
Click to expand...

 
Societies decide what behaviors they condone and which ones they prohibit.   ALL societies do that.   What one society approves of another may find reprehensible.

Evil is in the mind of the beholder.


----------



## g5000

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> We disagree.   its OK to disagree.   thats why we vote
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot vote away rights.  Sorry about that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit,   rights are established by voting.  the constitution was put in effect by a vote, the bill of rights was put in place by a vote.
> 
> but since you know so much about 'rights"  quote where any of our founding documents or statutes make gay marriage a "right"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rights are established where God endows those rights.  Federal protections of the individual's means to exercise those rights are established by law.
> 
> There is no right; meaning that there is no potential for a right, where in the exercising of the right, one injures the means of another to exercise their own right.
> 
> Therefore, where delusion is harmful, the Advocacy to force others into delusion has NO POTENTIAL as a right.
> 
> Thus, the Advocacy to force people to believe that what is ABNORMAL is NORMAL... is NOT a RIGHT!  Be it required by law or not.
> 
> And that is because the LAW is only valid where it serves justice, thus a law which serves to injure the innocent is not valid.
Click to expand...

No one is trying to force people to believe abnormal is normal.  Therefore, your entire argument is built on a false premise and collapses.

What the gay community is simply trying to achieve is an acceptance that they are not evil, and that their marriages are entitled to the same protections of the law as everyone else's marriages.

Simple as that.

Why does it drive you insane that two men could file a joint tax return and qualify for Social Security survivor benefits?  Serious question.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

WorldWatcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The argument here runs like this: The state has an interest in fostering some kinds of relationships over other kinds of relationships.  Specifically heterosexual relationships tend (note the word tend) to produce future generations of citizens, which is why the state fosters it.  Homsoexual relationships tend (note the word tend) not to.  Ergo the state has a proper interest in discriminating between the two  The fact that some heterosexual couples are childless and some homosexual couples have children or some sort is irrelevent because we arent making a rule that is absolute, only making rules for the general population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So different-sex couples are exempt from the procreation "rule".
> 
> However that is a standard that will be required of same-sex couples.
> 
> Ya, that logic doesn't work.  Especially since there are laws that require different-sex couples to be infertile before they are allowed to Civilly Marry.
> 
> 
> >>>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That post made no sense.  There is no "procreation rule."  You made that up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you said we are "only making rules for the general population".
> 
> Well "rules" are rules, either they apply or they don't.  If the rule is that you have to be able to procreate with the other member of the couple.  That's fine.  Apply the same rule equally.  On the other hand if there are exceptions to the rule for different-sex couples that can't procreate, then equal exceptions should be allowed for same-sex couples that can't procreate.  (Of course that means there really isn't a "rule" doesn't it.)
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are one stupid shit who cant read.  That much is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read just fine.  As demonstrated by your need to revert to personal insults when a point is logically refuted.
> 
> The point was a double-standard was to be applied.  Different-sex couples that cannot (or required not to) procreate are exempted from the "rule".  But the "rule" applies to same-sex couples barring them from the same Civil Marriage available to different-sex couples.
> 
> Clearly the application of a double-standard.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Same Sex "Couples" are irrelevant to any institution which intrinsically prohibits their participation.  We call this: A STANDARD.  The purpose of which is to define the institution in terms of what is and is not acceptable behavior or policy, as a means to insure the viability of the institution.

You're simply offended by the standard.  Which is perfectly understandable.  It was designed to offend you; established as a means to preclude you.

That is what standards DO!


----------



## g5000

The Rabbi said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said anything like that?
> How many couples have children by artificial means vs natural means?  There's the crux.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, so what?  What is wrong with artificial means?  Show harm.
> 
> Second, you left out a very crucial word that SMDT used: deviant, which context implied was harmful.  Again, show harm.
> 
> Don't be obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need to show harm.  That is a strawman argument, which seems to be the only argument you can make.
> It is simply fact that aritificial insemination is the exception, not the norm, in reproduction.
Click to expand...

SMDT's argument is that gay parents are abusive to their children.  So bullshit on your "no need to show harm".

He made a claim, it needs to be proven.


----------



## Redfish

g5000 said:


> "A society decides what is right and wrong for that society".
> 
> "A majority of human beings consider homosexuality an abnormal behavior".
> 
> Redfish, you clearly were equating "abnormal" with "wrong".
> 
> Nobody is fooled here.
> 
> Abnormal =/= wrong.  Sorry about that!


 

bullshit again,   being left handed is abnormal, but its not wrong.   Gays are not evil, they are sick.


----------



## Lilah

The Rabbi said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays DO have children...I've had five. Why are our families less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
> 
> Also, can you please name for us the state or locality that requires procreation in order to apply for a civil marriage license? Can you cite one instance of a civil marriage license being revoked due to the couple's inability or refusal to procreate?
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are one heartless form of human flesh.  Too many women are unable to bear children; therefore, thanks to today's technology, they are able to use other means to process their eggs.  Shame on you for manifesting your egomaniacal, abysmally smug, self-righteous, judgmental thinking into hate speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didnt actually understand his comment, did you?  Be honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Parse it for me, please
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So that's a no.
> 
> The argument here runs like this: The state has an interest in fostering some kinds of relationships over other kinds of relationships.  Specifically heterosexual relationships tend (note the word tend) to produce future generations of citizens, which is why the state fosters it.  Homsoexual relationships tend (note the word tend) not to.  Ergo the state has a proper interest in discriminating between the two  The fact that some heterosexual couples are childless and some homosexual couples have children or some sort is irrelevent because we arent making a rule that is absolute, only making rules for the general population.
Click to expand...


Your sermon is your extraction from the topic; not everyone else's.  It's remarkable how you've managed to compress your personal views into a single paragraph, expecting others to revere your seemingly superior knowledge of how society works today.  It's particularly interesting how you articulate yourself ... homosexual couples have children or some sort is irrelevant.'  Exactly what kind of rules are you making for the general population?


----------



## bodecea

The Rabbi said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's like I keep saying.
> 
> Behind the mask of every anti-gay marriage bigot is a Westboro Baptist.  You just have to keep them talking long enough for the mask to slip.
> 
> 
> 
> More stupid shit from today's shit-talker.  Hey, shit talker, you think you can actually respond to the post, or are you too fucking stupid to even comprehend what he wrote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is quite plainly saying that gay parents are abusive to children for the sole reason that letting your kids know you are gay is abusive.
> 
> It does not get more Westboro Baptist than that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So demonstrate he is wrong.  Go ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Argument from ignorance.
> 
> He made the claim. You supported it.  So prove that gay households are any more abusive than straight ones.
> 
> Please prove that telling kids that gays are not evil is abusive to kids, and do so while trying not to sound like a Westboro Baptist.
> 
> Good luck with that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're failing badly here.  I never made the claim nor did I support it.  I invited you to refute it and so far you have failed.
Click to expand...

We can see quite clearly who is flailing....rather, failing.   And it's you.


----------



## The Rabbi

g5000 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> We disagree.   its OK to disagree.   thats why we vote
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot vote away rights.  Sorry about that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit,   rights are established by voting.  the constitution was put in effect by a vote, the bill of rights was put in place by a vote.
> 
> but since you know so much about 'rights"  quote where any of our founding documents or statutes make gay marriage a "right"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rights are established where God endows those rights.  Federal protections of the individual's means to exercise those rights are established by law.
> 
> There is no right; meaning that there is no potential for a right, where in the exercising of the right, one injures the means of another to exercise their own right.
> 
> Therefore, where delusion is harmful, the Advocacy to force others into delusion has NO POTENTIAL as a right.
> 
> Thus, the Advocacy to force people to believe that what is ABNORMAL is NORMAL... is NOT a RIGHT!  Be it required by law or not.
> 
> And that is because the LAW is only valid where it serves justice, thus a law which serves to injure the innocent is not valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is trying to force people to believe abnormal is normal.  Therefore, your entire argument is built on a false premise and collapses.
> 
> What the gay community is simply trying to achieve is an acceptance that they are not evil, and that their marriages are entitled to the same protections of the law as everyone else's marriages.
> 
> Simple as that.
> 
> Why does it drive you insane that two men could file a joint tax return and qualify for Social Security survivor benefits?  Serious question.
Click to expand...

Simply not true by your own admission.  The bakers in Oregon who refused to bake the wedding cake clearly thought homosexuality was wrong but were not only forced to bake the cake but to attend "re-education" seminars as well.


----------



## The Rabbi

g5000 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said anything like that?
> How many couples have children by artificial means vs natural means?  There's the crux.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, so what?  What is wrong with artificial means?  Show harm.
> 
> Second, you left out a very crucial word that SMDT used: deviant, which context implied was harmful.  Again, show harm.
> 
> Don't be obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need to show harm.  That is a strawman argument, which seems to be the only argument you can make.
> It is simply fact that aritificial insemination is the exception, not the norm, in reproduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SMDT's argument is that gay parents are abusive to their children.  So bullshit on your "no need to show harm".
> 
> He made a claim, it needs to be proven.
Click to expand...

Take it up with him if he made the claim.  My argument does not depend on artificial insemination being harmful but on the fact that it is not common when compared to natural methods.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

g5000 said:


> No one is trying to force people to believe abnormal is normal.



LOL!  Now isn't that _precious?_

All one needs to do to believe THAT is to suspend all sense of *reality.*

Human sexuality is designed by its natural physiology.  Nature designed human beings with two distinct, but complimenting genders.

THAT is the STANDARD of Human sexuality.

Homosexuality, not only deviates from that standard, it deviates as FAR FROM THE STANDARD AS ONE CAN GET...  where the subject scope in consideration remain entirely HUMAN!

Therefore, due to the deviation from that wholly objective standard, homosexuality is most decidedly ABNORMAL.

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is about NOTHING except misleading people to believe that sexual deviancy is NOT deviant... thus the goal is to delude others into recognizing that, that which is ABNORMAL is normal.

Can't dumb it down any farther scamp.  That's the issue in its core elements.  If you can't understand that, then you're simply not fit to discuss the issue.


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Catholic Church has sure demonstrated something.....with its protection of pedophile priests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> I NEVER tire of this rationalization...
> 
> They point out the sexually Abnormal Priests as if "Catholicism" produced them... when IN FACT: THE PRIESTS ARE ... (wait for it...) ... THEM! OKA: The Sexually Abnormal.
> 
> Now Homosexuality is as DEVIANT a sexual abnormality as human sexuality can GET, where all of the subjects at issue are HUMAN!
> 
> So... it follows that putting such individuals in positions of ANY FORM of responsibility or authority where such includes children is RIDICULOUSLY ABSURD!  (I added 'ridiculously', because ABSURD does not begin to describe how OBVIOUSLY foolish it is.
> 
> The Catholic Church is NOT advocating for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality... it merely requires that Priest turn from ALL form of sexuality... that priests remain celibate.
> 
> So, I expect that because of THAT, the Catholics likely did not feel that sexuality was an issue.
> UNFORTUNATELY, the did not realize, perhaps... that the Homosexual is SEXUALLY ABNORMAL.  Thus is prone toward the predisposition to reject standards regarding sexuality... which of course Priestly celibacy would fall directly into that category which the Sexually Abnormal DO NOT RECOGNIZE AS BEING RELEVANT TO THEM!
> 
> So.... there they are, pointing fingers at the Catholics as if THEY were somehow producing SEXUALLY ABNORMAL PRIESTS, when in truth, the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality demanded that the Catholic Church allow Homosexuals to participate in their clergy and VIOLA!  Pedophile Priests!
> 
> Now... it should be noted that they did so intentionally... and yes, it was a conspiracy which sought to take the Catholic Church down a notch... Evil has long had a hard on the Catholics and has a long history of fornicating that flock.
> 
> More recently of course it tried to do the same thing to the Boy Scouts of America, who thankfully found the strength of Character to bounce the Homosexuals... as has they failed to do so, their organization would already be TOAST!
Click to expand...

Again, you FAIL to recognize the difference between homosexuality between consenting adults and pedophilia between an adult (protected Catholic priests) and children (male and female).   The Catholic Hierarchy has, over the decades, protected illegal acts and helped spread them by sending pedophile priests to unsuspecting parishes.


----------



## Silhouette

g5000 said:


> No one is trying to force people to believe abnormal is normal.  Therefore, your entire argument is built on a false premise and collapses.
> 
> What the gay community is simply trying to achieve is an acceptance that they are not evil, and that their marriages are entitled to the same protections of the law as everyone else's marriages.
> 
> Simple as that.
> 
> Why does it drive you insane that two men could file a joint tax return and qualify for Social Security survivor benefits?  Serious question.


 
Children are the state's only interest when it comes to marriage.  Otherwise the state loses money on the tax breaks.

Why different marriages are prohibited in a given state as to its main reason for being involved: the best formative environment of children/future citizens:

1. Polygamy marriage guarantees the state that the attention each child receives from the minority gendered parent will be diluted....to the child's detriment.

2. Monosexual (single parent by choice or circumstance) marriage guarantees the state that the child will lack the influence of the complimentary gender 100% of the time....to the child's detriment.

3. Homosexual marriage guarantees the state that the child will lack the influence of the complimentary gender 100% of the time...to the child's detriment...

4. Incest marriage guarantees the state that progeny will carry a very high risk of birth defects...to the child's detriment.

Hetero marriage isn't perfect, but it is the best structural arrangement of marriage that can be predicted to foster children's best developmental chances and integration into society.  Structure and not the individual players is important.  Whereas the structure of hetero marriage guarantees the best formative environment for kids at the start, all the others are handicaps.  So the state does not incentivize them.

Can and are children raised in all types of environments anyway?  Yes, even wolves have been known to raise children.  It's not a mandate.  It is an incentive program....a privelege and not a "right"..


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Redfish said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage harms society by  putting abnormal behavior on a par with normal behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> Share that with SCOTUS, because your opinion has no weight in law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws are made by people.   A society decides what is right and wrong for that society.  Currently a majority of human beings consider homosexuality an abnormal behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abnormal =/= evil.  Sorry about that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that abnormal was evil.
Click to expand...


True, you did not.

What IS EVIL however, is the deceit, which requires one to accept abnormality as NORMAL.  And you should have said that.


----------



## WorldWatcher

The Rabbi said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So different-sex couples are exempt from the procreation "rule".
> 
> However that is a standard that will be required of same-sex couples.
> 
> Ya, that logic doesn't work.  Especially since there are laws that require different-sex couples to be infertile before they are allowed to Civilly Marry.
> 
> 
> >>>>>
> 
> 
> 
> That post made no sense.  There is no "procreation rule."  You made that up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you said we are "only making rules for the general population".
> 
> Well "rules" are rules, either they apply or they don't.  If the rule is that you have to be able to procreate with the other member of the couple.  That's fine.  Apply the same rule equally.  On the other hand if there are exceptions to the rule for different-sex couples that can't procreate, then equal exceptions should be allowed for same-sex couples that can't procreate.  (Of course that means there really isn't a "rule" doesn't it.)
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are one stupid shit who cant read.  That much is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read just fine.  As demonstrated by your need to revert to personal insults when a point is logically refuted.
> 
> The point was a double-standard was to be applied.  Different-sex couples that cannot (or required not to) procreate are exempted from the "rule".  But the "rule" applies to same-sex couples barring them from the same Civil Marriage available to different-sex couples.
> 
> Clearly the application of a double-standard.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you read what you want.  I wrote the word "tend" specifically to foil moves like yours.  You didnt get the memo.  Get back to me when you understand the argument.
Click to expand...


No, you are attempting to apply a double-standard, whether you use the word "tend" or not is irrelevant.  Same-sex couples are raising children whether there is Civil Marriage available or not, but because they can't procreate together - they should be denied Civil Marriage.  Different-sex couples should be allowed to Civilly Marry with the ability to procreate together not being a factor and despite that for some couple they are required not to be able to procreate.

I understand the argument just fine.  A double-standard.


>>>>


----------



## bodecea

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage harms society by  putting abnormal behavior on a par with normal behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> Share that with SCOTUS, because your opinion has no weight in law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws are made by people.   A society decides what is right and wrong for that society.  Currently a majority of human beings consider homosexuality an abnormal behavior.
> 
> What you personally think has zero value on this topic,  you are but one person.
Click to expand...

As they have and still think of Left-handedness as abnormal behavior.


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again?  this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a  self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for,  they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays DO have children...I've had five. Why are our families less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
> 
> Also, can you please name for us the state or locality that requires procreation in order to apply for a civil marriage license? Can you cite one instance of a civil marriage license being revoked due to the couple's inability or refusal to procreate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are one heartless form of human flesh.  Too many women are unable to bear children; therefore, thanks to today's technology, they are able to use other means to process their eggs.  Shame on you for manifesting your egomaniacal, abysmally smug, self-righteous, judgmental thinking into hate speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you feel that it's hateful, to point out that two women are not designed by nature to procreate?
> 
> What other facts do you feel represent an irrational feeling of dislike?  Besides "the Sun is the fundamental basis of the earth's climate temperature", of course.
Click to expand...


What's with you and procreation?  Do you display such vigorous passion for say someone like Nadya Suleman, who has given birth to 14 children and is unable to care for them economically, as well as physically, mentally, and emotionally.  Would you personally be averse to having someone adopting her children if that's what she wanted?  Would you find it offensive if a couple adopted a child or children from a third-world country? 
The sun produces energy, and all you're producing is stagnant hot air.


----------



## The Rabbi

WorldWatcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> That post made no sense.  There is no "procreation rule."  You made that up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you said we are "only making rules for the general population".
> 
> Well "rules" are rules, either they apply or they don't.  If the rule is that you have to be able to procreate with the other member of the couple.  That's fine.  Apply the same rule equally.  On the other hand if there are exceptions to the rule for different-sex couples that can't procreate, then equal exceptions should be allowed for same-sex couples that can't procreate.  (Of course that means there really isn't a "rule" doesn't it.)
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are one stupid shit who cant read.  That much is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read just fine.  As demonstrated by your need to revert to personal insults when a point is logically refuted.
> 
> The point was a double-standard was to be applied.  Different-sex couples that cannot (or required not to) procreate are exempted from the "rule".  But the "rule" applies to same-sex couples barring them from the same Civil Marriage available to different-sex couples.
> 
> Clearly the application of a double-standard.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you read what you want.  I wrote the word "tend" specifically to foil moves like yours.  You didnt get the memo.  Get back to me when you understand the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you are attempting to apply a double-standard, whether you use the word "tend" or not is irrelevant.  Same-sex couples are raising children whether there is Civil Marriage available or not, but because they can't procreate together - they should be denied Civil Marriage.  Different-sex couples should be allowed to Civilly Marry with the ability to procreate together not being a factor and despite that for some couple they are required not to be able to procreate.
> 
> I understand the argument just fine.  A double-standard.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

I stopped reading at the first sentence because it is obvious you dont understand the argument  Get back to em when you can get an adult to explain it.


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again?  this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a  self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for,  they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays DO have children...I've had five. Why are our families less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
> 
> Also, can you please name for us the state or locality that requires procreation in order to apply for a civil marriage license? Can you cite one instance of a civil marriage license being revoked due to the couple's inability or refusal to procreate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are one heartless form of human flesh.  Too many women are unable to bear children; therefore, thanks to today's technology, they are able to use other means to process their eggs.  Shame on you for manifesting your egomaniacal, abysmally smug, self-righteous, judgmental thinking into hate speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you feel that it's hateful, to point out that two women are not designed by nature to procreate?
> What other facts do you feel represent an irrational feeling of dislike?  Besides "the Sun is the fundamental basis of the earth's climate temperature", of course.
Click to expand...

Two women may not be able to have a child naturally without technological help....BUT that is no basis for legal discrimination.   See how simple that is?


----------



## The Rabbi

Lilah said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again?  this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a  self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for,  they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays DO have children...I've had five. Why are our families less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
> 
> Also, can you please name for us the state or locality that requires procreation in order to apply for a civil marriage license? Can you cite one instance of a civil marriage license being revoked due to the couple's inability or refusal to procreate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are one heartless form of human flesh.  Too many women are unable to bear children; therefore, thanks to today's technology, they are able to use other means to process their eggs.  Shame on you for manifesting your egomaniacal, abysmally smug, self-righteous, judgmental thinking into hate speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you feel that it's hateful, to point out that two women are not designed by nature to procreate?
> 
> What other facts do you feel represent an irrational feeling of dislike?  Besides "the Sun is the fundamental basis of the earth's climate temperature", of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's with you and procreation?  Do you display such vigorous passion for say someone like Nadya Suleman, who has given birth to 14 children and is unable to care for them economically, as well as physically, mentally, and emotionally.  Would you personally be averse to having someone adopting her children if that's what she wanted?  Would you find it offensive if a couple adopted a child or children from a third-world country?
> The sun produces energy, and all you're producing is stagnant hot air.
Click to expand...

You miss the point completely.


----------



## The Rabbi

bodecea said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again?  this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a  self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for,  they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays DO have children...I've had five. Why are our families less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
> 
> Also, can you please name for us the state or locality that requires procreation in order to apply for a civil marriage license? Can you cite one instance of a civil marriage license being revoked due to the couple's inability or refusal to procreate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are one heartless form of human flesh.  Too many women are unable to bear children; therefore, thanks to today's technology, they are able to use other means to process their eggs.  Shame on you for manifesting your egomaniacal, abysmally smug, self-righteous, judgmental thinking into hate speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you feel that it's hateful, to point out that two women are not designed by nature to procreate?
> What other facts do you feel represent an irrational feeling of dislike?  Besides "the Sun is the fundamental basis of the earth's climate temperature", of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two women may not be able to have a child naturally without technological help....BUT that is no basis for legal discrimination.   See how simple that is?
Click to expand...

It's not discrimination.  Two women can get married and have all the benefits the government confers, as long as they get married to two men.
See how easy that is?


----------



## Lilah

The Rabbi said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays DO have children...I've had five. Why are our families less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
> 
> Also, can you please name for us the state or locality that requires procreation in order to apply for a civil marriage license? Can you cite one instance of a civil marriage license being revoked due to the couple's inability or refusal to procreate?
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are one heartless form of human flesh.  Too many women are unable to bear children; therefore, thanks to today's technology, they are able to use other means to process their eggs.  Shame on you for manifesting your egomaniacal, abysmally smug, self-righteous, judgmental thinking into hate speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you feel that it's hateful, to point out that two women are not designed by nature to procreate?
> 
> What other facts do you feel represent an irrational feeling of dislike?  Besides "the Sun is the fundamental basis of the earth's climate temperature", of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's with you and procreation?  Do you display such vigorous passion for say someone like Nadya Suleman, who has given birth to 14 children and is unable to care for them economically, as well as physically, mentally, and emotionally.  Would you personally be averse to having someone adopting her children if that's what she wanted?  Would you find it offensive if a couple adopted a child or children from a third-world country?
> The sun produces energy, and all you're producing is stagnant hot air.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You miss the point completely.
Click to expand...


You don't have a valid point.  You just enjoy pontificating.


----------



## g5000

These arguments against gay marriage are identical to those against interracial marriage.

Deviant.  Abnormal.  Against tradition.  Blah blah blah.


----------



## Lilah

The Rabbi said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays DO have children...I've had five. Why are our families less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
> 
> Also, can you please name for us the state or locality that requires procreation in order to apply for a civil marriage license? Can you cite one instance of a civil marriage license being revoked due to the couple's inability or refusal to procreate?
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are one heartless form of human flesh.  Too many women are unable to bear children; therefore, thanks to today's technology, they are able to use other means to process their eggs.  Shame on you for manifesting your egomaniacal, abysmally smug, self-righteous, judgmental thinking into hate speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you feel that it's hateful, to point out that two women are not designed by nature to procreate?
> What other facts do you feel represent an irrational feeling of dislike?  Besides "the Sun is the fundamental basis of the earth's climate temperature", of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two women may not be able to have a child naturally without technological help....BUT that is no basis for legal discrimination.   See how simple that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not discrimination.  Two women can get married and have all the benefits the government confers, as long as they get married to two men.
> See how easy that is?
Click to expand...


Well, let's see, Jerry Sandusky was a good example of a man  How do you and your State feel about such a union?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

g5000 said:


> Why does it drive you insane that two men could file a joint tax return and qualify for Social Security survivor benefits?  Serious question.



Let me by clear: My recognizing that sexual abnormality is the result of deviant reasoning, is the epitome of sound sanity.  That you claim otherwise, presents your own mental disorder.

Promoting mental disorder as normal, runs counter to the interests of every individual in the culture, including those two men you're speaking of.  As a result, allowing sexual abnormality to be recognized as a normal component of the culture injures the culture.  And the only sound purpose of government is to promote justice, thus to serve the best interests of the individuals who sum to comprise the culture.

Again... not complicated... nothing complex about it.  Just beyond your means to understand.

Now... the reader should understand that the above contributor is demonstrating THE PROBLEM!

Neither you nor I are EVER going to convince THEM that they're wrong.

Thus the issue is what should be done, where a significant percentage of the population has become infected with this perverse species of reasoning.

Now that species of reasoning is a THREAT TO YOU... it threatens the means of you to govern yourself, to defend your children and for your children to defend your grandchildren from that perverse reasoning.


How do you intend to defend from people with whom you've no means to communicate?

Take your time, give it some thought and please, get back to me on it, once ya have it figured out.

Again, just as a reminder:



g5000 said:


> These arguments against gay marriage are identical to those against interracial marriage.
> 
> Deviant.  Abnormal.  Against tradition.  Blah blah blah.



There is no means to reason with these people.  They are simply incapable of it.  

And in KNOWING THAT... what steps do you take to defend yourself and your family from them and those who THEY ELECT, to pass policy which is a clear and present danger to your means to live a virtuous and free life, without the influence of this profound evil?


----------



## bodecea

g5000 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> We disagree.   its OK to disagree.   thats why we vote
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot vote away rights.  Sorry about that!
Click to expand...

Well, they have tried.   Doesn't usually last past the first court challenge tho.....thank goodness for Checks and Balances.


----------



## mdk

The Rabbi said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays DO have children...I've had five. Why are our families less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
> 
> Also, can you please name for us the state or locality that requires procreation in order to apply for a civil marriage license? Can you cite one instance of a civil marriage license being revoked due to the couple's inability or refusal to procreate?
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are one heartless form of human flesh.  Too many women are unable to bear children; therefore, thanks to today's technology, they are able to use other means to process their eggs.  Shame on you for manifesting your egomaniacal, abysmally smug, self-righteous, judgmental thinking into hate speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you feel that it's hateful, to point out that two women are not designed by nature to procreate?
> What other facts do you feel represent an irrational feeling of dislike?  Besides "the Sun is the fundamental basis of the earth's climate temperature", of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two women may not be able to have a child naturally without technological help....BUT that is no basis for legal discrimination.   See how simple that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not discrimination.  Two women can get married and have all the benefits the government confers, as long as they get married to two men.
> See how easy that is?
Click to expand...


This isn't exactly a very compelling legal argument. Which it is why it is being laughed out of most courtrooms across the country.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Same Sex "Couples" are irrelevant to any institution which intrinsically prohibits their participation.  We call this: A STANDARD.  The purpose of which is to define the institution in terms of what is and is not acceptable behavior or policy, as a means to insure the viability of the institution.
> 
> You're simply offended by the standard.  Which is perfectly understandable.  It was designed to offend you; established as a means to preclude you.
> 
> That is what standards DO!




Psst - as a male heterosexual, married to a female heterosexual for 28 years with 2 children the standards don't exclude me or my wife.


>>>>


----------



## The Rabbi

Lilah said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are one heartless form of human flesh.  Too many women are unable to bear children; therefore, thanks to today's technology, they are able to use other means to process their eggs.  Shame on you for manifesting your egomaniacal, abysmally smug, self-righteous, judgmental thinking into hate speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you feel that it's hateful, to point out that two women are not designed by nature to procreate?
> 
> What other facts do you feel represent an irrational feeling of dislike?  Besides "the Sun is the fundamental basis of the earth's climate temperature", of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's with you and procreation?  Do you display such vigorous passion for say someone like Nadya Suleman, who has given birth to 14 children and is unable to care for them economically, as well as physically, mentally, and emotionally.  Would you personally be averse to having someone adopting her children if that's what she wanted?  Would you find it offensive if a couple adopted a child or children from a third-world country?
> The sun produces energy, and all you're producing is stagnant hot air.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You miss the point completely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have a valid point.  You just enjoy pontificating.
Click to expand...

You write that with a straight face after posting a multiple sentence rant that missed the point of the argument?  Seriously?


----------



## g5000

The Rabbi said:


> It's not discrimination.  Two women can get married and have all the benefits the government confers, as long as they get married to two men.
> See how easy that is?


You really work hard at being obtuse.


----------



## The Rabbi

mdk said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are one heartless form of human flesh.  Too many women are unable to bear children; therefore, thanks to today's technology, they are able to use other means to process their eggs.  Shame on you for manifesting your egomaniacal, abysmally smug, self-righteous, judgmental thinking into hate speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you feel that it's hateful, to point out that two women are not designed by nature to procreate?
> What other facts do you feel represent an irrational feeling of dislike?  Besides "the Sun is the fundamental basis of the earth's climate temperature", of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two women may not be able to have a child naturally without technological help....BUT that is no basis for legal discrimination.   See how simple that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not discrimination.  Two women can get married and have all the benefits the government confers, as long as they get married to two men.
> See how easy that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't exactly a very compelling legal argument. Which it is why it is being laughed out of most courtrooms across the country.
Click to expand...

Argumentum ad populum fallacy!
Rabbi rules!


----------



## Lilah

The Rabbi said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are one heartless form of human flesh.  Too many women are unable to bear children; therefore, thanks to today's technology, they are able to use other means to process their eggs.  Shame on you for manifesting your egomaniacal, abysmally smug, self-righteous, judgmental thinking into hate speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you feel that it's hateful, to point out that two women are not designed by nature to procreate?
> 
> What other facts do you feel represent an irrational feeling of dislike?  Besides "the Sun is the fundamental basis of the earth's climate temperature", of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's with you and procreation?  Do you display such vigorous passion for say someone like Nadya Suleman, who has given birth to 14 children and is unable to care for them economically, as well as physically, mentally, and emotionally.  Would you personally be averse to having someone adopting her children if that's what she wanted?  Would you find it offensive if a couple adopted a child or children from a third-world country?
> The sun produces energy, and all you're producing is stagnant hot air.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You miss the point completely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have a valid point.  You just enjoy pontificating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You write that with a straight face after posting a multiple sentence rant that missed the point of the argument?  Seriously?
Click to expand...


Don't be such a sore loser.


----------



## g5000

Hey, dat nigga can have all the benefits of gubmit as long as he marry a nigga womans.

See how easy dat iz?


----------



## Lilah

g5000 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not discrimination.  Two women can get married and have all the benefits the government confers, as long as they get married to two men.
> See how easy that is?
> 
> 
> 
> You really work hard at being obtuse.
Click to expand...


What work?


----------



## The Rabbi

g5000 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not discrimination.  Two women can get married and have all the benefits the government confers, as long as they get married to two men.
> See how easy that is?
> 
> 
> 
> You really work hard at being obtuse.
Click to expand...

Explain the discrimination here.
Two women cannot get married to each other with state license, regardless of whether they are gay or straight
Two men cannot get married to each other wth state license, regardless of whether they are gay or striaght
A man and a woman can get married to each other, regardless of whether they are gay or straight.
WHat about this is difficult?  There is no discrimination whatsoever.


----------



## g5000

The Rabbi said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't exactly a very compelling legal argument. Which it is why it is being laughed out of most courtrooms across the country.
> 
> 
> 
> Argumentum ad populum fallacy!
> Rabbi rules!
Click to expand...


Look at Rabbi.  Using logical fallacies, but doing it wrong.  BWA-HA-HA-HA!

Logic course.  Take one.


----------



## The Rabbi

Lilah said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you feel that it's hateful, to point out that two women are not designed by nature to procreate?
> 
> What other facts do you feel represent an irrational feeling of dislike?  Besides "the Sun is the fundamental basis of the earth's climate temperature", of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's with you and procreation?  Do you display such vigorous passion for say someone like Nadya Suleman, who has given birth to 14 children and is unable to care for them economically, as well as physically, mentally, and emotionally.  Would you personally be averse to having someone adopting her children if that's what she wanted?  Would you find it offensive if a couple adopted a child or children from a third-world country?
> The sun produces energy, and all you're producing is stagnant hot air.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You miss the point completely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have a valid point.  You just enjoy pontificating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You write that with a straight face after posting a multiple sentence rant that missed the point of the argument?  Seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be such a sore loser.
Click to expand...

OK you are clearly not up to the level of debate requried here.  You go on Iggy, buh bye.


----------



## The Rabbi

g5000 said:


> Hey, dat nigga can have all the benefits of gubmit as long as he marry a nigga womans.
> 
> See how easy dat iz?


Red  herring fallacy!
Rabbi rules!


----------



## Lilah

The Rabbi said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's with you and procreation?  Do you display such vigorous passion for say someone like Nadya Suleman, who has given birth to 14 children and is unable to care for them economically, as well as physically, mentally, and emotionally.  Would you personally be averse to having someone adopting her children if that's what she wanted?  Would you find it offensive if a couple adopted a child or children from a third-world country?
> The sun produces energy, and all you're producing is stagnant hot air.
> 
> 
> 
> You miss the point completely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have a valid point.  You just enjoy pontificating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You write that with a straight face after posting a multiple sentence rant that missed the point of the argument?  Seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be such a sore loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK you are clearly not up to the level of debate requried here.  You go on Iggy, buh bye.
Click to expand...


Do you really believe you are participating in a debate?  How cute.


----------



## g5000

The Rabbi said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not discrimination.  Two women can get married and have all the benefits the government confers, as long as they get married to two men.
> See how easy that is?
> 
> 
> 
> You really work hard at being obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain the discrimination here.
> Two women cannot get married to each other with state license, regardless of whether they are gay or straight
> Two men cannot get married to each other wth state license, regardless of whether they are gay or striaght
> A man and a woman can get married to each other, regardless of whether they are gay or straight.
> WHat about this is difficult?  There is no discrimination whatsoever.
Click to expand...

It is discrimination against gays, dufus.


----------



## g5000

The Rabbi said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, dat nigga can have all the benefits of gubmit as long as he marry a nigga womans.
> 
> See how easy dat iz?
> 
> 
> 
> Red  herring fallacy!
> Rabbi rules!
Click to expand...

Still doing it wrong.


----------



## mdk

The Rabbi said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are one heartless form of human flesh.  Too many women are unable to bear children; therefore, thanks to today's technology, they are able to use other means to process their eggs.  Shame on you for manifesting your egomaniacal, abysmally smug, self-righteous, judgmental thinking into hate speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you feel that it's hateful, to point out that two women are not designed by nature to procreate?
> What other facts do you feel represent an irrational feeling of dislike?  Besides "the Sun is the fundamental basis of the earth's climate temperature", of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two women may not be able to have a child naturally without technological help....BUT that is no basis for legal discrimination.   See how simple that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not discrimination.  Two women can get married and have all the benefits the government confers, as long as they get married to two men.
> See how easy that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't exactly a very compelling legal argument. Which it is why it is being laughed out of most courtrooms across the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Argumentum ad populum fallacy!
> Rabbi rules!
Click to expand...


While I find your delusions of grandeur comical, it in no way changes the fact that your position is failing miserably.


----------



## The Rabbi

g5000 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, dat nigga can have all the benefits of gubmit as long as he marry a nigga womans.
> 
> See how easy dat iz?
> 
> 
> 
> Red  herring fallacy!
> Rabbi rules!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still doing it wrong.
Click to expand...

Translation: I dont know what I'm talking about.
You couldnt even refute the notion that homosexual parents ipso facto are abusive.  That ought to be a cinch, yet you failed there too and reverted to name calling.


----------



## The Rabbi

mdk said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you feel that it's hateful, to point out that two women are not designed by nature to procreate?
> What other facts do you feel represent an irrational feeling of dislike?  Besides "the Sun is the fundamental basis of the earth's climate temperature", of course.
> 
> 
> 
> Two women may not be able to have a child naturally without technological help....BUT that is no basis for legal discrimination.   See how simple that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not discrimination.  Two women can get married and have all the benefits the government confers, as long as they get married to two men.
> See how easy that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't exactly a very compelling legal argument. Which it is why it is being laughed out of most courtrooms across the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Argumentum ad populum fallacy!
> Rabbi rules!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I find your delusions of grandeur comical, it in no way changes the fact that your position is failing miserably.
Click to expand...

I point out your argument is a logical fallacy and Im the one failing?  No, dont think so.


----------



## The Rabbi

g5000 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not discrimination.  Two women can get married and have all the benefits the government confers, as long as they get married to two men.
> See how easy that is?
> 
> 
> 
> You really work hard at being obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain the discrimination here.
> Two women cannot get married to each other with state license, regardless of whether they are gay or straight
> Two men cannot get married to each other wth state license, regardless of whether they are gay or striaght
> A man and a woman can get married to each other, regardless of whether they are gay or straight.
> WHat about this is difficult?  There is no discrimination whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is discrimination against gays, dufus.
Click to expand...

I just demonstrated it was no such thing, moron.  Gay or straight two same sex people cannot marry.  Do you thnk there is a gay test to get married?


----------



## hangover

Lilah said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You miss the point completely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have a valid point.  You just enjoy pontificating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You write that with a straight face after posting a multiple sentence rant that missed the point of the argument?  Seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be such a sore loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK you are clearly not up to the level of debate requried here.  You go on Iggy, buh bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really believe you are participating in a debate?  How cute.
Click to expand...

Rabbi is so far out in right field, he's not even on the same planet. He's the god of his own little la la land, in a toatally different dimension. Even Ted Cruz can't get there.


----------



## The Rabbi

hangover said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have a valid point.  You just enjoy pontificating.
> 
> 
> 
> You write that with a straight face after posting a multiple sentence rant that missed the point of the argument?  Seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be such a sore loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK you are clearly not up to the level of debate requried here.  You go on Iggy, buh bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really believe you are participating in a debate?  How cute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rabbi is so far out in right field, he's not even on the same planet. He's the god of his own little la la land, in a toatally different dimension. Even Ted Cruz can't get there.
Click to expand...

Was there something you wanted to add here?  I realize you probably cant because you're stooopid.


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The claim is frequently made that marriage tax breaks are to encourage procreation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The claim is that Marriage is the natural result of the natural human physiological design, which serves the biological imperative to propagate the species.
> 
> That in no way requires procreation be the purpose of marriage, only that such DEFINES MARRIAGE.
> 
> Now... with that said, there would be nothing wrong with that being the case.  As it certainly follows... *but just because marriage is opened to people who do not intend to have children, that does not mean that marriage must include those who nature specifically designed to BE INCAPABLE of producing children.*
> 
> This is really VERY SIMPLE stuff, yet it seems to be WELL beyond your means to grasp.
> 
> I thought we agreed that you'd stay in the "Fire HOT! - WATER WET!" thread?  You do SO well over there.  Why do you insist on cognitively swimming beyond your intellectual depth?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but having the state treat us differently in that regard is UnConstitutional....that's why your side keeps losing in court.


----------



## mdk

The Rabbi said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not discrimination.  Two women can get married and have all the benefits the government confers, as long as they get married to two men.
> See how easy that is?
> 
> 
> 
> You really work hard at being obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain the discrimination here.
> Two women cannot get married to each other with state license, regardless of whether they are gay or straight
> Two men cannot get married to each other wth state license, regardless of whether they are gay or striaght
> A man and a woman can get married to each other, regardless of whether they are gay or straight.
> WHat about this is difficult?  There is no discrimination whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is discrimination against gays, dufus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just demonstrated it was no such thing, moron.  Gay or straight two same sex people cannot marry.  Do you thnk there is a gay test to get married?
Click to expand...


And that same rationale was employed when social conservatives tried to convince the courts that interracial bans treated everyone equal. You stop pushing the faulty legal logic that has failed so miserably and I'll stop pointing it out. Deal?


----------



## mdk

The Rabbi said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two women may not be able to have a child naturally without technological help....BUT that is no basis for legal discrimination.   See how simple that is?
> 
> 
> 
> It's not discrimination.  Two women can get married and have all the benefits the government confers, as long as they get married to two men.
> See how easy that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't exactly a very compelling legal argument. Which it is why it is being laughed out of most courtrooms across the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Argumentum ad populum fallacy!
> Rabbi rules!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I find your delusions of grandeur comical, it in no way changes the fact that your position is failing miserably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I point out your argument is a logical fallacy and Im the one failing?  No, dont think so.
Click to expand...


You're argument has failed miserably in almost every venue. You can pretend it is not discrimination until you are blue in the face. In the meantime, gays are getting married and your ilk gets consistently laughed out of almost every courthouse.


----------



## bodecea

g5000 said:


> We have "redefined marriage" before.  In my own lifetime, in fact.  There were states who defined marriage as the union of two people_ of the same race_.
> 
> The argument of "traditional marriage" doesn't hold water for many reasons.  First, the Bible has quite a few versions of marriage.  Polygamy and concubines are all over the Good Book.
> 
> *Secondly, "we've always done it that way" is the last argument of an oppressor as their reason for continuing their oppression.  "We've always had slaves.  There were slaves in the bible."  Blah blah blah.*
> 
> Tradition is one thing, long term oppression is another.  The bogus "tradition" argument is just an excuse to keep oppressing a minority.  Simple as that.
> 
> The oppressors have no rational basis for continuing that "tradition".


How true.


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So different-sex couples are exempt from the procreation "rule".
> 
> However that is a standard that will be required of same-sex couples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it cannot, as that standard is irrelevant to coupling of the same gender, because:
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.​
Click to expand...

Maybe your religious definition of marriage but for most of the U.S. and in many countries now.....not exclusive to one man and one woman any more. 

Note:  Did you know that it's still a legal marriage if one man and one woman and they never have sex?  (Marriages of convenience)


----------



## bodecea

The Rabbi said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except it isn't legally...and never has been religiously. I attended a lesbian wedding at a Southern Baptist Church in 1986...long before any legal recognition.
> 
> 
> 20 years from now, Catholic Churches will be marrying gays, you watch.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the Catholic Church has demonstrated it can remain true to its teachings impervious to the tide of popular trends. This isn't the first battle we've had with a depraved culture engrossed in homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Catholic Church has sure demonstrated something.....with its protection of pedophile priests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deflection.
> Do you have anything else to add?  I mean, we can discuss the contributions made by homosexuals like the pedophile Harvey Milk all day long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh...and Harvey Milk was not a pedophile.  Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, and yes he was.
> Anti-gay group calls for boycott of Harvey Milk stamp MSNBC
> Thanks for failing.
Click to expand...

Nope.  He was not a pedophile.  Nice try spreading a lie.


----------



## bodecea

Redfish said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> We disagree.   its OK to disagree.   thats why we vote
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot vote away rights.  Sorry about that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit,   rights are established by voting.  the constitution was put in effect by a vote, the bill of rights was put in place by a vote.
> 
> but since you know so much about 'rights"  quote where any of our founding documents or statutes make gay marriage a "right"
Click to expand...

Oh?  No natural rights for you?


----------



## kaz

bodecea said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman.
> 
> They are actually specific answers, if you don't know what they mean, google them.
> 
> They are the two primary tools in your belt, which is why you get them so often.  You say I said things I didn't say (strawman) like here where you ask me "what is a "strawman" about actually doing something about your beliefs?"  I never said that nor anything like it.  So I informed you specifically it was a strawman.
> 
> You also like to ignore my answer and repeat your question assuming the truth of your own position, which is begging the question.  Since I've already addressed it, I inform you of that by telling you that you begged the question, so if you want to go back and actually address my argument I'll give you more.
> 
> In both cases, you ignored what I actually said.  Then you whine I don't address your non-response.   You want an actual response from me?  Give me an actual response to my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aware of what they mean and I know why you use them. I agree, you've addressed everything. Now get out there and push your agenda. Picket those county clerks...we did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So my choices are to demonstrate or shut up.  I reject that as the crap that it is.  I think my strategy is far more effective, changing minds.  Not your mind, you are an ideologue, your intelligence is not in play.  But I get comments all the time from people that they always assumed that this or that had to be a government function because it is, and I had a valid point that maybe it didn't need to be.  That to me is a huge win every time it happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If one feels strongly about something, they do something about it.  You just like to kvetch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Begging the question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll take that as a yes.  Kvetch away.
Click to expand...


Still begging the question.  I answered your question in my post you quoted.  You are free to acknowledge my answer, disagree with it and build on that, but if you just ignore my answer and repeat your assertion as truth, I will just call your post for what it is.  Begging the question.

I put my answer in green this time to help you find it since you couldn't find it on your own.


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how the State is necessary to marriage or procreation. How did the human race survive before the joint tax return and Social Security survivor benefits, oh wise one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The State is Irrelevant from Marriage.  *
> 
> However, the community; defined as the sum of a free people who govern themselves... is entitled to establish policy which promotes a healthy, viability... thus where Marriage is recognized as being the core essential to a sound and viable culture, OKA: Civilization, it follows that the policies of such would tend to offer what incentives are available as a means to promote marriage.
> 
> Again... read it slowly, to give yourself the best chance to understand it.  But when ya fail to do so, just go back to participating in threads which deal with issues within your intellectual means.
Click to expand...

We are talking about legal marriage...who do you think gives out marriage licenses?


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> And I reiterate - *Homosexuality and pedophilia ARE varying degrees of the same class of Dementia - Sexual Dysphoria*



That is what homophobic bigots keep trying to sell. 

And that is why they endanger children.


----------



## Syriusly

After scanning through the rather hysterical and bizarre rantings by homophobes about the age of consent- and their fascination with pedophiilia and feces and anuses- I can only come to the obvious conclusion.

Homophobes only raise these issues because they realize that Americans now want to treat homosexuals equally and fairly- and that pisses them off. 

So they try to invoke 'protect the kids'- and try to whip up hysteria to equate homosexuals with pedophiles.

No matter how much such equations endangers children.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The Rabbi said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's with you and procreation?  Do you display such vigorous passion for say someone like Nadya Suleman, who has given birth to 14 children and is unable to care for them economically, as well as physically, mentally, and emotionally.  Would you personally be averse to having someone adopting her children if that's what she wanted?  Would you find it offensive if a couple adopted a child or children from a third-world country?
> The sun produces energy, and all you're producing is stagnant hot air.
> 
> 
> 
> You miss the point completely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have a valid point.  You just enjoy pontificating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You write that with a straight face after posting a multiple sentence rant that missed the point of the argument?  Seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be such a sore loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK you are clearly not up to the level of debate requried here.  You go on Iggy, buh bye.
Click to expand...


In debate, an Ignore is admission of defeat.


----------



## bodecea

Redfish said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A society decides what is right and wrong for that society".
> 
> "A majority of human beings consider homosexuality an abnormal behavior".
> 
> Redfish, you clearly were equating "abnormal" with "wrong".
> 
> Nobody is fooled here.
> 
> Abnormal =/= wrong.  Sorry about that!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit again,   being left handed is abnormal, but its not wrong.   Gays are not evil, they are sick.
Click to expand...

It used to be considered so, and children were physically forced to go "right handed".


----------



## JakeStarkey

The Rabbi has fumbled, stumbled, and bumbled along.

In every way, he is a match for Where R My Keys and st. mike.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Only a deviant with a malignant purpose would post "*Homosexuality and pedophilia ARE varying degrees of the same class of Dementia - Sexual Dysphoria"*


----------



## JakeStarkey

The Rabbi said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not discrimination.  Two women can get married and have all the benefits the government confers, as long as they get married to two men.
> See how easy that is?
> 
> 
> 
> You really work hard at being obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain the discrimination here.
> Two women cannot get married to each other with state license, regardless of whether they are gay or straight
> Two men cannot get married to each other wth state license, regardless of whether they are gay or striaght
> A man and a woman can get married to each other, regardless of whether they are gay or straight.
> WHat about this is difficult?  There is no discrimination whatsoever.
Click to expand...

  Because the right to marry the adult grownup you love is denied. Does not wash, The Rabbi.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The anti-marriage crew is brainwashed or mentally ill.


----------



## bodecea

The Rabbi said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> We disagree.   its OK to disagree.   thats why we vote
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot vote away rights.  Sorry about that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit,   rights are established by voting.  the constitution was put in effect by a vote, the bill of rights was put in place by a vote.
> 
> but since you know so much about 'rights"  quote where any of our founding documents or statutes make gay marriage a "right"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rights are established where God endows those rights.  Federal protections of the individual's means to exercise those rights are established by law.
> 
> There is no right; meaning that there is no potential for a right, where in the exercising of the right, one injures the means of another to exercise their own right.
> 
> Therefore, where delusion is harmful, the Advocacy to force others into delusion has NO POTENTIAL as a right.
> 
> Thus, the Advocacy to force people to believe that what is ABNORMAL is NORMAL... is NOT a RIGHT!  Be it required by law or not.
> 
> And that is because the LAW is only valid where it serves justice, thus a law which serves to injure the innocent is not valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is trying to force people to believe abnormal is normal.  Therefore, your entire argument is built on a false premise and collapses.
> 
> What the gay community is simply trying to achieve is an acceptance that they are not evil, and that their marriages are entitled to the same protections of the law as everyone else's marriages.
> 
> Simple as that.
> 
> Why does it drive you insane that two men could file a joint tax return and qualify for Social Security survivor benefits?  Serious question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply not true by your own admission.  The bakers in Oregon who refused to bake the wedding cake clearly thought homosexuality was wrong but were not only forced to bake the cake but to attend "re-education" seminars as well.
Click to expand...

You have a problem with a Public Assess law....the same kind of law that PROTECTS the religious from discrimination in public assess.   IF you don't like PA laws, write your Congresscritter to get them changed.


----------



## bodecea

JakeStarkey said:


> The anti-marriage crew is brainwashed or mentally ill.


And yet.....I have no desire to keep them from legalized marriage.


----------



## Skylar

JakeStarkey said:


> Only a deviant with a malignant purpose would post "*Homosexuality and pedophilia ARE varying degrees of the same class of Dementia - Sexual Dysphoria"*



Homosexuality and pedophilia aren't the same thing. Or even particularly, related, as almost all molesters of children are self identified heterosexual men.


----------



## Skylar

bodecea said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot vote away rights.  Sorry about that!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit,   rights are established by voting.  the constitution was put in effect by a vote, the bill of rights was put in place by a vote.
> 
> but since you know so much about 'rights"  quote where any of our founding documents or statutes make gay marriage a "right"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rights are established where God endows those rights.  Federal protections of the individual's means to exercise those rights are established by law.
> 
> There is no right; meaning that there is no potential for a right, where in the exercising of the right, one injures the means of another to exercise their own right.
> 
> Therefore, where delusion is harmful, the Advocacy to force others into delusion has NO POTENTIAL as a right.
> 
> Thus, the Advocacy to force people to believe that what is ABNORMAL is NORMAL... is NOT a RIGHT!  Be it required by law or not.
> 
> And that is because the LAW is only valid where it serves justice, thus a law which serves to injure the innocent is not valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is trying to force people to believe abnormal is normal.  Therefore, your entire argument is built on a false premise and collapses.
> 
> What the gay community is simply trying to achieve is an acceptance that they are not evil, and that their marriages are entitled to the same protections of the law as everyone else's marriages.
> 
> Simple as that.
> 
> Why does it drive you insane that two men could file a joint tax return and qualify for Social Security survivor benefits?  Serious question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply not true by your own admission.  The bakers in Oregon who refused to bake the wedding cake clearly thought homosexuality was wrong but were not only forced to bake the cake but to attend "re-education" seminars as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have a problem with a Public Assess law....the same kind of law that PROTECTS the religious from discrimination in public assess.   IF you don't like PA laws, write your Congresscritter to get them changed.
Click to expand...


That's the part that many of the opponents of PA laws don't quite get. If a Christian can place their religious beliefs above civil law, so can any Muslim. Or Buddhist. And anyone can deny service to any Christian.

Shall we place Sharia law above civil law in the US? Because in a very real sense, that's what many Christian opponents of PA laws are arguing for.


----------



## bodecea

The Rabbi said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays DO have children...I've had five. Why are our families less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
> 
> Also, can you please name for us the state or locality that requires procreation in order to apply for a civil marriage license? Can you cite one instance of a civil marriage license being revoked due to the couple's inability or refusal to procreate?
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are one heartless form of human flesh.  Too many women are unable to bear children; therefore, thanks to today's technology, they are able to use other means to process their eggs.  Shame on you for manifesting your egomaniacal, abysmally smug, self-righteous, judgmental thinking into hate speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you feel that it's hateful, to point out that two women are not designed by nature to procreate?
> What other facts do you feel represent an irrational feeling of dislike?  Besides "the Sun is the fundamental basis of the earth's climate temperature", of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two women may not be able to have a child naturally without technological help....BUT that is no basis for legal discrimination.   See how simple that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not discrimination.  Two women can get married and have all the benefits the government confers, as long as they get married to two men.
> See how easy that is?
Click to expand...

That is gender discrimination.  UnConstitutional.  Quite easy to shoot your argument down legally.  Thank you for the "fish in the barrel" presentation.


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I reiterate - *Homosexuality and pedophilia ARE varying degrees of the same class of Dementia - Sexual Dysphoria*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what homophobic bigots keep trying to sell.
> 
> And that is why they endanger children.
Click to expand...



Sorry Pal  "Homophobic Bigots"  a/k/a  informed free thinkers are not the ones molesting Children - Perverts a/k/a LGBT are.

Sorry again Buddy Boy "Homophobic Bigots"  a/k/a  informed free thinkers are not the ones enabling this to happen ignorant simple minded buffoons  a/k/a Liberals are .


----------



## bodecea

mdk said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not discrimination.  Two women can get married and have all the benefits the government confers, as long as they get married to two men.
> See how easy that is?
> 
> 
> 
> You really work hard at being obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain the discrimination here.
> Two women cannot get married to each other with state license, regardless of whether they are gay or straight
> Two men cannot get married to each other wth state license, regardless of whether they are gay or striaght
> A man and a woman can get married to each other, regardless of whether they are gay or straight.
> WHat about this is difficult?  There is no discrimination whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is discrimination against gays, dufus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just demonstrated it was no such thing, moron.  Gay or straight two same sex people cannot marry.  Do you thnk there is a gay test to get married?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that same rationale was employed when social conservatives tried to convince the courts that interracial bans treated everyone equal. You stop pushing the faulty legal logic that has failed so miserably and I'll stop pointing it out. Deal?
Click to expand...

We can only hope that Rabbi is in charge of the anti-gay marriage legal team presenting to SCOTUS.


----------



## Skylar

Syriusly said:


> After scanning through the rather hysterical and bizarre rantings by homophobes about the age of consent- and their fascination with pedophiilia and feces and anuses- I can only come to the obvious conclusion.
> 
> Homophobes only raise these issues because they realize that Americans now want to treat homosexuals equally and fairly- and that pisses them off.



I think its an issue of legitimacy. One of the reasons that gays and lesbians are fighting for marriage rather than a 'separate but equal' civil union is that the civil union is unequal. With the recognition of marriage, their unions have the same legitimacy and validity as that of a straight union under the law. 

And *that* is what I think pisses 'homophobes' off. I think most of them are willing to allow gays and lesbians to go about their business without molestation as long as they keep to themselves and know their proper place. And this, I would guess is considered a great act of tolerance and compassion by many of these folks.

But gays are getting 'uppity' in the estimation of many of 'homophobes', trying to portray their lives as valid and demanding their place in society as equals.

And worse, society is siding with the gays! For many, its an intolerable situation.


----------



## bodecea

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I reiterate - *Homosexuality and pedophilia ARE varying degrees of the same class of Dementia - Sexual Dysphoria*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what homophobic bigots keep trying to sell.
> 
> And that is why they endanger children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Pal  "Homophobic Bigots"  a/k/a  informed free thinkers are not the ones molesting Children - Perverts a/k/a LGBT are.
> 
> Sorry again Buddy Boy "Homophobic Bigots"  a/k/a  informed free thinkers are not the ones enabling this to happen ignorant simple minded buffoons  a/k/a Liberals are .
Click to expand...

Religious types have free reign on our children.


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> After scanning through the rather hysterical and bizarre rantings by homophobes about the age of consent- and their fascination with pedophiilia and feces and anuses- I can only come to the obvious conclusion.
> 
> Homophobes only raise these issues because they realize that Americans now want to treat homosexuals equally and fairly- and that pisses them off.
> 
> So they try to invoke 'protect the kids'- and try to whip up hysteria to equate homosexuals with pedophiles.
> 
> No matter how much such equations endangers children.




Wrong again buddy boy -  Americans want to bitch smack the perverts back into the closet - They've pushed the ticket too far and the propaganda and brainwashing are wearing thin.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I reiterate - *Homosexuality and pedophilia ARE varying degrees of the same class of Dementia - Sexual Dysphoria*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what homophobic bigots keep trying to sell.
> 
> And that is why they endanger children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Pal  "Homophobic Bigots"  a/k/a  informed free thinkers are not the ones molesting Children - Perverts a/k/a LGBT are..
Click to expand...


Prove it.


----------



## GreenBean

Skylar said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> After scanning through the rather hysterical and bizarre rantings by homophobes about the age of consent- and their fascination with pedophiilia and feces and anuses- I can only come to the obvious conclusion.
> 
> Homophobes only raise these issues because they realize that Americans now want to treat homosexuals equally and fairly- and that pisses them off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think its an issue of legitimacy. One of the reasons that gays and lesbians are fighting for marriage rather than a 'separate but equal' civil union is that the civil union is unequal. With the recognition of marriage, their unions have the same legitimacy and validity as that of a straight union under the law.
> 
> And *that* is what I think pisses 'homophobes' off. I think most of them are willing to allow gays and lesbians to go about their business without molestation as long as they keep to themselves and know their proper place. And this, I would guess is considered a great act of tolerance and compassion by many of these folks.
> 
> But gays are getting 'uppity' in the estimation of many of 'homophobes', trying to portray their lives as valid and demanding their place in society as equals.
> 
> And worse, society is siding with the gays! For many, its an intolerable situation.
Click to expand...





> society is siding with the gays!



"Society" is not siding with the Gays - Big Brother is- and only because it suits their purpose -the masses are largely indifferent [a/k/a desensitized] - because that's how they've been conditioned


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> After scanning through the rather hysterical and bizarre rantings by homophobes about the age of consent- and their fascination with pedophiilia and feces and anuses- I can only come to the obvious conclusion.
> 
> Homophobes only raise these issues because they realize that Americans now want to treat homosexuals equally and fairly- and that pisses them off.
> 
> So they try to invoke 'protect the kids'- and try to whip up hysteria to equate homosexuals with pedophiles.
> 
> No matter how much such equations endangers children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again buddy boy -  Americans want to bitch smack the perverts back into the closet - They've pushed the ticket too far and the propaganda and brainwashing are wearing thin.
Click to expand...


No- bigots are the only ones who are upset that homosexuals are getting all uppity and no longer put up with you and your three buddies cruising around looking for some 100 lb fem looking boy that you could 'bitch smack' around without the cops interfering with your fun.


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I reiterate - *Homosexuality and pedophilia ARE varying degrees of the same class of Dementia - Sexual Dysphoria*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what homophobic bigots keep trying to sell.
> 
> And that is why they endanger children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Pal  "Homophobic Bigots"  a/k/a  informed free thinkers are not the ones molesting Children - Perverts a/k/a LGBT are..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it.
Click to expand...

Been there & done that bitch - when you can demonstrate that you are able to comprehend the basic tenets of Mathematical theory - such as percentages and per capita perhaps I'll fly it by you again -in the mean time fkoff.


----------



## bodecea

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> After scanning through the rather hysterical and bizarre rantings by homophobes about the age of consent- and their fascination with pedophiilia and feces and anuses- I can only come to the obvious conclusion.
> 
> Homophobes only raise these issues because they realize that Americans now want to treat homosexuals equally and fairly- and that pisses them off.
> 
> So they try to invoke 'protect the kids'- and try to whip up hysteria to equate homosexuals with pedophiles.
> 
> No matter how much such equations endangers children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again buddy boy -  Americans want to bitch smack the perverts back into the closet - They've pushed the ticket too far and the propaganda and brainwashing are wearing thin.
Click to expand...

Yeah....the Segregationists were saying the same thing in the 1950s...and the misogynists in the 1970s.


----------



## Skylar

GreenBean said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> After scanning through the rather hysterical and bizarre rantings by homophobes about the age of consent- and their fascination with pedophiilia and feces and anuses- I can only come to the obvious conclusion.
> 
> Homophobes only raise these issues because they realize that Americans now want to treat homosexuals equally and fairly- and that pisses them off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think its an issue of legitimacy. One of the reasons that gays and lesbians are fighting for marriage rather than a 'separate but equal' civil union is that the civil union is unequal. With the recognition of marriage, their unions have the same legitimacy and validity as that of a straight union under the law.
> 
> And *that* is what I think pisses 'homophobes' off. I think most of them are willing to allow gays and lesbians to go about their business without molestation as long as they keep to themselves and know their proper place. And this, I would guess is considered a great act of tolerance and compassion by many of these folks.
> 
> But gays are getting 'uppity' in the estimation of many of 'homophobes', trying to portray their lives as valid and demanding their place in society as equals.
> 
> And worse, society is siding with the gays! For many, its an intolerable situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> society is siding with the gays!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Society" is not siding with the Gays - Big Brother is- and only because it suits their purpose -the masses are largely indifferent [a/k/a desensitized] - because that's how they've been conditioned
Click to expand...


Gallup says otherwise:



> Gallup: Support for Gay Marriage at All-Time High
> 
> Support for same-sex marriage has hit a new high, according to a recent Gallup poll. Fifty-five percent of survey respondents think gay marriages should be recognized by law as valid while 42 percent disagree.
> 
> Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/05/21/gallup_support_for_gay_marriage_at_all-time_high_122698.html



With many other polls showing similar results. And legally, the rights of gays and lesbians are expanding rapidly. With 36 of 50 States now recognizing gay marriage. 

You can ignore the polls and make up whatever conspiracy you wish. Gays and lesbians will keep on getting married, with support for gay marriage continuing to swell.


----------



## bodecea

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I reiterate - *Homosexuality and pedophilia ARE varying degrees of the same class of Dementia - Sexual Dysphoria*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what homophobic bigots keep trying to sell.
> 
> And that is why they endanger children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Pal  "Homophobic Bigots"  a/k/a  informed free thinkers are not the ones molesting Children - Perverts a/k/a LGBT are..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Been there & done that bitch - when you can demonstrate that you are able to comprehend the basic tenets of Mathematical theory - such as percentages and per capita perhaps I'll fly it by you again -in the mean time fkoff.
Click to expand...

I see you ignored my stats on 1 in 4 girls being sexually abused before 18.....I bet you blame that on gays too....instead of their fathers, their step-fathers, their other relatives and family friends.


----------



## GreenBean

bodecea said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I reiterate - *Homosexuality and pedophilia ARE varying degrees of the same class of Dementia - Sexual Dysphoria*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what homophobic bigots keep trying to sell.
> 
> And that is why they endanger children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Pal  "Homophobic Bigots"  a/k/a  informed free thinkers are not the ones molesting Children - Perverts a/k/a LGBT are..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Been there & done that bitch - when you can demonstrate that you are able to comprehend the basic tenets of Mathematical theory - such as percentages and per capita perhaps I'll fly it by you again -in the mean time fkoff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you ignored my stats on 1 in 4 girls being sexually abused before 18.....I bet you blame that on gays too....instead of their fathers, their step-fathers, their other relatives and family friends.
Click to expand...



It's been addressed in the past - which you have continuosly ignored - heteros are 95% of the population gay men are 2 to 3%  yet are responsible for about 35% of all child molestation - golly gee wilikers you slimy dike whore - you see something odd there -or perhaps you're like the majority of LGBT perverts and believ that children have a right to experience "inter-generational intimacy"  you rancid slimy dike bitch FK U


----------



## mdk

GreenBean said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> After scanning through the rather hysterical and bizarre rantings by homophobes about the age of consent- and their fascination with pedophiilia and feces and anuses- I can only come to the obvious conclusion.
> 
> Homophobes only raise these issues because they realize that Americans now want to treat homosexuals equally and fairly- and that pisses them off.
> 
> So they try to invoke 'protect the kids'- and try to whip up hysteria to equate homosexuals with pedophiles.
> 
> No matter how much such equations endangers children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again buddy boy -  Americans want to bitch smack the perverts back into the closet - They've pushed the ticket too far and the propaganda and brainwashing are wearing thin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah....the Segregationists were saying the same thing in the 1950s...and the misogynists in the 1970s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah the Democrats were saying that back in the 1950s and my people put them in line while you faggots were busy seeking out young meat
> 
> The misogynists ?  The true definition of a misogynist applies you munchie - you not a female simply because you have a **** - you're a slimy dike whore - you despise real females and femininity because it's something you can never be - you can never be REAL - you're just one confused fucked in the head freak of nature
Click to expand...


Please do not ever change. Every time you go off on one of your profanity laced tirades you lose more support from the very people you are trying to win over. The gay community thanks you for your service.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> After scanning through the rather hysterical and bizarre rantings by homophobes about the age of consent- and their fascination with pedophiilia and feces and anuses- I can only come to the obvious conclusion.
> 
> Homophobes only raise these issues because they realize that Americans now want to treat homosexuals equally and fairly- and that pisses them off.
> 
> So they try to invoke 'protect the kids'- and try to whip up hysteria to equate homosexuals with pedophiles.
> 
> No matter how much such equations endangers children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again buddy boy -  Americans want to bitch smack the perverts back into the closet - They've pushed the ticket too far and the propaganda and brainwashing are wearing thin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- bigots are the only ones who are upset that homosexuals are getting all uppity and no longer put up with you and your three buddies cruising around looking for some 100 lb fem looking boy that you could 'bitch smack' around without the cops interfering with your fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Whats a matter faggot - you got beat up alot as a kid ?  Perhaps if you'd keep your eyes off the other guys pecker when you in the locker room ........
Click to expand...


LOL- is that supposed to hurt me?

Unlike yourself- I am not threatened by others sexuality- and I am not the one obsessing about 'other guys pecker's- that would be you.

What i am saying is that bigots like you want to be able to 'bitch smack' homosexuals around- you want to get all liquored up, find an isolated small man who appears homosexual- so you can teach him not to be 'uppity'.

Your kind never targets the 6' 3" bear in the leather jacket- and never, ever, attempt to 'bitch smack' at less than 4 to one odds.


----------



## bodecea

GreenBean said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> After scanning through the rather hysterical and bizarre rantings by homophobes about the age of consent- and their fascination with pedophiilia and feces and anuses- I can only come to the obvious conclusion.
> 
> Homophobes only raise these issues because they realize that Americans now want to treat homosexuals equally and fairly- and that pisses them off.
> 
> So they try to invoke 'protect the kids'- and try to whip up hysteria to equate homosexuals with pedophiles.
> 
> No matter how much such equations endangers children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again buddy boy -  Americans want to bitch smack the perverts back into the closet - They've pushed the ticket too far and the propaganda and brainwashing are wearing thin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah....the Segregationists were saying the same thing in the 1950s...and the misogynists in the 1970s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah the Democrats were saying that back in the 1950s and my people put them in line while you faggots were busy seeking out young meat
> 
> The misogynists ?  The true definition of a misogynist applies you munchie - you not a female simply because you have a **** - you're a slimy dike whore - you despise real females and femininity because it's something you can never be - you can never be REAL - you're just one confused fucked in the head freak of nature
Click to expand...

Such a tough guy.....    Would you like a pat on the head and a cookie?


----------



## GreenBean

bodecea said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> After scanning through the rather hysterical and bizarre rantings by homophobes about the age of consent- and their fascination with pedophiilia and feces and anuses- I can only come to the obvious conclusion.
> 
> Homophobes only raise these issues because they realize that Americans now want to treat homosexuals equally and fairly- and that pisses them off.
> 
> So they try to invoke 'protect the kids'- and try to whip up hysteria to equate homosexuals with pedophiles.
> 
> No matter how much such equations endangers children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again buddy boy -  Americans want to bitch smack the perverts back into the closet - They've pushed the ticket too far and the propaganda and brainwashing are wearing thin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- bigots are the only ones who are upset that homosexuals are getting all uppity and no longer put up with you and your three buddies cruising around looking for some 100 lb fem looking boy that you could 'bitch smack' around without the cops interfering with your fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Whats a matter faggot - you got beat up alot as a kid ?  Perhaps if you'd keep your eyes off the other guys pecker when you in the locker room ........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, we got a tough guy here.     I remember a HS classmate who talked like you.  He "came out" finally.
Click to expand...



YOu still cant get away from that silly little worn old tactic can you ?  - well it makes sense that's about all you got going for you.  If I've posted this once I've posted 100X - the tactic you are trying so desperately to employ is known as Jamming -

The objective of jamming is to force opponents into silence by accusations of homophobia, latent homosexual tendencies and bigotry . The purpose being to create a social stigmatization of anyone whom opposes the Agenda. Jamming is to ridicule the opponent in the eyes of the world and to evoke the "pack mentality" . .......  

Jamming is basically psychological terrorism intended to silence expression of or support for any dissenting opinion.
Jamming employs the science of Direct Emotional Modeling and Associative Conditioning.

Jamming makes use of the rules of Associative Conditioning ... and Direct Emotional Modeling. [After The Ball pg. 152-53 ] the bigot ..made to believe ... that others will now despise him .[the]effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof ....

Gay Brainwashing Techniques


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> After scanning through the rather hysterical and bizarre rantings by homophobes about the age of consent- and their fascination with pedophiilia and feces and anuses- I can only come to the obvious conclusion.
> 
> Homophobes only raise these issues because they realize that Americans now want to treat homosexuals equally and fairly- and that pisses them off.
> 
> So they try to invoke 'protect the kids'- and try to whip up hysteria to equate homosexuals with pedophiles.
> 
> No matter how much such equations endangers children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again buddy boy -  Americans want to bitch smack the perverts back into the closet - They've pushed the ticket too far and the propaganda and brainwashing are wearing thin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- bigots are the only ones who are upset that homosexuals are getting all uppity and no longer put up with you and your three buddies cruising around looking for some 100 lb fem looking boy that you could 'bitch smack' around without the cops interfering with your fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Whats a matter faggot - you got beat up alot as a kid ?  Perhaps if you'd keep your eyes off the other guys pecker when you in the locker room ........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, we got a tough guy here.     I remember a HS classmate who talked like you.  He "came out" finally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The objective of jamming is to force opponents into silence by accusations of homophobia
Click to expand...


As opposed to the tactic of homophobic bigots to try to force opponents into silence by accusations of homosexuality- or more in particular in your case- an online pseudo Tourette's Syndrome of insults and implied threats along with a desire to physically harm homosexuals.


----------



## Syriusly

bodecea said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> After scanning through the rather hysterical and bizarre rantings by homophobes about the age of consent- and their fascination with pedophiilia and feces and anuses- I can only come to the obvious conclusion.
> 
> Homophobes only raise these issues because they realize that Americans now want to treat homosexuals equally and fairly- and that pisses them off.
> 
> So they try to invoke 'protect the kids'- and try to whip up hysteria to equate homosexuals with pedophiles.
> 
> No matter how much such equations endangers children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again buddy boy -  Americans want to bitch smack the perverts back into the closet - They've pushed the ticket too far and the propaganda and brainwashing are wearing thin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah....the Segregationists were saying the same thing in the 1950s...and the misogynists in the 1970s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah the Democrats were saying that back in the 1950s and my people put them in line while you faggots were busy seeking out young meat
> 
> The misogynists ?  The true definition of a misogynist applies you munchie - you not a female simply because you have a **** - you're a slimy dike whore - you despise real females and femininity because it's something you can never be - you can never be REAL - you're just one confused fucked in the head freak of nature
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such a tough guy.....    Would you like a pat on the head and a cookie?
Click to expand...


He just wants homosexuals to go back in the closet and stop being so uppity so they can be bitch smacked without anyone being arrested- leave the poor guy alone!


----------



## JakeStarkey

GreenBean is merely mouthy, no one would to worry about at all.

He talks that way because he knows his cause is lost.

It's over, and he will have to live with it until he dies.

Who cares?


----------



## Skylar

GreenBean said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is what homophobic bigots keep trying to sell.
> 
> And that is why they endanger children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Pal  "Homophobic Bigots"  a/k/a  informed free thinkers are not the ones molesting Children - Perverts a/k/a LGBT are..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Been there & done that bitch - when you can demonstrate that you are able to comprehend the basic tenets of Mathematical theory - such as percentages and per capita perhaps I'll fly it by you again -in the mean time fkoff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you ignored my stats on 1 in 4 girls being sexually abused before 18.....I bet you blame that on gays too....instead of their fathers, their step-fathers, their other relatives and family friends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's been addressed in the past - which you have continuosly ignored - heteros are 95% of the population gay men are 2 to 3%  yet are responsible for about 35% of all child molestation - golly gee wilikers you slimy dike whore - you see something odd there -or perhaps you're like the majority of LGBT perverts and believ that children have a right to experience "inter-generational intimacy"  you rancid slimy dike bitch FK U
Click to expand...


Save of course, that your numbers don't hold up. As when we look at the actual molesters, less than 1% are gay. With more than 99% self identifying as heterosexual. And 3 in 4 molesters of boys being heterosexual men that were in a heterosexual sexual relationship with the mother or female relative of the boy. And self identified as heterosexual. 

You ignore these facts. But you can't make us ignore them. Nor can you make your claims even make sense.

A man who is sexually attracted to women, in sexual relationships with women, who self identifies as heterosexual......_is a gay man?_

Laughing.....that's just silly.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> strawman
> 
> 
> 
> What is a "strawman" about actually doing something about your beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's his standard response to anything he finds too uncomfortable to answer...that and "begging the question".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman.
> 
> They are actually specific answers, if you don't know what they mean, google them.
> 
> They are the two primary tools in your belt, which is why you get them so often.  You say I said things I didn't say (strawman) like here where you ask me "what is a "strawman" about actually doing something about your beliefs?"  I never said that nor anything like it.  So I informed you specifically it was a strawman.
> 
> You also like to ignore my answer and repeat your question assuming the truth of your own position, which is begging the question.  Since I've already addressed it, I inform you of that by telling you that you begged the question, so if you want to go back and actually address my argument I'll give you more.
> 
> In both cases, you ignored what I actually said.  Then you whine I don't address your non-response.   You want an actual response from me?  Give me an actual response to my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aware of what they mean and I know why you use them. I agree, you've addressed everything. Now get out there and push your agenda. Picket those county clerks...we did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So my choices are to demonstrate or shut up.  I reject that as the crap that it is.  I think my strategy is far more effective, changing minds.  Not your mind, you are an ideologue, your intelligence is not in play.  But I get comments all the time from people that they always assumed that this or that had to be a government function because it is, and I had a valid point that maybe it didn't need to be.  That to me is a huge win every time it happens.
Click to expand...


I didn't say that either, Drama Queen. I'm simply _encouraging_ you. Geez, everything is a battle with you.


----------



## bodecea

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again buddy boy -  Americans want to bitch smack the perverts back into the closet - They've pushed the ticket too far and the propaganda and brainwashing are wearing thin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No- bigots are the only ones who are upset that homosexuals are getting all uppity and no longer put up with you and your three buddies cruising around looking for some 100 lb fem looking boy that you could 'bitch smack' around without the cops interfering with your fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Whats a matter faggot - you got beat up alot as a kid ?  Perhaps if you'd keep your eyes off the other guys pecker when you in the locker room ........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, we got a tough guy here.     I remember a HS classmate who talked like you.  He "came out" finally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The objective of jamming is to force opponents into silence by accusations of homophobia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As opposed to the tactic of homophobic bigots to try to force opponents into silence by accusations of homosexuality- or more in particular in your case- an online pseudo Tourette's Syndrome of insults and implied threats along with a desire to physically harm homosexuals.
Click to expand...


Ironically, with more and more gays coming out of the closet, that tactic no longer works.


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again?  this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a  self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for,  they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays DO have children...I've had five. Why are our families less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
> 
> Also, can you please name for us the state or locality that requires procreation in order to apply for a civil marriage license? Can you cite one instance of a civil marriage license being revoked due to the couple's inability or refusal to procreate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
Click to expand...


People deliberately enter into civil marriages all the time that have no intention of producing children. You want to deny gays civil marriage for a reason you would not deny it to straights. 

Do you want to take away our children?


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I adopted our daughter in order to protect my parental rights.  Why does ANYONE "need" to adopt children?  Answer than one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that you adopted your daughter because you fucked up. Is that right?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally incorrect.  She was lovingly planned by my wife and I.  She had her...I adopted her.  One of the best things in our lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's her father?  Whether you got sperm at a sperm bank or have a father that you keep out of the picture, one way or another you perverted the natural order to have your arrangement and delusion.  It was entirely a self centered act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So the millions of heterosexuals that use IVF and AI are "selfish" and "delusional" as well? Our children have two parents, which studies have shown provides the best outcomes for children, two *parents*.
> 
> Why did you have children? I'm going to bet you dollars to donuts that you did it for all the same reasons that gays have children. Do you want to take our children away from us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I married a woman, therefore setting into play a union that can bring children into the world. You deliberately set up a union that can't under any condition produce children naturally. The law should prohibited people like you from having children, deliberately depriving them of a father or a mother.
Click to expand...


 Good luck with that, Fascist.


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Mendacious admits defeat and runs away.
> 
> Marriage Equality will happen before fall nationwide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The USA has had marriage equality for years.  A union of two men or two women is not a marriage any more than a union of 6 men and 8 women is a marriage, or a union of a man and his horse is a marriage.
> 
> A marriage is one man and one woman----------always has been, always will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except it isn't legally...and never has been religiously. I attended a lesbian wedding at a Southern Baptist Church in 1986...long before any legal recognition.
> 
> 
> 20 years from now, Catholic Churches will be marrying gays, you watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually the Catholic Church has demonstrated it can remain true to its teachings impervious to the tide of popular trends. This isn't the first battle we've had with a depraved culture engrossed in homosexuality.
Click to expand...


Uh huh...that's why meat in Friday's are still a sin and un baptized babies are still in purgatory, right?


----------



## Skylar

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that you adopted your daughter because you fucked up. Is that right?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> Totally incorrect.  She was lovingly planned by my wife and I.  She had her...I adopted her.  One of the best things in our lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's her father?  Whether you got sperm at a sperm bank or have a father that you keep out of the picture, one way or another you perverted the natural order to have your arrangement and delusion.  It was entirely a self centered act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So the millions of heterosexuals that use IVF and AI are "selfish" and "delusional" as well? Our children have two parents, which studies have shown provides the best outcomes for children, two *parents*.
> 
> Why did you have children? I'm going to bet you dollars to donuts that you did it for all the same reasons that gays have children. Do you want to take our children away from us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I married a woman, therefore setting into play a union that can bring children into the world. You deliberately set up a union that can't under any condition produce children naturally. The law should prohibited people like you from having children, deliberately depriving them of a father or a mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck with that, Fascist.
Click to expand...


He also thinks blowjobs are an abomination. So consider the source.


----------



## Syriusly

Skylar said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Pal  "Homophobic Bigots"  a/k/a  informed free thinkers are not the ones molesting Children - Perverts a/k/a LGBT are..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Been there & done that bitch - when you can demonstrate that you are able to comprehend the basic tenets of Mathematical theory - such as percentages and per capita perhaps I'll fly it by you again -in the mean time fkoff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you ignored my stats on 1 in 4 girls being sexually abused before 18.....I bet you blame that on gays too....instead of their fathers, their step-fathers, their other relatives and family friends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's been addressed in the past - which you have continuosly ignored - heteros are 95% of the population gay men are 2 to 3%  yet are responsible for about 35% of all child molestation - golly gee wilikers you slimy dike whore - you see something odd there -or perhaps you're like the majority of LGBT perverts and believ that children have a right to experience "inter-generational intimacy"  you rancid slimy dike bitch FK U
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course, that your numbers don't hold up. As when we look at the actual molesters, less than 1% are gay. With more than 99% self identifying as heterosexual. And 3 in 4 molesters of boys being heterosexual men that were in a heterosexual sexual relationship with the mother or female relative of the boy. And self identified as heterosexual.
> 
> You ignore these facts. But you can't make us ignore them. Nor can you make your claims even make sense.
> 
> A man who is sexually attracted to women, in sexual relationships with women, who self identifies as heterosexual......_is a gay man?_
> 
> Laughing.....that's just silly.
Click to expand...


As an actual father of a daughter his posts- and posts like his from his homophobic fellow travellers piss me off.

The fact is that any girl is between 2 times and 10 times more likely to be molested than any boy.

All child molestation is horrible- but homophobic bigots only seem to notice that it happens to boys. 

My daughter is 2 to 10 times more likely to be molested than any random boy is- and the bigots just don't care whether molesters are out there molesting girls.

But where these bastards really endanger kids is by telling everyone it is the gays that parents should be scared of.

By doing that they encourage parents to think that openly  heterosexual macho icons like Jerry Sandusky- married and a father- are safe- since he isn't a homosexual- so they just dropped their boys off with him for a quick shower. 

Assholes like Greenbean put kids at risk by targetting homosexuals as child molesters. Every time they do that, they are giving a green light to parents that they have nothing to worry about from the boy scout leader as long as he is married and has kids.


----------



## bodecea

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Mendacious admits defeat and runs away.
> 
> Marriage Equality will happen before fall nationwide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The USA has had marriage equality for years.  A union of two men or two women is not a marriage any more than a union of 6 men and 8 women is a marriage, or a union of a man and his horse is a marriage.
> 
> A marriage is one man and one woman----------always has been, always will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except it isn't legally...and never has been religiously. I attended a lesbian wedding at a Southern Baptist Church in 1986...long before any legal recognition.
> 
> 
> 20 years from now, Catholic Churches will be marrying gays, you watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually the Catholic Church has demonstrated it can remain true to its teachings impervious to the tide of popular trends. This isn't the first battle we've had with a depraved culture engrossed in homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh...that's why meat in Friday's are still a sin and un baptized babies are still in purgatory, right?
Click to expand...

And Mass is still in Latin.


----------



## WorldWatcher

The Rabbi said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you said we are "only making rules for the general population".
> 
> Well "rules" are rules, either they apply or they don't.  If the rule is that you have to be able to procreate with the other member of the couple.  That's fine.  Apply the same rule equally.  On the other hand if there are exceptions to the rule for different-sex couples that can't procreate, then equal exceptions should be allowed for same-sex couples that can't procreate.  (Of course that means there really isn't a "rule" doesn't it.)
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> You are one stupid shit who cant read.  That much is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read just fine.  As demonstrated by your need to revert to personal insults when a point is logically refuted.
> 
> The point was a double-standard was to be applied.  Different-sex couples that cannot (or required not to) procreate are exempted from the "rule".  But the "rule" applies to same-sex couples barring them from the same Civil Marriage available to different-sex couples.
> 
> Clearly the application of a double-standard.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you read what you want.  I wrote the word "tend" specifically to foil moves like yours.  You didnt get the memo.  Get back to me when you understand the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you are attempting to apply a double-standard, whether you use the word "tend" or not is irrelevant.  Same-sex couples are raising children whether there is Civil Marriage available or not, but because they can't procreate together - they should be denied Civil Marriage.  Different-sex couples should be allowed to Civilly Marry with the ability to procreate together not being a factor and despite that for some couple they are required not to be able to procreate.
> 
> I understand the argument just fine.  A double-standard.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I stopped reading...
Click to expand...


"I stopped reading..." was really all you needed to say after the double-standard was made obvious.


>>>>


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Lilah said:


> What's with you and procreation?



The means by which the species is propagated?  I'm for it... where such is exercised with respect for and adherence to the natural principles that
Do you display such vigorous passion for say someone like Nadya Suleman, who has given birth to 14 children and is unable to care for them economically, as well as physically, mentally, and emotionally.  Would you personally be averse to having someone adopting her children if that's what she wanted?  Would you find it offensive if a couple adopted a child or children from a third-world country?
The sun produces energy, and all you're producing is stagnant hot air.[/QUOTE]


The Rabbi said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two women may not be able to have a child naturally without technological help....BUT that is no basis for legal discrimination.   See how simple that is?
> 
> 
> 
> It's not discrimination.  Two women can get married and have all the benefits the government confers, as long as they get married to two men.
> See how easy that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't exactly a very compelling legal argument. Which it is why it is being laughed out of most courtrooms across the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Argumentum ad populum fallacy!
> Rabbi rules!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I find your delusions of grandeur comical, it in no way changes the fact that your position is failing miserably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I point out your argument is a logical fallacy and Im the one failing?  No, dont think so.
Click to expand...




g5000 said:


> It is discrimination against gays, dufus.



Yes... it is.  That's what standards do.  They discriminate.  And FYI: Discrimination is an essential trait to human viability.  No discrimination, no humanity.  


But hey, Nature discriminates against the sexually abnormal all the time.  

Have ya heard of the HIV?  It's the virus that nature sets upon the Sexually abnormal, that causes AIDS.

Then there's the chronic STDs, the disproportionate instances of Urinary tract infections, etc etc... .

You gonna sue God to get JUSTICE? 


OH!  Here's a thought, stop shoving organs designed as an out-port, for penetration into in-ports ... into out ports.
Just because you 'feel' a desire to do so, doesn't mean ya should.  And that nature discriminates those who DO... odds are it's a really bad idea.  And this without regard to the popular whimsy, which says 'it's ok'. 

Because, nature says, it's not ok.


----------



## Skylar

> But Nature discriminates against the sexually abnormal all the time. Have ya heard of HIV? It's the virus that nature sets upon the Sexually abnormal, that causes AIDS.



You're aware that the majority of the victims of HIV.....are women, right? And those who have had heterosexual sex.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Where R My Keys simple asserts opinion as proof and then makes an appeal to emotion as well as an appeal to disease (HV) ignoring that the majority of victims are female who have heterosexual relations.

He has every right to what he thinks, but he is not effective in the slightest in arguing against marriage equality,


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> But Nature discriminates against the sexually abnormal all the time.  Have ya heard of HIV?  It's the virus that nature sets upon the Sexually abnormal, that causes AIDS..



You are such an idiot.

Before there was HIV, before there were anti-biotics- there was Syphillis.

Syphillis was HIV before the days of anti-biotics- a chronic, ultimately deadly STD, that had as a lovely side affect driving the sufferers crazy.

You would have loved it. 

Except the primary sufferers were straight. 

STD's affect humans who have sex.

Bigots like yourself applaud them when homosexuals are the sufferers.


----------



## Syriusly

Skylar said:


> But Nature discriminates against the sexually abnormal all the time. Have ya heard of HIV? It's the virus that nature sets upon the Sexually abnormal, that causes AIDS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're aware that the majority of the victims of HIV.....are women, right? And those who have had heterosexual sex.
Click to expand...


Bigots never care.

Bigots like him see AIDs as gods wrath on homosexuals- and ignore the inconvenient details like children dying from it.


----------



## Gadawg73

No one with a mind that is occupied productively gives a shit about gay folk getting married. Let them be miserable like the rest of us. Gay marriage is a real issue for the future of America. On my list of priorities I have moved it up from 173rd to 168th. As soon as we solve the other priorities we will get to the gay marriage issue. Until then we will follow The United States Constitution which does not mention marriage. Accordingly, it is legal for them to get a marriage license and marry who they legally fall in love with.


----------



## Gadawg73

If God wanted to unleash his wrath on homosexuals he never would have made them attracted to the same sex.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

WHERE_R_MY_KEYS SAID:

“But Nature discriminates against the sexually abnormal all the time. Have ya heard of HIV? It's the virus that nature sets upon the Sexually abnormal, that causes AIDS.”

As already correctly noted, you truly are an idiot.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Gadawg73 said:


> No one with a mind that is occupied productively gives a shit about gay folk getting married.



That is SO true.

Just as no one with a mind that is occupied productively, give a shit about people who can't accept Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.



Gadawg73 said:


> Gay marriage ...



 Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.




Gadawg73 said:


> gay marriage



Marriage... is the joining of one man and one woman.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one with a mind that is occupied productively gives a shit about gay folk getting married.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is SO true.
> 
> Just as no one with a mind that is occupied productively, give a shit about people who can't accept Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...


And you keep believing that. Meanwhile, gays and lesbians still get married every day throughout the country. Where same sex marriages are performed in 36 States, in recognized in 48. 

You get your beliefs. They get their rights and recognition.

Sounds like a win win to me.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> WHERE_R_MY_KEYS SAID:
> 
> “But Nature discriminates against the sexually abnormal all the time. Have ya heard of HIV? It's the virus that nature sets upon the Sexually abnormal, that causes AIDS.”
> As already correctly noted, you truly are an idiot.



LOL!  I SO adore the sweeter ironies.

Yes... lets pretend that anyone can contract HIV.  And that doing so without a homosexual in the mix, somewhere... the odds are non-existent. 

So once again, all one needs to do to believe the Left, is to suspend all sense of reality.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHERE_R_MY_KEYS SAID:
> 
> “But Nature discriminates against the sexually abnormal all the time. Have ya heard of HIV? It's the virus that nature sets upon the Sexually abnormal, that causes AIDS.”
> As already correctly noted, you truly are an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  I SO adore the sweeter ironies.
> 
> Yes... lets pretend that anyone can contract HIV.  And that doing so without a homosexual in the mix, somewhere... the odds are non-existent.
> 
> So once again, all one needs to do to believe the Left, is to suspend all sense of reality.
Click to expand...


In reality, most of those infected with HIV are women who contracted it through heterosexual sex. 

Before that the lethal STD was syphilis. Which was overwhelmingly contracted through heterosexual sex. 

So 'nature' hates heteros? Or do you just not have the slightest clue what you're talking about?


----------



## GreenBean

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHERE_R_MY_KEYS SAID:
> 
> “But Nature discriminates against the sexually abnormal all the time. Have ya heard of HIV? It's the virus that nature sets upon the Sexually abnormal, that causes AIDS.”
> As already correctly noted, you truly are an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  I SO adore the sweeter ironies.
> 
> Yes... lets pretend that anyone can contract HIV.  And that doing so without a homosexual in the mix, somewhere... the odds are non-existent.
> 
> So once again, all one needs to do to believe the Left, is to suspend all sense of reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In reality, most of those infected with HIV are women who contracted it through heterosexual sex.
> 
> Before that the lethal STD was syphilis. Which was overwhelmingly contracted through heterosexual sex.
> 
> So 'nature' hates heteros? Or do you just not have the slightest clue what you're talking about?
Click to expand...


Lame really Lame - clutching at straws and falsifying facts to suit your agenda or argument will not help you win a debate.



> most of those infected with HIV are women who contracted it through heterosexual sex.



That my friend is complete and absolute bullshit . Women only account for one in five new HIV diagnoses and deaths caused by AIDS.  Allthough Women are around least twice more likely to acquire HIV from men during sexual intercourse than vice versa only because they are the recipient of the body fluids.

Gay and bisexual men are more severely affected by HIV than any other group in the United States. Gay, bisexual,men who have sex with men (MSM)a represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, young gay and bisexual men (aged 13-24 years) *accounted for 72% of new HIV infections *
*
Get a Clue Cummy Bear*


----------



## GreenBean

JakeStarkey said:


> Where R My Keys simple asserts opinion as proof and then makes an appeal to emotion as well as an appeal to disease (HV) ignoring that the majority of victims are female who have heterosexual relations.
> 
> He has every right to what he thinks, but he is not effective in the slightest in arguing against marriage equality,




Once again you clowns demonstrate your propensity for slanting facts to suit your needs - the predominant mode trough which females contract HIV can be traced to sex with bisexual faggots.


----------



## GreenBean

bodecea said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No- bigots are the only ones who are upset that homosexuals are getting all uppity and no longer put up with you and your three buddies cruising around looking for some 100 lb fem looking boy that you could 'bitch smack' around without the cops interfering with your fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whats a matter faggot - you got beat up alot as a kid ?  Perhaps if you'd keep your eyes off the other guys pecker when you in the locker room ........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, we got a tough guy here.     I remember a HS classmate who talked like you.  He "came out" finally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The objective of jamming is to force opponents into silence by accusations of homophobia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As opposed to the tactic of homophobic bigots to try to force opponents into silence by accusations of homosexuality- or more in particular in your case- an online pseudo Tourette's Syndrome of insults and implied threats along with a desire to physically harm homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironically, with more and more gays coming out of the closet, that tactic no longer works.
Click to expand...





> .... implied threats along with a desire to physically harm homosexuals.



Such as ....


----------



## Skylar

GreenBean said:


> Lame really Lame - clutching at straws and falsifying facts to suit your agenda or argument will not help you win a debate.



Notice how you don't actually disagree with any specific point. Or refute anything I've offered. You just offer a uselessly vague insinuation that doesn't actually say anything.

Lame. Really lame.

Try again. This time with a reasoned, rational argument.



> "most of those infected with HIV are women who contracted it through heterosexual sex."
> 
> That my friend is complete and absolute bullshit .



Except that it isn't.



> According to the latest (2008) WHO and UNAIDS global estimates, women comprise 50% of people living with HIV.
> 
> WHO Gender inequalities and HIV



Remember, Green.....you have no idea what you're talking about. You're willfully uninformed. You don't want to know what's happening. You want what you already believe. And any source that doesn't say what you believe.....you ignore. On any topic.

And the world doesn't magically change to match whatever hapless bullshit you believe. You're allowing your irrational hatred to blind you. And that only makes your silly nonsense easier to refute.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whats a matter faggot - you got beat up alot as a kid ?  Perhaps if you'd keep your eyes off the other guys pecker when you in the locker room ........
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, we got a tough guy here.     I remember a HS classmate who talked like you.  He "came out" finally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The objective of jamming is to force opponents into silence by accusations of homophobia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As opposed to the tactic of homophobic bigots to try to force opponents into silence by accusations of homosexuality- or more in particular in your case- an online pseudo Tourette's Syndrome of insults and implied threats along with a desire to physically harm homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironically, with more and more gays coming out of the closet, that tactic no longer works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .... implied threats along with a desire to physically harm homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such as ....
Click to expand...


Glad to repost your post:

GreenBean:    _Americans want to bitch smack the perverts back into the closet_

*The only 'American' suggesting assaulting homosexuals would be you. 

Because you think gays are too uppity. *


----------



## Skylar

GreenBean said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where R My Keys simple asserts opinion as proof and then makes an appeal to emotion as well as an appeal to disease (HV) ignoring that the majority of victims are female who have heterosexual relations.
> 
> He has every right to what he thinks, but he is not effective in the slightest in arguing against marriage equality,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you clowns demonstrate your propensity for slanting facts to suit your needs - the predominant mode trough which females contract HIV can be traced to sex with bisexual faggots.
Click to expand...


There were only 40,100 new cases of HIV in the whole world? Really?


> There were 2.3 million new HIV infections
> [1.9 million–2.7 million] in 2012
> 
> http://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/JC2571_AIDS_by_the_numbers_en_1.pdf



*So you're off by about 2.25 million new infections. *How do you account for the wild disparity between your numbers and reality, as you've somehow  failed to take into account 98.3% of all new infections? Is it possible that you're only citing HIV infections in ONE COUNTRY rather than the entire world?

Do you acknowledge that the stats you offered above don't represent the actual HIV infection patterns around the world? Or shall we chock this up to you once again ignoring anything that doesn't ape what you want to believe?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Have you noticed lately the GreenBeans have been getting pretty uppity lately?   Them homosexuals have em all atwitter.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

GreenBean said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where R My Keys simple asserts opinion as proof and then makes an appeal to emotion as well as an appeal to disease (HV) ignoring that the majority of victims are female who have heterosexual relations.
> 
> He has every right to what he thinks, but he is not effective in the slightest in arguing against marriage equality,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you clowns demonstrate your propensity for slanting facts to suit your needs - the predominant mode trough which females contract HIV can be traced to sex with bisexual faggots.
Click to expand...


And why do women contract the HIV?

Sharing needles with homosexual men, and/or anal intercourse with bi-sexual; which is to say homosexual men, er uh... 'males', as it were and of course... being lucky enough to be a downstream recipient of blood from a homosexual donor.

As noted earlier, absent a homosexual being in the mix somewhere... there is no HIV.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Of course THAT is only ONE way that homosexuality; which is to say Sexual Abnormality threatens the rights of others.

That their perverse reasoning threatens the children, is the truly unforgivable, inalterable threat to others.  And why in every culture that accepts it, such merely represents as 'one of the last truly stupid things a culture did, before it evaporated into the ether of history, and the homosexual problem was packed back up onto the top shelf and toward the back of the closet, relegated back to 'TABOO'... .


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where R My Keys simple asserts opinion as proof and then makes an appeal to emotion as well as an appeal to disease (HV) ignoring that the majority of victims are female who have heterosexual relations.
> 
> He has every right to what he thinks, but he is not effective in the slightest in arguing against marriage equality,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you clowns demonstrate your propensity for slanting facts to suit your needs - the predominant mode trough which females contract HIV can be traced to sex with bisexual faggots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why do women contract the HIV?
> 
> Sharing needles with homosexual men, and/or anal intercourse with bi-sexual; which is to say homosexual men, er uh... 'males', as it were and of course... being lucky enough to be a downstream recipient of blood from a homosexual donor.
> 
> As noted earlier, absent a homosexual being in the mix somewhere... there is no HIV.
Click to expand...


Gay women have the lowest incidence of HIV of all.  You gonna sing our praises next?


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Of course THAT is only ONE way that homosexuality; which is to say Sexual Abnormality threatens the rights of others.
> 
> That their perverse reasoning threatens the children, is the truly unforgivable, inalterable threat to others.  And why in every culture that accepts it, such merely represents as 'one of the last truly stupid things a culture did, before it evaporated into the ether of history, and the homosexual problem was packed back up onto the top shelf and toward the back of the closet, relegated back to 'TABOO'... .


The most dangerous person to a young child is his/her own hetero father, step-father, other male family member or family friend.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

bodecea said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where R My Keys simple asserts opinion as proof and then makes an appeal to emotion as well as an appeal to disease (HV) ignoring that the majority of victims are female who have heterosexual relations.
> 
> He has every right to what he thinks, but he is not effective in the slightest in arguing against marriage equality,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you clowns demonstrate your propensity for slanting facts to suit your needs - the predominant mode trough which females contract HIV can be traced to sex with bisexual faggots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why do women contract the HIV?
> 
> Sharing needles with homosexual men, and/or anal intercourse with bi-sexual; which is to say homosexual men, er uh... 'males', as it were and of course... being lucky enough to be a downstream recipient of blood from a homosexual donor.
> 
> As noted earlier, absent a homosexual being in the mix somewhere... there is no HIV.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gay women have the lowest incidence of HIV of all.  You gonna sing our praises next?
Click to expand...


Well, that serves reason, as homosexual women, are the least likely to be having anal intercourse with homosexual men.

Add to that, that homosexual women are among the rarest things on earth... representing an insignificant percentage of the population, you people are the least likely to be doing anything, except munchin' carpet.  In that you truly set yourself apart from the pack, as a group.

The only people who do more of it, are heterosexual men, _*which is why we're better at it than you are.*_


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

bodecea said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course THAT is only ONE way that homosexuality; which is to say Sexual Abnormality threatens the rights of others.
> 
> That their perverse reasoning threatens the children, is the truly unforgivable, inalterable threat to others.  And why in every culture that accepts it, such merely represents as 'one of the last truly stupid things a culture did, before it evaporated into the ether of history, and the homosexual problem was packed back up onto the top shelf and toward the back of the closet, relegated back to 'TABOO'... .
> 
> 
> 
> The most dangerous person to a young child is his/her own hetero father, step-father, other male family member or family friend.
Click to expand...


No... that's not true.  As such a person would be a sexually abnormal individual and not hetero-sexual.  

But otherwise, yes... Sexually Abnormal people should never be allowed to participate in ANY activity where children are present, and such is never more critical than there the Sexually Abnormal individual would be in a position of authority or influence of over a child.

On that we agree... .


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> As noted earlier, absent a homosexual being in the mix somewhere... there is no HIV.



The  homophobic revisionist history is bizarre to watch.


----------



## bodecea

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> As noted earlier, absent a homosexual being in the mix somewhere... there is no HIV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The  homophobic revisionist history is bizarre to watch.
Click to expand...

They have to deceive themselves somehow to justify their hate of their fellow citizens.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> No... that's not true.  As such a person would be a sexually abnormal individual and not hetero-sexual.



See, that's the rub. The  majority of abuse is done by self identifying heterosexual men, who are sexually attracted to women, who are engaged in a heterosexual relationship with the child's mother or other female relative. To such an extent that a* child is more than 100 times more likely to be abused by a heterosexual man dating their mother or other female relative.....than a homosexual.*

Yet your focus is on the homosexuals? Your focus doesn't 'serve reserve'. As it doesn't make the slightest sense. Its actually worse than useless, as the primary predatory group of children is virtually ignored by you.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where R My Keys simple asserts opinion as proof and then makes an appeal to emotion as well as an appeal to disease (HV) ignoring that the majority of victims are female who have heterosexual relations.
> 
> He has every right to what he thinks, but he is not effective in the slightest in arguing against marriage equality,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you clowns demonstrate your propensity for slanting facts to suit your needs - the predominant mode trough which females contract HIV can be traced to sex with bisexual faggots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why do women contract the HIV?
> 
> Sharing needles with homosexual men, and/or anal intercourse with bi-sexual; which is to say homosexual men, er uh... 'males', as it were and of course... being lucky enough to be a downstream recipient of blood from a homosexual donor.
> 
> As noted earlier, absent a homosexual being in the mix somewhere... there is no HIV.
Click to expand...


No, that would be having sex with heterosexual men. With the overwhelming majority of all HIV cases being heterosexuals. 

So....god hates heteros? Or is that nature? Your 'Appeals to Authority' all start to run together.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Overall,


Syriusly said:


> As noted earlier, absent a homosexual being in the mix somewhere... there is no HIV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The  homophobic revisionist history is bizarre to watch.
Click to expand...


Revisionist?  

LOL! NOooo...   It's an irrefutable fact: If there is no homosexual, somewhere in the mix, there is no chance of contracting the HIV.  None, Zero ... Nada.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Overall,
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As noted earlier, absent a homosexual being in the mix somewhere... there is no HIV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The  homophobic revisionist history is bizarre to watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Revisionist?
> 
> LOL! NOooo...   It's an irrefutable fact: If there is no homosexual, somewhere in the mix, there is no chance of contracting the HIV.  None, Zero ... Nada.
Click to expand...


Says who? While I'm sure you consider any opinion you carry to be an 'irrefutable fact'. But you citing you doesn't amount to much. 

So what else have you got?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where R My Keys simple asserts opinion as proof and then makes an appeal to emotion as well as an appeal to disease (HV) ignoring that the majority of victims are female who have heterosexual relations.
> 
> He has every right to what he thinks, but he is not effective in the slightest in arguing against marriage equality,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you clowns demonstrate your propensity for slanting facts to suit your needs - the predominant mode trough which females contract HIV can be traced to sex with bisexual faggots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why do women contract the HIV?
> 
> Sharing needles with homosexual men, and/or anal intercourse with bi-sexual; which is to say homosexual men, er uh... 'males', as it were and of course... being lucky enough to be a downstream recipient of blood from a homosexual donor.
> 
> As noted earlier, absent a homosexual being in the mix somewhere... there is no HIV.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that would be having sex with heterosexual men. With the overwhelming majority of all HIV cases being heterosexuals.
Click to expand...


There has never been a documented case of a heterosexual man having ever contracted HIV, except where the Heterosexual male shared a needle with a homosexual or was given blood tainted by a homosexual.

Now African males (males actually living in Africa, not the faux variation living elsewhere, who've never set foot upon the continent...) are the most likely to have the HIV.

And how did they contract it?  Having anal sex with other African Males, OR... having sex with woman, who had sex with an African male, who had had anal sex with another african male.  Ya see scamp... in Africa, so dumbass started a rumor that if you are a male who fornicates with another male, you can STILL REMAIN 'a man' as long as you're the pitcher and not the catcher.

That dumbass was of course dead wrong... and we can rest assured he's long since dead, having likely contracted the HIV shortly after he came up with the colossal misnomer.  Which should have been a serious clue that he was wrong, but sadly, African Males aren't actually noted for their 'long game' thinkin', which in a wicked twist of irony, is also a problematic trait among homosexuals everywhere; which AGAIN: *is a serious clue. * But let's test it... and see if it sticks?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Says who?



Says reality, which is a good, close personal friend of sound reason... so, well... you know, they're the same one's that note that Sexual Abnormality is a clear and present threat to Children and THAT is why humanity has always forbidden it.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says who?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says reality, which is a good, close personal friend of sound reason... so, well... you know, they're the same one's that note that Sexual Abnormality is a clear and present threat to Children and THAT is why, is why humanity has always forbidden it.
Click to expand...


You're not citing 'reality'. You're citing yourself. And you have no idea what you're talking about.

So can you cite a source that does? Show us. Don't tell us. If its 'irrefutable truth', it will be remarkably easy for you to do so.

If you're again talking out of your ass about a topic you clearly not sufficiently informed about to comment intelligently, you'll give us excuses.

Pick which.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Where R My Keys loves to be his own authority.

Disease, needles, drugs, AIDS, HiV are equal opportunity, Where R My Keys, little buddy, not just gays and lesbians.

The logic of number blows up your attempt to limit your argument to gays and lesbians, which you have not quantified and qualified, much less created a ratio of straights to gays in terms of addiction and damage.

Ask "WJ" if it wants me to write for them, because you are simply pitiful.


----------



## Skylar

JakeStarkey said:


> Where R My Keys loves to be his own authority.
> 
> Disease, needles, drugs, AIDS, HiV are equal opportunity, Where R My Keys, little buddy, not just gays and lesbians.
> 
> The logic of number blows up your attempt to limit your argument to gays and lesbians, which you have not quantified and qualified, much less created a ratio of straights to gays in terms of addiction and damage.
> 
> Ask "WJ" if it wants me to write for them, because you are simply pitiful.




Its fascinating, isn't it? I've never met a poster who so desperately leans on themselves as an infallible authority of whatever they believe. I once had Keyes ignore me because I didn't accept his personal religious faith as objective truth. He literally couldn't handle someone not accepting his FEELINGS as defining reality objectively.

You can't teach that.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course THAT is only ONE way that homosexuality; which is to say Sexual Abnormality threatens the rights of others.
> 
> That their perverse reasoning threatens the children, is the truly unforgivable, inalterable threat to others.  And why in every culture that accepts it, such merely represents as 'one of the last truly stupid things a culture did, before it evaporated into the ether of history, and the homosexual problem was packed back up onto the top shelf and toward the back of the closet, relegated back to 'TABOO'... .
> 
> 
> 
> The most dangerous person to a young child is his/her own hetero father, step-father, other male family member or family friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... that's not true.  As such a person would be a sexually abnormal individual and not hetero-sexual.
> 
> But otherwise, yes... Sexually Abnormal people should never be allowed to participate in ANY activity where children are present, and such is never more critical than there the Sexually Abnormal individual would be in a position of authority or influence of over a child.
> 
> On that we agree... .
Click to expand...


Revisionism by Where R My Keys is pathetic.

Heterosexual males should never be permitted any interaction with female children since they are OVERWHELMINGLY the perpretators of adult on child abuse.

"WJ" is considering dumping Where R My Keys as a contributor: well thought out!


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Overall,
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As noted earlier, absent a homosexual being in the mix somewhere... there is no HIV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The  homophobic revisionist history is bizarre to watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Revisionist?
> 
> LOL! NOooo...   It's an irrefutable fact: If there is no homosexual, somewhere in the mix, there is no chance of contracting the HIV.  None, Zero ... Nada.
Click to expand...


'irrefutable'!



Origin of HIV AIDS AVERT


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> [Q, but sadly, African Males aren't actually noted for their 'long game' thinkin',



Who here is shocked to find out that Keys is not only a homophobe but also a racist?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says who?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says reality, which is a good, close personal friend of sound reason... so, well... you know, they're the same one's that note that Sexual Abnormality is a clear and present threat to Children and THAT is why, is why humanity has always forbidden it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not citing 'reality'. You're citing yourself.
Click to expand...

  I'm citing sound reason.  Now YOU may feel that 'normal people' exchange dirty needles with other people, or to enter the rectum of multiple parties, or allow multiple parties to enter their rectum... but, in truth, they don't.  


And since THAT is how HIV is contracted... it's not something to which normal people are subjected, EXCEPT where, they either have sex with someone who had sex with a homosexual or they are subject to blood which was tainted by the above noted deviants.

You can cry that you feel VERY STRONGLY that such is not true... but in reality (as cited above) normal people have NO CHANCE of contracting the HIV.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q, but sadly, African Males aren't actually noted for their 'long game' thinkin',
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who here is shocked to find out that Keys is not only a homophobe but also a racist?
Click to expand...


So "TRUTH" is racist homophobia?  

Only in _"The Far-Side"_.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> I'm citing sound reason.



You're not citing reason either. You're citing yourself. *And you don't know what you're talking about. *

While you may consider anything you make up to be irrefutable truth, you citing yourself doesn't amount to much.


> Now YOU may feel that 'normal people' exchange dirty needles with other people, or to enter the rectum of multiple parties, or allow multiple parties to enter their rectum... but, in truth, they don't.



And yet the majority of HIV cases are women. And they acquired the illness through heterosexual sex. Unless you're arguing that heterosexual women aren't 'normal people', then again....*you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.*



> And since THAT is how HIV is contracted... it's not something to which normal people are subjected, EXCEPT where, they either have sex with someone who had sex with a homosexual or they are subject to blood which was tainted by the above noted deviants.



Says you, citing you. And you're nobody. Back in reality, the overwhelming majority of HIV is transmitted through heterosexual sex. From men who caught it from women. And women who caught it from men. You say this isn't possible. The millions of heterosexual men and women being infected say otherwise.

Remember, and this point is fundamental:* You're straight up clueless. *That you lack the capacity to tell the difference between any random opinion you may hold and 'irrefutable truth' only emphasizes this point.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Where R My Keys cites himself as the authority.

He is homophobic.

He is racists.

He is a fool.

He will be easy to play with from her on out since his melt down.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm citing sound reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not citing reason either.
Click to expand...


Golly, if denying sound reason is reasonable, were a valid defense, MAN!  Would THAT be a wonderful point.

Sadly, it's not.  

Normal people do not make others bleed in the course of sex... nor do the share needles which they've used to get high... both of which is EXTREMELY COMMON among the sexually abnormal.  Which further serves reason, given that sexual abnormality is the result of a perversion of human reasoning, which ted toward removing any priority on the part of those saddled with the mental disorder, to observe soundly reasoned standards of behavior, which often causes them to behave in ways which injure other people, with little concern for the harm they cause others.  

See how it all fits?  It's a progression in reason which utilizes the laws of cause and effect, which those who suffer from the aforementioned perversion of reasoning, like to refer to as "circular reasoning".   But in your defense, ya only do so because you're cognitive limitations preclude you from the means to reason, soundly.  

Such stems from a disorder OKA: Relativism.

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.

It is through this deviation in reason that relativism axiomatically rejects the *objectivity* which is essential to truth.  

And with truth being essential to trust and, _both of those_ being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality, and because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's with you and procreation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The means by which the species is propagated?  I'm for it... where such is exercised with respect for and adherence to the natural principles that
> Do you display such vigorous passion for say someone like Nadya Suleman, who has given birth to 14 children and is unable to care for them economically, as well as physically, mentally, and emotionally.  Would you personally be averse to having someone adopting her children if that's what she wanted?  Would you find it offensive if a couple adopted a child or children from a third-world country?
> The sun produces energy, and all you're producing is stagnant hot air.
Click to expand...




The Rabbi said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not discrimination.  Two women can get married and have all the benefits the government confers, as long as they get married to two men.
> See how easy that is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't exactly a very compelling legal argument. Which it is why it is being laughed out of most courtrooms across the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Argumentum ad populum fallacy!
> Rabbi rules!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I find your delusions of grandeur comical, it in no way changes the fact that your position is failing miserably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I point out your argument is a logical fallacy and Im the one failing?  No, dont think so.
Click to expand...




g5000 said:


> It is discrimination against gays, dufus.



Yes... it is.  That's what standards do.  They discriminate.  And FYI: Discrimination is an essential trait to human viability.  No discrimination, no humanity. 


But hey, Nature discriminates against the sexually abnormal all the time. 

Have ya heard of the HIV?  It's the virus that nature sets upon the Sexually abnormal, that causes AIDS.

Then there's the chronic STDs, the disproportionate instances of Urinary tract infections, etc etc... .

You gonna sue God to get JUSTICE?


OH!  Here's a thought, stop shoving organs designed as an out-port, for penetration into in-ports ... into out ports.
Just because you 'feel' a desire to do so, doesn't mean ya should.  And that nature discriminates those who DO... odds are it's a really bad idea.  And this without regard to the popular whimsy, which says 'it's ok'.

Because, nature says, it's not ok.[/QUOTE]

Ryan White was a teenage boy who acquired AIDS from a blood transfusion and later died.  He was expelled from school when he was diagnosed.  Do you believe NATURE was cruel to him?  Or was society cruel to him?  Or was God cruel to him?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

And FTR: there is no such thing as 'Homophobe'.  The word literally means: _An irrational fear of self.
_
The word is a device which the user hopes to cow their opposition.  It's the 20th century equivalent of the 18th century: 'Reactionary'.  The same mental disorder that twisted 'reaction' into an invalid rationalization, has done the same for many words ("Gay, Liberal, Progress, Progressive, Hate, Racism", etc...) which they need to use deceitfully, as a fraudulent means to influence the ignorant.

But hey... that is what one should reasonably expect from evil.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Lilah said:


> Ryan White was a teenage boy who acquired AIDS from a blood transfusion and later died.  He was expelled from school when he was diagnosed.  Do you believe NATURE was cruel to him?  Or was society cruel to him?  Or was God cruel to him?



I know that the deviant who infected his blood was cruel to him... but such is the nature of the sociopath.  They suffer from a mental disorder, which rationalizes that their own subjective needs rise in priority over any other consideration... and injustices such as that surrounding Ryan White, are the inevitable consequences of Relativism, OKA: Left-think, AKA: Social Justice, Liberalism, Progressivism and any number of other deceitfulyl applied terms to re-label _*Old Testament Evil.*_


----------



## Lilah

[/QUOTE]



There has never been a documented case of a heterosexual man having ever contracted HIV, except where the Heterosexual male shared a needle with a homosexual or was given blood tainted by a homosexual.

Now African males (males actually living in Africa, not the faux variation living elsewhere, who've never set foot upon the continent...) are the most likely to have the HIV.

And how did they contract it?  Having anal sex with other African Males, OR... having sex with woman, who had sex with an African male, who had had anal sex with another african male.  Ya see scamp... in Africa, so dumbass started a rumor that if you are a male who fornicates with another male, you can STILL REMAIN 'a man' as long as you're the pitcher and not the catcher.

That dumbass was of course dead wrong... and we can rest assured he's long since dead, having likely contracted the HIV shortly after he came up with the colossal misnomer.  Which should have been a serious clue that he was wrong, but sadly, African Males aren't actually noted for their 'long game' thinkin', which in a wicked twist of irony, is also a problematic trait among homosexuals everywhere; which AGAIN: *is a serious clue. * But let's test it... and see if it sticks?[/QUOTE]

Have you notified Magic Johnson of your findings?  He'll probably be astounded to find out that he's gay.


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan White was a teenage boy who acquired AIDS from a blood transfusion and later died.  He was expelled from school when he was diagnosed.  Do you believe NATURE was cruel to him?  Or was society cruel to him?  Or was God cruel to him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the deviant who infected his blood was cruel to him... but such is the nature of the sociopath.  They suffer from a mental disorder, which rationalizes that their own subjective needs rise in priority over any other consideration... and injustices such as that surrounding Ryan White, are the inevitable consequences of Relativism, OKA: Left-think, AKA: Social Justice, Liberalism, Progressivism and any number of other deceitfulyl applied terms to re-label _*Old Testament Evil.*_
Click to expand...


Who was the sociopath?  Was it the blood technician whose job it was to test the blood?


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says who?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says reality, which is a good, close personal friend of sound reason... so, well... you know, they're the same one's that note that Sexual Abnormality is a clear and present threat to Children and THAT is why, is why humanity has always forbidden it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not citing 'reality'. You're citing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm citing sound reason.
Click to expand...


You have never posted a post with 'sound reason' involved.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> And FTR: there is no such thing as 'Homophobe'.  The word literally means: _An irrational fear of self._.



Homophobes hate being called what they are
Meriam Webster
*ho·mo·phobe*
_noun_\-ˌfōb\
*: a person who hates or is afraid of homosexuals or treats them badly*

Applies to you.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Lilah said:


> Have you notified Magic Johnson of your findings?  He'll probably be astounded to find out that he's gay.



Who said Magic Johnson was gay?  To the best of my knowledge he has not admitted to such.

He has admitted to being powerless over his sexual behavior, thus *he is a sexual deviant*... .  He has also admitted to being infected with the HIV, which is how we can know to an absolute certainty that he has either received blood that was tainted by a_ homosexual_, shared a needle with *a sexual deviant* or he has had sex with someone who had sex with_* a sexual deviant *_or suffered a combo... . 

MAN!  If there were just SOME WAY to understand where THE PROBLEM is... if we could just find SOME sort of trend; some discernible pattern... SOMETHING that we could use as a means to avoid contracting the HIV.

Except for the whole thing where such is limited to those who have contact with sexual deviants or the misfortune to receive blood tainted by sexual deviants, of course.


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you notified Magic Johnson of your findings?  He'll probably be astounded to find out that he's gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said Magic Johnson was gay?  To the best of my knowledge he has not admitted to such.
> 
> He has admitted to being powerless over his sexual behavior, thus *he is a sexual deviant*... .  He has also admitted to being infected with the HIV, which is how we can know to an absolute certainty that he has received blood that was tainted by a_ homosexual_, shared a needle with *a sexual deviant* or has had sex with someone who had sex with* a sexual deviant.*
> 
> MAN!  If there were just SOME WAY to understand where THE PROBLEM is... if we could just find SOME sort of trend; some discernible pattern... SOMETHING that we could use as a means to avoid contracting the HIV.
> 
> Except for the whole thing where such is limited to those who have contact with sexual deviants or the misfortune to receive blood tainted by sexual deviants, of course.
Click to expand...


*"There has never been a documented case of a heterosexual man having ever contracted HIV, except where the Heterosexual male shared a needle with a homosexual or was given blood tainted by a homosexual."*  You wrote this, and according to Magic Johnson's confession, he did neither of these, which would, according to you, make him gay.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Golly, if denying sound reason is reasonable, were a valid defense, MAN!  Would THAT be a wonderful point.



Alas, the only thing you're citing is yourself. You've ignored evidence that explicitly contradicts you and made assertions that you can't back up factually or rationally.

Neither of which has a thing to do with reason. Again, you may consider any opinion you hold to be irrefutable truth. But you citing you doesn't amount to much. As you're insufficiently informed on this topic to comment on it intelligently. You merely have an opinion. And an uninformed one at that.



> Normal people do not make others bleed in the course of sex... nor do the share needles which they've used to get high... both of which is EXTREMELY COMMON among the sexually abnormal.



Says you. And you're clueless.



> Biologically, women are more likely to become infected with HIV through unprotected heterosexual intercourse than men
> 
> See more at: Women and HIV AIDS AVERT



Remember, you don't know what you're talking about. So your assumptions on how HIV are transmitted are insufficient;



> Certain body fluids from an HIV-infected person can transmit HIV.
> 
> These body fluids are:
> 
> Blood
> Semen (cum)
> Pre-seminal fluid (pre-cum)
> Rectal fluids
> Vaginal fluids
> Breast milk
> *These body fluids must come into contact with a mucous membrane* or damaged tissue or be directly injected into your bloodstream (by a needle or syringe) for transmission to possibly occur. Mucous membranes are the soft, moist areas just inside the openings to your body. *They can be found inside the rectum, the vagina or the opening of the penis, and the mouth.
> *
> How Do You Get HIV or AIDS



You insist that this is impossible. Demonstrating yet again that *you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. * Heterosexual sex remains the largest method of transmission of HIV, hands down. Almost all HIV worldwide is transmitted via heterosexual sex. With women making up a majority of the cases of HIV.



> "According to the latest (2008) WHO and UNAIDS global estimates, women comprise 50% of people living with HIV"
> 
> Gender, women and health
> World Health Organization
> 
> WHO Gender inequalities and HIV



With the rate of new infections among women being staggering:



> Every hour 50 young women are newly infected with HIV
> 
> UNAIDS 2013 | AIDS by the numbers
> 
> Sidebar, pg 7
> http://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/JC2571_AIDS_by_the_numbers_en_1.pdf



With the most relevant factor in whether or not they are infected being if they are victims of violence.

How do you account for the majority of HIV infections being among women, and those women overwhelmingly getting HIV through heterosexual sex?

You don't. You ignore the facts and pretend they don't exist. But why would a rational person ignore what you do? Especially when your only source is yourself...and you're straight up clueless?

There is no reason.


----------



## Skylar

Lilah said:


> *"There has never been a documented case of a heterosexual man having ever contracted HIV, except where the Heterosexual male shared a needle with a homosexual or was given blood tainted by a homosexual."*  You wrote this, and according to Magic Johnson's confession, he did neither of these, which would, according to you, make him gay.




Keyes just makes shit up. He doesn't actually have the slightest clue what he's talking about.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Lilah said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan White was a teenage boy who acquired AIDS from a blood transfusion and later died.  He was expelled from school when he was diagnosed.  Do you believe NATURE was cruel to him?  Or was society cruel to him?  Or was God cruel to him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the deviant who infected his blood was cruel to him... but such is the nature of the sociopath.  They suffer from a mental disorder, which rationalizes that their own subjective needs rise in priority over any other consideration... and injustices such as that surrounding Ryan White, are the inevitable consequences of Relativism, OKA: Left-think, AKA: Social Justice, Liberalism, Progressivism and any number of other deceitfulyl applied terms to re-label _*Old Testament Evil.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who was the sociopath?  Was it the blood technician whose job it was to test the blood?
Click to expand...


So you don't know who the sociopath was, in a scenario wherein, a person who rejected all sense of sexual propriety, came to be infected with a deadly virus, passed that virus onto innocent people who by their very nature NEEDED blood to survive?

Let's see if this helps: 

Sociopathy:  _a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience._


----------



## JakeStarkey

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says who?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says reality, which is a good, close personal friend of sound reason... so, well... you know, they're the same one's that note that Sexual Abnormality is a clear and present threat to Children and THAT is why, is why humanity has always forbidden it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not citing 'reality'. You're citing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm citing sound reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have never posted a post with 'sound reason' involved.
Click to expand...


Keys, you are not accepted as any sort of authority.

And to cite yourself as an appeal to authority is absurd.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Lilah said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you notified Magic Johnson of your findings?  He'll probably be astounded to find out that he's gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said Magic Johnson was gay?  To the best of my knowledge he has not admitted to such.
> 
> He has admitted to being powerless over his sexual behavior, thus *he is a sexual deviant*... .  He has also admitted to being infected with the HIV, which is how we can know to an absolute certainty that he has received blood that was tainted by a_ homosexual_, shared a needle with *a sexual deviant* or has had sex with someone who had sex with* a sexual deviant.*
> 
> MAN!  If there were just SOME WAY to understand where THE PROBLEM is... if we could just find SOME sort of trend; some discernible pattern... SOMETHING that we could use as a means to avoid contracting the HIV.
> 
> Except for the whole thing where such is limited to those who have contact with sexual deviants or the misfortune to receive blood tainted by sexual deviants, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"There has never been a documented case of a heterosexual man having ever contracted HIV, except where the Heterosexual male shared a needle with a homosexual or was given blood tainted by a homosexual."*  You wrote this, and according to Magic Johnson's confession, he did neither of these, which would, according to you, make him gay.
Click to expand...


Yep... I wrote that.  

I also wrote this: _"Who said Magic Johnson was gay? To the best of my knowledge he has not admitted to such.

He has admitted to being powerless over his sexual behavior, thus *he is a sexual deviant*... . He has also admitted to being infected with the HIV, which is how we can know to an absolute certainty that he has either received blood that was tainted by a homosexual, shared a needle with *a sexual deviant* or he has had sex with someone who had sex with* a sexual deviant *or suffered a combo... . 

MAN! If there were just SOME WAY to understand where THE PROBLEM is... if we could just find SOME sort of trend; some discernible pattern... SOMETHING that we could use as a means to avoid contracting the HIV.

Except for the whole thing where such is limited to those who have contact with sexual deviants or the misfortune to receive blood tainted by sexual deviants, of course."
_
You clearly 'feel' that there's some inconsistency there... .   

Would ya be so kind as to point out where such might be the case?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Keys is merely a homophobic and racist deviant.

Nothing can be done to save him.


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan White was a teenage boy who acquired AIDS from a blood transfusion and later died.  He was expelled from school when he was diagnosed.  Do you believe NATURE was cruel to him?  Or was society cruel to him?  Or was God cruel to him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the deviant who infected his blood was cruel to him... but such is the nature of the sociopath.  They suffer from a mental disorder, which rationalizes that their own subjective needs rise in priority over any other consideration... and injustices such as that surrounding Ryan White, are the inevitable consequences of Relativism, OKA: Left-think, AKA: Social Justice, Liberalism, Progressivism and any number of other deceitfulyl applied terms to re-label _*Old Testament Evil.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who was the sociopath?  Was it the blood technician whose job it was to test the blood?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't know who the sociopath was, in a scenario wherein, a person who rejected all sense of sexual propriety, came to be infected with a deadly virus, passed that virus onto innocent people who by their very nature NEEDED blood to survive?
> 
> Let's see if this helps:
> 
> Sociopathy:  _a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience._
Click to expand...


Please explain why the blood wasn't tested.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> _*...the most relevant factor in whether or not they are infected being if they are victims of violence.*_



     

ROFLMNAO!

LOL!  

LMAO!  So... 

LOL!  You're saying... that "Violence against women" is the #1 means of transmitting the HIV?

ROFLMAO!

You're concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"There has never been a documented case of a heterosexual man having ever contracted HIV, except where the Heterosexual male shared a needle with a homosexual or was given blood tainted by a homosexual."*  You wrote this, and according to Magic Johnson's confession, he did neither of these, which would, according to you, make him gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep... I wrote that.
Click to expand...


Yeah, you wrote it. And you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Remember, your source on the 'never been a documented case' is you. Citing you. Which is meaningless. 



> He has admitted to being powerless over his sexual behavior, thus he is a sexual deviant... . He has also admitted to being infected with the HIV, which is how we can know to an absolute certainty that he has either received blood that was tainted by a homosexual, shared a needle with a sexual deviant or he has had sex with someone who had sex with a sexual deviant or suffered a combo... .



So your claim about 'never been a documented case' is meaningless gibberish? As you're now giving us caveats, exceptions and excuses for why that might not be the case. And 'never been' doesn't mix well with exceptions. 

I don't think 'never' means what you think it means.


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you notified Magic Johnson of your findings?  He'll probably be astounded to find out that he's gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said Magic Johnson was gay?  To the best of my knowledge he has not admitted to such.
> 
> He has admitted to being powerless over his sexual behavior, thus *he is a sexual deviant*... .  He has also admitted to being infected with the HIV, which is how we can know to an absolute certainty that he has received blood that was tainted by a_ homosexual_, shared a needle with *a sexual deviant* or has had sex with someone who had sex with* a sexual deviant.*
> 
> MAN!  If there were just SOME WAY to understand where THE PROBLEM is... if we could just find SOME sort of trend; some discernible pattern... SOMETHING that we could use as a means to avoid contracting the HIV.
> 
> Except for the whole thing where such is limited to those who have contact with sexual deviants or the misfortune to receive blood tainted by sexual deviants, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"There has never been a documented case of a heterosexual man having ever contracted HIV, except where the Heterosexual male shared a needle with a homosexual or was given blood tainted by a homosexual."*  You wrote this, and according to Magic Johnson's confession, he did neither of these, which would, according to you, make him gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep... I wrote that.
> 
> I also wrote this: _"Who said Magic Johnson was gay? To the best of my knowledge he has not admitted to such.
> 
> He has admitted to being powerless over his sexual behavior, thus *he is a sexual deviant*... . He has also admitted to being infected with the HIV, which is how we can know to an absolute certainty that he has either received blood that was tainted by a homosexual, shared a needle with *a sexual deviant* or he has had sex with someone who had sex with* a sexual deviant *or suffered a combo... .
> 
> MAN! If there were just SOME WAY to understand where THE PROBLEM is... if we could just find SOME sort of trend; some discernible pattern... SOMETHING that we could use as a means to avoid contracting the HIV.
> 
> Except for the whole thing where such is limited to those who have contact with sexual deviants or the misfortune to receive blood tainted by sexual deviants, of course."
> _
> You clearly 'feel' that there's some inconsistency there... .
> 
> Would ya be so kind as to point out where such might be the case?
Click to expand...


Your closed-minded viewpoint is peppered with  inconsistencies, as well as judgmental hypocrisy.  You have zero tolerance for human beings whose views differ from yours.  You are quick to serve up heaping ladles of cruelty, all in the name of self-righteousness and bigotry.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*...the most relevant factor in whether or not they are infected being if they are victims of violence.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LMAO!  So...
> 
> LOL!  You're saying... that "Violence against women" is the #1 means of transmitting the HIV?
> 
> ROFLMAO!
> 
> You're concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
Click to expand...


No. I'm saying that if they are subject to violence, their odds of being infected with HIV jump 50%. 

Laughing....and as always, when your silly claims are dismantled with better reasoning, better logic, and vastly better sources, you give us your tell: bizarre summary declarations of victory. Its your white flag.

Your claims that there has 'never been a documented case of a heterosexual man having ever contracted HIV, except where the Heterosexual male shared a needle with a homosexual or was given blood tainted by a homosexual" was proven useless idiocy. As your backpedalling demonstrated so elegantly.

Your claim that normal sex can't transmit HIV was disproven, as HIV can permeate mucous membranes in the vagina and penis. Both of which exist in normal sex. Something you insist is impossible. And yet another demonstration that you have no idea what you're talking about.

And you're still desperately running from the fact that the majority of those infected by HIV are women. And that the overwhelming majority of the transmission of HIV is through heterosexual sex.  Facts that contradict you. So you ignore. 

Remember, Keys......you have no idea what you're talking about. And your claims have nothing to do with 'sound reason'.


----------



## Skylar

Lilah said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you notified Magic Johnson of your findings?  He'll probably be astounded to find out that he's gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said Magic Johnson was gay?  To the best of my knowledge he has not admitted to such.
> 
> He has admitted to being powerless over his sexual behavior, thus *he is a sexual deviant*... .  He has also admitted to being infected with the HIV, which is how we can know to an absolute certainty that he has received blood that was tainted by a_ homosexual_, shared a needle with *a sexual deviant* or has had sex with someone who had sex with* a sexual deviant.*
> 
> MAN!  If there were just SOME WAY to understand where THE PROBLEM is... if we could just find SOME sort of trend; some discernible pattern... SOMETHING that we could use as a means to avoid contracting the HIV.
> 
> Except for the whole thing where such is limited to those who have contact with sexual deviants or the misfortune to receive blood tainted by sexual deviants, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"There has never been a documented case of a heterosexual man having ever contracted HIV, except where the Heterosexual male shared a needle with a homosexual or was given blood tainted by a homosexual."*  You wrote this, and according to Magic Johnson's confession, he did neither of these, which would, according to you, make him gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep... I wrote that.
> 
> I also wrote this: _"Who said Magic Johnson was gay? To the best of my knowledge he has not admitted to such.
> 
> He has admitted to being powerless over his sexual behavior, thus *he is a sexual deviant*... . He has also admitted to being infected with the HIV, which is how we can know to an absolute certainty that he has either received blood that was tainted by a homosexual, shared a needle with *a sexual deviant* or he has had sex with someone who had sex with* a sexual deviant *or suffered a combo... .
> 
> MAN! If there were just SOME WAY to understand where THE PROBLEM is... if we could just find SOME sort of trend; some discernible pattern... SOMETHING that we could use as a means to avoid contracting the HIV.
> 
> Except for the whole thing where such is limited to those who have contact with sexual deviants or the misfortune to receive blood tainted by sexual deviants, of course."
> _
> You clearly 'feel' that there's some inconsistency there... .
> 
> Would ya be so kind as to point out where such might be the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your closed-minded viewpoint is peppered with  inconsistencies, as well as judgmental hypocrisy.  You have zero tolerance for human beings whose views differ from yours.  You are quick to serve up heaping ladles of cruelty, all in the name of self-righteousness and bigotry.
Click to expand...


That's about as astute a 3 sentence summary of Keyes as I've seen. Though he's also very fond of fallacies of logic. Big ones.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Lilah said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you notified Magic Johnson of your findings?  He'll probably be astounded to find out that he's gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said Magic Johnson was gay?  To the best of my knowledge he has not admitted to such.
> 
> He has admitted to being powerless over his sexual behavior, thus *he is a sexual deviant*... .  He has also admitted to being infected with the HIV, which is how we can know to an absolute certainty that he has received blood that was tainted by a_ homosexual_, shared a needle with *a sexual deviant* or has had sex with someone who had sex with* a sexual deviant.*
> 
> MAN!  If there were just SOME WAY to understand where THE PROBLEM is... if we could just find SOME sort of trend; some discernible pattern... SOMETHING that we could use as a means to avoid contracting the HIV.
> 
> Except for the whole thing where such is limited to those who have contact with sexual deviants or the misfortune to receive blood tainted by sexual deviants, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"There has never been a documented case of a heterosexual man having ever contracted HIV, except where the Heterosexual male shared a needle with a homosexual or was given blood tainted by a homosexual."*  You wrote this, and according to Magic Johnson's confession, he did neither of these, which would, according to you, make him gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep... I wrote that.
> 
> I also wrote this: _"Who said Magic Johnson was gay? To the best of my knowledge he has not admitted to such.
> 
> He has admitted to being powerless over his sexual behavior, thus *he is a sexual deviant*... . He has also admitted to being infected with the HIV, which is how we can know to an absolute certainty that he has either received blood that was tainted by a homosexual, shared a needle with *a sexual deviant* or he has had sex with someone who had sex with* a sexual deviant *or suffered a combo... .
> 
> MAN! If there were just SOME WAY to understand where THE PROBLEM is... if we could just find SOME sort of trend; some discernible pattern... SOMETHING that we could use as a means to avoid contracting the HIV.
> 
> Except for the whole thing where such is limited to those who have contact with sexual deviants or the misfortune to receive blood tainted by sexual deviants, of course."
> _
> You clearly 'feel' that there's some inconsistency there... .
> 
> Would ya be so kind as to point out where such might be the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your closed-minded viewpoint is peppered with  inconsistencies, as well as judgmental hypocrisy.  You have zero tolerance for human beings whose views differ from yours.  You are quick to serve up heaping ladles of cruelty, all in the name of self-righteousness and bigotry.
Click to expand...


Is it?

And you're saying that you know that my 'viewpoint' is inconsistent... but you're unable to specify what these inconsistencies are? 

I hate to pile on here... but, THAT viewpoint, is 'inconsistent'.

Specifically, you advance an emphatic assertion, wherein you claim to have specific knowledge, then when asked to simply advance that knowledge... ya fail to do so.

See how that works?

OH!  And I would be remiss if I did not point out that YOU are demonstrating bigotry... 

Here, allow me to educate you: 

Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

Now... ya may need to look at your behavior here, to help you understand that your intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from yourself, defines you as a bigot.


----------



## Skylar

JakeStarkey said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says who?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says reality, which is a good, close personal friend of sound reason... so, well... you know, they're the same one's that note that Sexual Abnormality is a clear and present threat to Children and THAT is why, is why humanity has always forbidden it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not citing 'reality'. You're citing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm citing sound reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have never posted a post with 'sound reason' involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keys, you are not accepted as any sort of authority.
> 
> And to cite yourself as an appeal to authority is absurd.
Click to expand...


Absurd. But funny!


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> And you're saying that you know that my 'viewpoint' is inconsistent... but you're unable to specify what these inconsistencies are?



Huh? If you pulled that out of her statement, you might as well open your reply with 'once upon a time'.

You made statements that were *factually inaccurate*, citing yourself as the source. Not minor issues either. You were off by millions and millions of HIV infections. 

You were wrong about normal sex not being able to transmit HIV. Again, citing yourself.

You've demonstrated to us with your blunders that your source is unreliable and inaccurate. Rendering any further citations of yourself as an expert meaningless, as you don't know what you're talking about. 

Do you have anything other than your personal opinion to offer here?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*...the most relevant factor in whether or not they are infected being if they are victims of violence.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LMAO!  So...
> 
> LOL!  You're saying... that "Violence against women" is the #1 means of transmitting the HIV?
> 
> ROFLMAO!
> 
> You're concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. I'm saying that if they are subject to violence, their odds of being infected with HIV jump 50%.
Click to expand...



Well that makes sense... more homo-blood coupled with more open wounds, more opportunities for infection.  Same goes for the transmission of any virus, or poison.  Ya see scamp the epidermis serves as a means to protect the body from foreign organisms, whose existence is hostile to the viability of the body.

And I agree with you, catty homos are intolerable when they get violent.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Huh? If you pulled that out of her statement, you might as well open your reply with 'once upon a time'.



Really?

Here's what I said:



			
				me said:
			
		

> Would ya be so kind as to point out where [my argument's inconsistencies] might be ..?



Then she said:



			
				her said:
			
		

> Your closed-minded viewpoint is peppered with  inconsistencies, as well as judgmental hypocrisy.  You have zero tolerance for human beings whose views differ from yours.  You are quick to serve up heaping ladles of cruelty, all in the name of self-righteousness and bigotry.



Than I said:


			
				me said:
			
		

> Is it?
> 
> And you're saying that you know that my 'viewpoint' is inconsistent... but you're unable to specify what these inconsistencies are?
> 
> I hate to pile on here... but, THAT viewpoint, is 'inconsistent'.
> 
> Specifically, you advance an emphatic assertion, wherein you claim to have specific knowledge, then when asked to simply advance that knowledge... ya fail to do so.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> OH! And I would be remiss if I did not point out that YOU are demonstrating bigotry...
> 
> Here, allow me to educate you:
> 
> Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
> 
> Now... ya may need to look at your behavior here, to help you understand that your intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from yourself, defines you as a bigot.



Then you said...



Skylar said:


> Huh? If you pulled that out of her statement, you might as well open your reply with 'once upon a time'.



ROFLMNAO!

This is too easy...

I tell ya, if it turns out that you idiots are a pack of 4th graders, this is really gonna be embarrassing for you.   But the 2nd graders are going to laugh their asses off.  So, I guess that is going to make it alright....


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

But at the end of the day, setting their propensity for contracting deadly viruses... Homosexuality is a direct threat to children.  

And that is why we cannot allow threats to children become culturally normalized.


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you notified Magic Johnson of your findings?  He'll probably be astounded to find out that he's gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said Magic Johnson was gay?  To the best of my knowledge he has not admitted to such.
> 
> He has admitted to being powerless over his sexual behavior, thus *he is a sexual deviant*... .  He has also admitted to being infected with the HIV, which is how we can know to an absolute certainty that he has received blood that was tainted by a_ homosexual_, shared a needle with *a sexual deviant* or has had sex with someone who had sex with* a sexual deviant.*
> 
> MAN!  If there were just SOME WAY to understand where THE PROBLEM is... if we could just find SOME sort of trend; some discernible pattern... SOMETHING that we could use as a means to avoid contracting the HIV.
> 
> Except for the whole thing where such is limited to those who have contact with sexual deviants or the misfortune to receive blood tainted by sexual deviants, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"There has never been a documented case of a heterosexual man having ever contracted HIV, except where the Heterosexual male shared a needle with a homosexual or was given blood tainted by a homosexual."*  You wrote this, and according to Magic Johnson's confession, he did neither of these, which would, according to you, make him gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep... I wrote that.
> 
> I also wrote this: _"Who said Magic Johnson was gay? To the best of my knowledge he has not admitted to such.
> 
> He has admitted to being powerless over his sexual behavior, thus *he is a sexual deviant*... . He has also admitted to being infected with the HIV, which is how we can know to an absolute certainty that he has either received blood that was tainted by a homosexual, shared a needle with *a sexual deviant* or he has had sex with someone who had sex with* a sexual deviant *or suffered a combo... .
> 
> MAN! If there were just SOME WAY to understand where THE PROBLEM is... if we could just find SOME sort of trend; some discernible pattern... SOMETHING that we could use as a means to avoid contracting the HIV.
> 
> Except for the whole thing where such is limited to those who have contact with sexual deviants or the misfortune to receive blood tainted by sexual deviants, of course."
> _
> You clearly 'feel' that there's some inconsistency there... .
> 
> Would ya be so kind as to point out where such might be the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your closed-minded viewpoint is peppered with  inconsistencies, as well as judgmental hypocrisy.  You have zero tolerance for human beings whose views differ from yours.  You are quick to serve up heaping ladles of cruelty, all in the name of self-righteousness and bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it?
> 
> And you're saying that you know that my 'viewpoint' is inconsistent... but you're unable to specify what these inconsistencies are?
> 
> I hate to pile on here... but, THAT viewpoint, is 'inconsistent'.
> 
> Specifically, you advance an emphatic assertion, wherein you claim to have specific knowledge, then when asked to simply advance that knowledge... ya fail to do so.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> OH!  And I would be remiss if I did not point out that YOU are demonstrating bigotry...
> 
> Here, allow me to educate you:
> 
> Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
> 
> Now... ya may need to look at your behavior here, to help you understand that your intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from yourself, defines you as a bigot.
Click to expand...


*"Specifically, you advance an emphatic assertion, wherein you claim to have specific knowledge, then when asked to simply advance that knowledge... ya fail to do so."  *
I would suggest you learn how to be conversant with others.  Most of what you try to articulate is nonsense.  Wherein did I claim to have specific knowledge?  I do claim to have common sense.


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> But at the end of the day, setting their propensity for contracting deadly viruses... Homosexuality is a direct threat to children.
> 
> And that is why we cannot allow threats to children become culturally normalized.



Your propensity for tomfoolery, in my opinion, is a direct threat to children because you are invoking fear; not education.


----------



## Skylar

Lilah said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> But at the end of the day, setting their propensity for contracting deadly viruses... Homosexuality is a direct threat to children.
> 
> And that is why we cannot allow threats to children become culturally normalized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your propensity for tomfoolery, in my opinion, is a direct threat to children because you are invoking fear; not education.
Click to expand...


Its far worse than that. A child is more than 100 times more likely to be abused by a heterosexual man in a relationship with their mother or other close female relative than a homosexual. But Keys and his ilk are focused with virtual exclusivity on homosexuals.

Which leaves the predator that is more than 100 times more likely to molest a child ignored by their ilk. Talk about letting the fox into the chicken coop.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Lilah said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said Magic Johnson was gay?  To the best of my knowledge he has not admitted to such.
> 
> He has admitted to being powerless over his sexual behavior, thus *he is a sexual deviant*... .  He has also admitted to being infected with the HIV, which is how we can know to an absolute certainty that he has received blood that was tainted by a_ homosexual_, shared a needle with *a sexual deviant* or has had sex with someone who had sex with* a sexual deviant.*
> 
> MAN!  If there were just SOME WAY to understand where THE PROBLEM is... if we could just find SOME sort of trend; some discernible pattern... SOMETHING that we could use as a means to avoid contracting the HIV.
> 
> Except for the whole thing where such is limited to those who have contact with sexual deviants or the misfortune to receive blood tainted by sexual deviants, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"There has never been a documented case of a heterosexual man having ever contracted HIV, except where the Heterosexual male shared a needle with a homosexual or was given blood tainted by a homosexual."*  You wrote this, and according to Magic Johnson's confession, he did neither of these, which would, according to you, make him gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep... I wrote that.
> 
> I also wrote this: _"Who said Magic Johnson was gay? To the best of my knowledge he has not admitted to such.
> 
> He has admitted to being powerless over his sexual behavior, thus *he is a sexual deviant*... . He has also admitted to being infected with the HIV, which is how we can know to an absolute certainty that he has either received blood that was tainted by a homosexual, shared a needle with *a sexual deviant* or he has had sex with someone who had sex with* a sexual deviant *or suffered a combo... .
> 
> MAN! If there were just SOME WAY to understand where THE PROBLEM is... if we could just find SOME sort of trend; some discernible pattern... SOMETHING that we could use as a means to avoid contracting the HIV.
> 
> Except for the whole thing where such is limited to those who have contact with sexual deviants or the misfortune to receive blood tainted by sexual deviants, of course."
> _
> You clearly 'feel' that there's some inconsistency there... .
> 
> Would ya be so kind as to point out where such might be the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your closed-minded viewpoint is peppered with  inconsistencies, as well as judgmental hypocrisy.  You have zero tolerance for human beings whose views differ from yours.  You are quick to serve up heaping ladles of cruelty, all in the name of self-righteousness and bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it?
> 
> And you're saying that you know that my 'viewpoint' is inconsistent... but you're unable to specify what these inconsistencies are?
> 
> I hate to pile on here... but, THAT viewpoint, is 'inconsistent'.
> 
> Specifically, you advance an emphatic assertion, wherein you claim to have specific knowledge, then when asked to simply advance that knowledge... ya fail to do so.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> OH!  And I would be remiss if I did not point out that YOU are demonstrating bigotry...
> 
> Here, allow me to educate you:
> 
> Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
> 
> Now... ya may need to look at your behavior here, to help you understand that your intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from yourself, defines you as a bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"Specifically, you advance an emphatic assertion, wherein you claim to have specific knowledge, then when asked to simply advance that knowledge... ya fail to do so."  *
> I would suggest you learn how to be conversant with others.  Most of what you try to articulate is nonsense.  Wherein did I claim to have specific knowledge?  I do claim to have common sense.
Click to expand...


Thank you for your suggestion.  And in the spirit of conversant comity, I will suggest you learn to advance only those things which you've some means to support... (That means quit being such a ditz.  Women don't need the the additional pressure, shug... .)


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Well that makes sense... more homo-blood coupled with more open wounds, more opportunities for infection.  Same goes for the transmission of any virus, or poison.  Ya see scamp the epidermis serves as a means to protect the body from foreign organisms, whose existence is hostile to the viability of the body.
> 
> And I agree with you, catty homos are intolerable when they get violent.



But again, you're clueless. As HIV can permeate mucus membranes. You don't need open wounds to transmit HIV. You need infected bodily fluid and a mucous membrane. 


> Certain body fluids from an HIV-infected person can transmit HIV.
> 
> These body fluids are:
> 
> Blood, Semen (cum), Pre-seminal fluid (pre-cum), Rectal fluids, Vaginal fluids, Breast milk
> *These body fluids must come into contact with a mucous membrane* or damaged tissue or be directly injected into your bloodstream (by a needle or syringe) for transmission to possibly occur. Mucous membranes are the soft, moist areas just inside the openings to your body. *They can be found inside the rectum, the vagina or the opening of the penis, and the mouth.
> 
> How Do You Get HIV or AIDS*



Remember, you have no idea what you're talking about. Its a fact that we certainly haven't forgotten.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Lilah said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> But at the end of the day, setting their propensity for contracting deadly viruses... Homosexuality is a direct threat to children.
> 
> And that is why we cannot allow threats to children become culturally normalized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your propensity for tomfoolery, in my opinion, is a direct threat to children because you are invoking fear; not education.
Click to expand...


Yes... tomfoolery, which you need to mean: holding idiots accountable for their unfounded reasoning...  and you feel that THAT is a greater threat to children, than adults whose perverse reasoning rejects the soundly reasoned standard which forbid them from pursuing children to satisfy their own subjective sexual _'needs'_.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> This is too easy...



She said your argument includes inconsistencies. Which, of course, it does. You claim that "There has never been a documented case of a heterosexual man having ever contracted HIV, except where the Heterosexual male shared a needle with a homosexual or was given blood tainted by a homosexual."

But when presented with examples of a man that has never had sex with another man nor shared a needle.....you backpedal. You gave us exceptoins, exemptoins, caveats and excuses. Your argument is inconsistent, factually baseless, and shockingly ignorant of the methods of HIV transmission. 

You still can't assimilate the fact that most HIV cases are women. And almost all HIV is transmitted through heterosexual sex. You simply ignore these facts and refuse to discuss the topic. 

And as you always do, *you've abandoned your entire argument, treating your claims like the trash that it is.* If even YOU are going to toss your assertions on the rhetorical midden heap like so much garbage, surely you can understand if we treat your claims the same way.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> But again, you're clueless. As HIV can permeate mucus membranes.



Which would tend to point toward the foolishness of allowing those who succumb to perverse reasoning, wherein the rationalize around soundly reasoned standards of sexual propriety to access one's mucus.

I join with your assertion that there is NEVER a good reason to tolerate perverse reasoning which rationalizes around soundly reasoned sexual proprieties.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is too easy...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She said your argument includes inconsistencies.
Click to expand...


Yes she did...

She was then asked to cite, in specific terms, what those inconsistencies are... whereupon she failed to cite any inconsistencies. 

But, in fairness... she did demonstrate that she's a bigot, so she has that goin' for her.

Thank you for pointing that out!  It's good to have ya on Team Keys!


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"There has never been a documented case of a heterosexual man having ever contracted HIV, except where the Heterosexual male shared a needle with a homosexual or was given blood tainted by a homosexual."*  You wrote this, and according to Magic Johnson's confession, he did neither of these, which would, according to you, make him gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep... I wrote that.
> 
> I also wrote this: _"Who said Magic Johnson was gay? To the best of my knowledge he has not admitted to such.
> 
> He has admitted to being powerless over his sexual behavior, thus *he is a sexual deviant*... . He has also admitted to being infected with the HIV, which is how we can know to an absolute certainty that he has either received blood that was tainted by a homosexual, shared a needle with *a sexual deviant* or he has had sex with someone who had sex with* a sexual deviant *or suffered a combo... .
> 
> MAN! If there were just SOME WAY to understand where THE PROBLEM is... if we could just find SOME sort of trend; some discernible pattern... SOMETHING that we could use as a means to avoid contracting the HIV.
> 
> Except for the whole thing where such is limited to those who have contact with sexual deviants or the misfortune to receive blood tainted by sexual deviants, of course."
> _
> You clearly 'feel' that there's some inconsistency there... .
> 
> Would ya be so kind as to point out where such might be the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your closed-minded viewpoint is peppered with  inconsistencies, as well as judgmental hypocrisy.  You have zero tolerance for human beings whose views differ from yours.  You are quick to serve up heaping ladles of cruelty, all in the name of self-righteousness and bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it?
> 
> And you're saying that you know that my 'viewpoint' is inconsistent... but you're unable to specify what these inconsistencies are?
> 
> I hate to pile on here... but, THAT viewpoint, is 'inconsistent'.
> 
> Specifically, you advance an emphatic assertion, wherein you claim to have specific knowledge, then when asked to simply advance that knowledge... ya fail to do so.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> OH!  And I would be remiss if I did not point out that YOU are demonstrating bigotry...
> 
> Here, allow me to educate you:
> 
> Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
> 
> Now... ya may need to look at your behavior here, to help you understand that your intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from yourself, defines you as a bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"Specifically, you advance an emphatic assertion, wherein you claim to have specific knowledge, then when asked to simply advance that knowledge... ya fail to do so."  *
> I would suggest you learn how to be conversant with others.  Most of what you try to articulate is nonsense.  Wherein did I claim to have specific knowledge?  I do claim to have common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for your suggestion.  And in the spirit of conversant comity, I will suggest you learn to advance only those things which you've some means to support... (That means quit being such a ditz.  Women don't need the the additional pressure, shug... .)
Click to expand...


I'm well supported, whereas you .... well, you fell to the ground.  Please correct your sentence:  "And in the spirit of conversant comity."
And please cease from using ad hominem attacks as they make you seem immature; unable to grasp reality.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Lilah said:


> I'm well supported,... .



Good for you sweety!  It's good that you have support, as you're clearly in need of it.

I could not be happier for you.


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> But at the end of the day, setting their propensity for contracting deadly viruses... Homosexuality is a direct threat to children.
> 
> And that is why we cannot allow threats to children become culturally normalized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your propensity for tomfoolery, in my opinion, is a direct threat to children because you are invoking fear; not education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes... tomfoolery, which you need to mean: holding idiots accountable for their unfounded reasoning...  and you feel that THAT is a greater threat to children, than adults whose perverse reasoning rejects the soundly reasoned standard which forbid them from pursuing children to satisfy their own subjective sexual _'needs'_.
Click to expand...


Perverts are a threat and children, as well as adults, should be educated about their grooming techniques, etc.  Fear-mongering should also be emphasized as ignorance.


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm well supported,... .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you sweety!  It's good that you have support, as you're clearly in need of it.
> 
> I could not be happier for you.
Click to expand...


I doubt you experience happy moments, other than when you are spewing third-degree burns onto those you deem inferior.


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> But again, you're clueless. As HIV can permeate mucus membranes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which would tend to point toward the foolishness of allowing those who succumb to perverse reasoning, wherein the rationalize around soundly reasoned standards of sexual propriety to access one's mucus.
> 
> I join with your assertion that there is NEVER a good reason to tolerate perverse reasoning which rationalizes around soundly reasoned sexual proprieties.
Click to expand...


Darlin, learn to construct a sentence.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Yes she did...



She was far more discerning in the inconsistencies in your argument than you are. As even when your gross inconsistencies, your comic blunders and the laughable inaccuracies of your claims have been explained to you slowly, and in detail....

*.....you still can't bring yourself to acknowledge they exist or discuss them in any way. *You've absolutely fled from your obtusely inaccurately claim that "There has never been a documented case of a heterosexual man having ever contracted HIV, except where the Heterosexual male shared a needle with a homosexual or was given blood tainted by a homosexual."

When pressed with better reasoning and evidence, you gave us exceptions, exemptions, caveats and excuses....*before running from it entirely. *Your argument is inconsistent, factually baseless, and shockingly ignorant of the methods of HIV transmission.

You still can't assimilate the fact that most HIV cases are women. And almost all HIV is transmitted through heterosexual sex. You simply ignore these facts and refuse to discuss the topic.

If your arguments have merit, you wouldn't have had to abandon them. *Laughing...is there any claim I can't run you off of?*


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

But, we should not lose sight of the fact that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a direct threat to our children.

And that is why we can never allow sexual abnormality to be seen as normal... because sexual deviants threaten the health and welfare of children.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

There's no such thing as "gay" or "homosexual."

It's called: Feral&fel fecal fornicating faggot fellatio-fiend.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Lilah said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> But again, you're clueless. As HIV can permeate mucus membranes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which would tend to point toward the foolishness of allowing those who succumb to perverse reasoning, wherein the rationalize around soundly reasoned standards of sexual propriety to access one's mucus.
> 
> I join with your assertion that there is NEVER a good reason to tolerate perverse reasoning which rationalizes around soundly reasoned sexual proprieties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Darlin, learn to construct a sentence.
Click to expand...


Thank you Pun'kin, you're so sweet to try and help.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> But again, you're clueless. As HIV can permeate mucus membranes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which would tend to point toward the foolishness of allowing those who succumb to perverse reasoning
Click to expand...


Perverse reasoning like this?



> There has never been a documented case of a heterosexual man having ever contracted HIV, except where the Heterosexual male shared a needle with a homosexual or was given blood tainted by a homosexual.
> 
> Where_r_my_keyes



Because your foolishness was spectacularly, stunningly, gloriously wrong. You need neither needles nor blood tainted by a homosexual in order to transmit or contract HIV. As its entirely possible to transmit HIV through mucous membranes. Disproving in a stroke the useless idiocy of your above statement....and your claim that HIV can't be transmitted via normal sex.

Laughing....you're really not very good at this, are you?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes she did...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She was far more discerning in the inconsistencies in your argument than you are.
Click to expand...



Was she?

Then you'll have no trouble citing her citations of so much as a single inconsistency she witnessed in my professions... .

Naturally, when you fail to do so, you will be AGAIN conceding to me that you've no means to sustain your 'feelings'.

And as always, you can trust me to be here for you, whereupon I will duly note and accept your looming concession. 

Just know, that I'm always here for ya.


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> But, we should not lose sight of the fact that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a direct threat to our children.
> 
> And that is why we can never allow sexual abnormality to be seen as normal... because sexual deviants threaten the health and welfare of children.



So you are advocating that Marcus Bachmann is a sham and the religious right should cease immediately praying away the gay?


----------



## mdk

The2ndAmendment said:


> There's no such thing as "gay" or "homosexual."
> 
> It's called: Feral&fel fecal fornicating faggot fellatio-fiend.


Catchy.


----------



## bodecea

mdk said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no such thing as "gay" or "homosexual."
> 
> It's called: Feral&fel fecal fornicating faggot fellatio-fiend.
> 
> 
> 
> Catchy.
Click to expand...

He sure has a purdy mouth.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> But again, you're clueless. As HIV can permeate mucus membranes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which would tend to point toward the foolishness of allowing those who succumb to perverse reasoning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perverse reasoning like this?
Click to expand...


No... that's a segment of the reasoning.  But once its placed in back in context, wherein it concludes that allowing a sexual deviant access to one's mucous areas... then the answer is, of course: "yes".


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Again... we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that sexual deviancy is a threat to children and THAT is why we can never normalize sexual abnormality.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

bodecea said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no such thing as "gay" or "homosexual."
> 
> It's called: Feral&fel fecal fornicating faggot fellatio-fiend.
> 
> 
> 
> Catchy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He sure has a purdy mouth.
Click to expand...


I didn't use any cuss words to describe their demonically degenerate dung-deeds.


----------



## mdk

bodecea said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no such thing as "gay" or "homosexual."
> 
> It's called: Feral&fel fecal fornicating faggot fellatio-fiend.
> 
> 
> 
> Catchy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He sure has a purdy mouth.
Click to expand...


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Again... we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that sexual deviancy is a threat to children and THAT is why we can never normalize sexual abnormality.



Do you think Casey Anthony was a threat to children, particularly her own?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

The2ndAmendment said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no such thing as "gay" or "homosexual."
> 
> It's called: Feral&fel fecal fornicating faggot fellatio-fiend.
> 
> 
> 
> Catchy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He sure has a purdy mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't use any cuss words to describe their demonically degenerate dung-deeds.
Click to expand...


Sexual deviancy is intrinsically dirty... so it is the subject that makes the words 'feel' _dirty._


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Lilah said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again... we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that sexual deviancy is a threat to children and THAT is why we can never normalize sexual abnormality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think Casey Anthony was a threat to children, particularly her own?
Click to expand...


Was Casey Anthony an individual who uses a perverse species of reasoning which tends to influence her toward rejecting soundly reasoned sexual propriety?


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Again... we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that sexual deviancy is a threat to children and THAT is why we can never normalize sexual abnormality.


What is it that is a threat to children?  Explain.


----------



## Pop23

Page 245

Just sayin


----------



## JakeStarkey

Keys self describes with " I will suggest you learn to advance only those things which you've some means to support...", because he is citing himself as authority.

He's not, merely some sort of foolish person from the far right having neither objective evidence nor clear analysis while verbosely and shrilly advertising his absolute incompetence in this discussion.


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again... we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that sexual deviancy is a threat to children and THAT is why we can never normalize sexual abnormality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think Casey Anthony was a threat to children, particularly her own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was Casey Anthony an individual who uses a perverse species of reasoning which tends to influence her toward rejecting soundly reasoned sexual propriety?
Click to expand...


I believe I asked you the question.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Lilah said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again... we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that sexual deviancy is a threat to children and THAT is why we can never normalize sexual abnormality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think Casey Anthony was a threat to children, particularly her own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was Casey Anthony an individual who uses a perverse species of reasoning which tends to influence her toward rejecting soundly reasoned sexual propriety?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe I asked you the question.
Click to expand...


So your position is so fragile that it can't withstand a query seeking clarification?

OH!  Now that is SO sad... .


----------



## The2ndAmendment

bodecea said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again... we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that sexual deviancy is a threat to children and THAT is why we can never normalize sexual abnormality.
> 
> 
> 
> What is it that is a threat to children?  Explain.
Click to expand...


Progressives have lowered age of consent to 13 and 14 in most Eurotrash and South American nations.


Of course, if I elaborate on this any further by providing an entire plethora of historical examples of the slippery fecal-faggot fornicating fellatio fiends moving onto little boys and girls, I'll get banned again for accusing LBGT supporters of being pedophiles.


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again... we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that sexual deviancy is a threat to children and THAT is why we can never normalize sexual abnormality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think Casey Anthony was a threat to children, particularly her own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was Casey Anthony an individual who uses a perverse species of reasoning which tends to influence her toward rejecting soundly reasoned sexual propriety?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe I asked you the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your position is so fragile that it can't withstand a query seeking clarification?
> 
> OH!  Now that is SO sad... .
Click to expand...


My question was straightforward and to the point.  What's sad is someone who is acting like a pompous arse, and is too intimidated to acknowledge they can't fully comprehend the topic at hand.


----------



## bodecea

The2ndAmendment said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again... we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that sexual deviancy is a threat to children and THAT is why we can never normalize sexual abnormality.
> 
> 
> 
> What is it that is a threat to children?  Explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Progressives have lowered age of consent to 13 and 14 in most Eurotrash and South American nations.
> 
> 
> Of course, if I elaborate on this any further by providing an entire plethora of historical examples of the slippery fecal-faggot fornicating fellatio fiends moving onto little boys and girls, I'll get banned again for accusing LBGT supporters of being pedophiles.
Click to expand...

Progressives have raised the age of consent in this country...at the same time expanding the civil rights of LBGT citizens.   (I know you will ignore that fact)


----------



## The2ndAmendment

There are many demonically degenerate dung-doers fiercely fighting for fel fecal fornicating faggot fiends in this thread.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> But again, you're clueless. As HIV can permeate mucus membranes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which would tend to point toward the foolishness of allowing those who succumb to perverse reasoning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perverse reasoning like this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... that's a segment of the reasoning.
Click to expand...


An invalid, comically inaccurate, ludicrously ignorant, and procedurally faulty segment of reasoning based on the same inept sources and hopelessly broken process that you're using to pinch off the steaming rhetorical pile you're offering to us now.

Namely, you.

If you as a source was so uselessly wrong and factually inept on that point....why would you continue to offer us such an unreliable and clearly inadequate source? That doesn't sound very well reasoned. Desperate, perhaps. But very poorly reasoned.

Do you at least have the capacity to recognize your own inconsistent and factually faulty claims suffecient to admit that this little turd of a 'segment of reasoning' was fallacious?



> There has never been a documented case of a heterosexual man having ever contracted HIV, except where the Heterosexual male shared a needle with a homosexual or was given blood tainted by a homosexual.
> 
> Where_r_my_keyes



Or will you continue to polish it furiously, even as we point and laugh?

And yes, I am enjoying this!



> But once its placed in back in context, wherein it concludes that allowing a sexual deviant access to one's mucous areas... then the answer is, of course: "yes".



And what 'context' makes your claim anything more than a poorly reasoned and  factually inaccurate statement of uninformed opinion? Remember, your claims on HIV transmission were utterly insufficient to carry your argument, as you didn't even know that HIV can permeate mucous membranes.

And worse, your inadequate command of the topic led you to base OTHER fallacious assumptions on this foundation of faulty reasoning, where you claimed that there's no way for HIV to be transmitted via normal sex. Which, of course, was blithering nonsense. Of course 'normal sex' can transmit HIV. And in fact heterosexual sex is the single largest method of transmitting HIV in the world.

And thus we get to the bottom of fetid little midden heap you mistook for 'reason'......with the facts that most case of HIV are women. Almost all of whom were infected through heterosexual intercourse. Which you either knew or should have known. And yet starkly ignored, even when presented to you.

Can you see why you citing yourself really doesn't amount to much?


----------



## The2ndAmendment

bodecea said:


> Progressives have raised the age of consent in this country...at the same time expanding the civil rights of LBGT citizens.   (I know you will ignore that fact)



Oh wow, you found a statistical outlier.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> But at the end of the day, setting their propensity for contracting deadly viruses... Homosexuality is a direct threat to children.
> 
> And that is why we cannot allow threats to children become culturally normalized.



Hateful bigoted idiocy.


----------



## Syriusly

The2ndAmendment said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Progressives have raised the age of consent in this country...at the same time expanding the civil rights of LBGT citizens.   (I know you will ignore that fact)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wow, you found a statistical outlier.
Click to expand...


No- just found another bigot lying.


----------



## Gadawg73

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one with a mind that is occupied productively gives a shit about gay folk getting married.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is SO true.
> 
> Just as no one with a mind that is occupied productively, give a shit about people who can't accept Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> gay marriage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage... is the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...

I have been married 38 years to my wife. Only an ignorant mother hen would oppose gay folk that love each other marrying. Some folk have to be busy bodies and have bad heterosexual marriages so they have to find some one to look down on. If your marriage is healthy no other marriage be it heterosexual or gay has any influence on it. Sorry to hear things are not going well for you. Good luck.


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes she did...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She was far more discerning in the inconsistencies in your argument than you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Was she?
Click to expand...


Yes. As she was, at the very least, aware of the inconsistencies. While you remain blissfully, willfully ignorant of them.


----------



## Skylar

Gadawg73 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one with a mind that is occupied productively gives a shit about gay folk getting married.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is SO true.
> 
> Just as no one with a mind that is occupied productively, give a shit about people who can't accept Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> gay marriage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage... is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have been married 38 years to my wife. Only an ignorant mother hen would oppose gay folk that love each other marrying. Some folk have to be busy bodies and have bad heterosexual marriages so they have to find some one to look down on. If your marriage is healthy no other marriage be it heterosexual or gay has any influence on it. Sorry to hear things are not going well for you. Good luck.
Click to expand...


That's always been my thought. If the quality of your marriage is based on your ability to deny that right to others, then clearly your marriage is already in trouble.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Gadawag73 pegged Where R My Keys.


----------



## GreenBean

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where R My Keys simple asserts opinion as proof and then makes an appeal to emotion as well as an appeal to disease (HV) ignoring that the majority of victims are female who have heterosexual relations.
> 
> He has every right to what he thinks, but he is not effective in the slightest in arguing against marriage equality,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you clowns demonstrate your propensity for slanting facts to suit your needs - the predominant mode trough which females contract HIV can be traced to sex with bisexual faggots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why do women contract the HIV?
> 
> Sharing needles with homosexual men, and/or anal intercourse with bi-sexual; which is to say homosexual men, er uh... 'males', as it were and of course... being lucky enough to be a downstream recipient of blood from a homosexual donor.
> 
> As noted earlier, absent a homosexual being in the mix somewhere... there is no HIV.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that would be having sex with heterosexual men. With the overwhelming majority of all HIV cases being heterosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There has never been a documented case of a heterosexual man having ever contracted HIV, except where the Heterosexual male shared a needle with a homosexual or was given blood tainted by a homosexual.
> 
> Now African males (males actually living in Africa, not the faux variation living elsewhere, who've never set foot upon the continent...) are the most likely to have the HIV.
> 
> And how did they contract it?  Having anal sex with other African Males, OR... having sex with woman, who had sex with an African male, who had had anal sex with another african male.  Ya see scamp... in Africa, so dumbass started a rumor that if you are a male who fornicates with another male, you can STILL REMAIN 'a man' as long as you're the pitcher and not the catcher.
> 
> That dumbass was of course dead wrong... and we can rest assured he's long since dead, having likely contracted the HIV shortly after he came up with the colossal misnomer.  Which should have been a serious clue that he was wrong, but sadly, African Males aren't actually noted for their 'long game' thinkin', which in a wicked twist of irony, is also a problematic trait among homosexuals everywhere; which AGAIN: *is a serious clue. * But let's test it... and see if it sticks?
Click to expand...



It is pretty accepted as fact that HIV is a descendant of a Simian Immunodeficiency Virus. Basically - it originated in Monkeys .  While tracing its origins it was discovered that HIV is genetically descended from SIV [Simian immune deficiency] - HIVs origins can be traced through several species of apes - the big question was how the virus traveled from apes into the human population. 

Two possibilities

1.}  Some African Queer was/were shagging Monkeys - not unheard of since middle eastern queers do it with sheep and western queers do it with anything that will move and has a hole.

2.} Some Africans ate uncooked - or poorly cooked monkey meat - the most likely possibility.

Given that the virus can travel from ape to man by eating un or under cooked monkey meat -- it's quite possible and probable that the primitive jungle folk are still doing this -which may explain its high rate of occurrence in African Males.


----------



## Skylar

GreenBean said:


> It is pretty accepted as fact that HIV is a descendant of a Simian Immunodeficiency Virus. Basically - it originated in Monkeys .  While tracing its origins it was discovered that HIV is genetically descended from SIV [Simian immune deficiency] - HIVs origins can be traced through several species of apes - the big question was how the virus traveled from apes into the human population.
> 
> Two possibilities
> 
> 1.}  Some African Queer was/were shagging Monkeys - not unheard of since middle eastern queers do it with sheep and western queers do it with anything that will move and has a hole.
> 
> 2.} Some Africans ate uncooked - or poorly cooked monkey meat - the most likely possibility.
> 
> Given that the virus can travel from ape to man by eating un or under cooked monkey meat -- it's quite possible and probable that the primitive jungle folk are still doing this -which may explain its high rate of occurrence in African Males.



The Bushmeat scenario is by far the most plausible, as it happens the most often. Bush meat is a gamey staple of sorts, the African equivalent of rabbit or quail. Its literally on the menu in many restaurants. And the most plausible scenario isn't that they ate uncooked bushmeat. Its that they cut themselves while butchering it. Also not uncommon.


----------



## GreenBean

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says who?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says reality, which is a good, close personal friend of sound reason... so, well... you know, they're the same one's that note that Sexual Abnormality is a clear and present threat to Children and THAT is why, is why humanity has always forbidden it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not citing 'reality'. You're citing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm citing sound reason.  Now YOU may feel that 'normal people' exchange dirty needles with other people, or to enter the rectum of multiple parties, or allow multiple parties to enter their rectum... but, in truth, they don't.
> 
> 
> And since THAT is how HIV is contracted... it's not something to which normal people are subjected, EXCEPT where, they either have sex with someone who had sex with a homosexual or they are subject to blood which was tainted by the above noted deviants.
> 
> You can cry that you feel VERY STRONGLY that such is not true... but in reality (as cited above) normal people have NO CHANCE of contracting the HIV.
Click to expand...





> YOU may feel that 'normal people' exchange dirty needles with other people, or to enter the rectum of multiple parties, or allow multiple parties to enter their rectum... but, in truth, they don't.



*Whats normal to one man is perverted and sickening to another.*  A sane man wouldn't think about sticking a needle into himself - especially one that was just stuck in someone else's arm - but a junkie would.  A sane man wouldn't think of of sticking his penis in another mans ass or vice versa - in fact it is highly repulsive just to think about it -but a faggot would , and lick it off when hes done. 

That is basically where he Homosexual Dilemma arises - the mentally ill are seeking to run the asylum that we call society, and have this type of activity treated as "normal" - and worse they seek to force it upon the younger generation with or without parental approval - they believe they have this "right"  to "educate" children in the correct manner of thinking.



> We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us....
> 
> Internet History Sourcebooks Project


----------



## GreenBean

Skylar said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is pretty accepted as fact that HIV is a descendant of a Simian Immunodeficiency Virus. Basically - it originated in Monkeys .  While tracing its origins it was discovered that HIV is genetically descended from SIV [Simian immune deficiency] - HIVs origins can be traced through several species of apes - the big question was how the virus traveled from apes into the human population.
> 
> Two possibilities
> 
> 1.}  Some African Queer was/were shagging Monkeys - not unheard of since middle eastern queers do it with sheep and western queers do it with anything that will move and has a hole.
> 
> 2.} Some Africans ate uncooked - or poorly cooked monkey meat - the most likely possibility.
> 
> Given that the virus can travel from ape to man by eating un or under cooked monkey meat -- it's quite possible and probable that the primitive jungle folk are still doing this -which may explain its high rate of occurrence in African Males.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bushmeat scenario is by far the most plausible, as it happens the most often. Bush meat is a gamey staple of sorts, the African equivalent of rabbit or quail. Its literally on the menu in many restaurants. And the most plausible scenario isn't that they ate uncooked bushmeat. Its that they cut themselves while butchering it. Also not uncommon.
Click to expand...



Wow - for once we actually agree on something - miracles never cease .  But just for the record - many primitive tribesmen - not just Africans - are known to eat raw meat - even the enlightened Jews have a dish made from raw chop meat.


----------



## Skylar

GreenBean said:


> *Whats normal to one man is perverted and sickening to another.*  A sane man wouldn't think about sticking a needle into himself - especially one that was just stuck in someone else's arm - but a junkie would.  A sane man wouldn't think of of sticking his penis in another mans ass or vice versa - in fact it is highly repulsive just to think about it -but a faggot would , and lick it off when hes done.
> 
> That is basically where he Homosexual Dilemma arises - the mentally ill are seeking to run the asylum that we call society, and have this type of activity treated as "normal" - and worse they seek to force it upon the younger generation with or without parental approval - they believe they have this "right"  to "educate" children in the correct manner of thinking.



You're going to need to get a lot more specific with that argument, as it rather vague. You seem to be lumping intravenous drug use with homosexuality, as if one is intrinsic to the other. And I don't see that as likely. Especially given how spectacularly wrong you've been on virtually every other claim you've made regarding gays, children, etc. 

As for 'forcing it upon a younger generation', what exactly are you referring to? 




> We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us....
> 
> Internet History Sourcebooks Project


And who is 'Michael Swift'?


----------



## GreenBean

GreenBean said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is pretty accepted as fact that HIV is a descendant of a Simian Immunodeficiency Virus. Basically - it originated in Monkeys .  While tracing its origins it was discovered that HIV is genetically descended from SIV [Simian immune deficiency] - HIVs origins can be traced through several species of apes - the big question was how the virus traveled from apes into the human population.
> 
> Two possibilities
> 
> 1.}  Some African Queer was/were shagging Monkeys - not unheard of since middle eastern queers do it with sheep and western queers do it with anything that will move and has a hole.
> 
> 2.} Some Africans ate uncooked - or poorly cooked monkey meat - the most likely possibility.
> 
> Given that the virus can travel from ape to man by eating un or under cooked monkey meat -- it's quite possible and probable that the primitive jungle folk are still doing this -which may explain its high rate of occurrence in African Males.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bushmeat scenario is by far the most plausible, as it happens the most often. Bush meat is a gamey staple of sorts, the African equivalent of rabbit or quail. Its literally on the menu in many restaurants. And the most plausible scenario isn't that they ate uncooked bushmeat. Its that they cut themselves while butchering it. Also not uncommon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow - for once we actually agree on something - miracles never cease .  But just for the record - many primitive tribesmen - not just Africans - are known to eat raw meat - even the enlightened Jews have a dish made from raw chop meat.  And Turks have a delicacy of raw monkey brains ....[See Faces of Death]  Bizarre Foods - Eating a Real Monkey Brain Video Break.com
Click to expand...


----------



## GreenBean

Skylar said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Whats normal to one man is perverted and sickening to another.*  A sane man wouldn't think about sticking a needle into himself - especially one that was just stuck in someone else's arm - but a junkie would.  A sane man wouldn't think of of sticking his penis in another mans ass or vice versa - in fact it is highly repulsive just to think about it -but a faggot would , and lick it off when hes done.
> 
> That is basically where he Homosexual Dilemma arises - the mentally ill are seeking to run the asylum that we call society, and have this type of activity treated as "normal" - and worse they seek to force it upon the younger generation with or without parental approval - they believe they have this "right"  to "educate" children in the correct manner of thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're going to need to get a lot more specific with that argument, as it rather vague. You seem to be lumping intravenous drug use with homosexuality, as if one is intrinsic to the other. And I don't see that as likely. Especially given how spectacularly wrong you've been on virtually every other claim you've made regarding gays, children, etc.
> 
> As for 'forcing it upon a younger generation', what exactly are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us....
> 
> Internet History Sourcebooks Project
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And who is 'Michael Swift'?
Click to expand...





> You're going to need to get a lot more specific with that argument, as it rather vague. You seem to be lumping intravenous drug use with homosexuality, as if one is intrinsic to the other.



They are related via several venues - one - they are both Mental illness  -two- they are both unhealthy - three  -  for the sake of this discussion , they are related in that they are both modes of HIV transmission



> . And I don't see that as likely. Especially given how spectacularly wrong you've been on virtually every other claim you've made regarding gays, children, etc.



Only wrong in the fantasy world in which you wallow - in the REAL World of hard cruel facts - I've never been wrong in any discussion with you .  Sorry Pal Tinkerbell is not going to swoop out of the sky and sprinkle your castle with fairy dust - the only thing a real tinkerbell might do for you is give you a Golden shower.



> As for 'forcing it upon a younger generation', what exactly are you referring to?




PULLLL- EEeeezz  - I could fill up the next 15 pages of this forum with incidents and examples --- why don't you start with this quote from an article found in a mainstream Gay publication.

"....Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids?  - Why would we push anti-bullying programs or social studies classes that teach kids about the historical contributions of famous queers unless we wanted to deliberately educate children to accept queer sexuality as normal? ... We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it. *Recruiting children? You bet we are* ... I for one certainly want tons of school children to learn that it is OK to be gay.... And I would very much like for many of these *young boys to grow up and start f**ing men..."

Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids Queerty
*
Go onto a few of what you consider "homophobic" sites such as MassResistance, MassResistance  or loonybird.com   [ Don't even ask why the fuck they used such a ridiculous name - cause I dunno !] -

Parents, as well as the general public are generally unaware of the fact that there is a well organized mob, well oiled machine like activist groups vigorously seeking to indoctrinate and promote homosexuality to societies youngest members. Activists are well aware that if they can capture the hearts and manipulate the minds of our children at the earliest possible age they will have, for all intensive purposes, perverted society to suit their devious agenda.


----------



## GreenBean

Skylar said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Whats normal to one man is perverted and sickening to another.*  A sane man wouldn't think about sticking a needle into himself - especially one that was just stuck in someone else's arm - but a junkie would.  A sane man wouldn't think of of sticking his penis in another mans ass or vice versa - in fact it is highly repulsive just to think about it -but a faggot would , and lick it off when hes done.
> 
> That is basically where he Homosexual Dilemma arises - the mentally ill are seeking to run the asylum that we call society, and have this type of activity treated as "normal" - and worse they seek to force it upon the younger generation with or without parental approval - they believe they have this "right"  to "educate" children in the correct manner of thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're going to need to get a lot more specific with that argument, as it rather vague. You seem to be lumping intravenous drug use with homosexuality, as if one is intrinsic to the other. And I don't see that as likely. Especially given how spectacularly wrong you've been on virtually every other claim you've made regarding gays, children, etc.
> 
> As for 'forcing it upon a younger generation', what exactly are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us....
> 
> Internet History Sourcebooks Project
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And who is 'Michael Swift'?
Click to expand...



Michael Swift was the pseudonym used by a Gay activist writer for the Boston Community Gay News - the article cited was satirical in nature and written back in the 80s - given the advances the perverts movement has made over the past 2 decades what he satirized no longer seems so far away.


----------



## Skylar

> They are related via several venues - one - they are both Mental illness -two- they are both unhealthy - three - for the sake of this discussion , they are related in that they are both modes of HIV transmission



Homosexuality isn't a mental illness. So says the APA for about a generation and change. They've found no particular psychopathology associated with homosexuality. Gays and lesbians aren't different than straights in psychological functioning. They simply have a different sexual preference.

*And as is your way, you ignore anything that contradicts you. *But really, who cares? The APA vs. you on what constitutes a mental illness has the same winner every time. And its not you....as you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Where as the APA has collective millennium of relevant experience in psychological assessment and have extensively tested the issue. And in a generation, the evidence reaffirming their 1973 conclusion has only grown. 

And you have failed to establish any particular relevance between intravenous drug use and homosexuality. Rendering your post on the matter irrelevant.



> Only wrong in the fantasy world in which you wallow - in the REAL World of hard cruel facts - I've never been wrong in any discussion with you . Sorry Pal Tinkerbell is not going to swoop out of the sky and sprinkle your castle with fairy dust - the only thing a real tinkerbell might do for you is give you a Golden shower.



In the real world, almost all abusers of children are heterosexual men.* A child is more than 100 times more likely to be abused by a heterosexual man having a relationship with their mother or female relative than by a homosexual. *But as is your way, you ignore anything that contradicts you. And irrationally focus on the homosexual, ignoring the heterosexual men comprise the overwhelming majority of sexual predators of children.

Worse, you've laughably tried to convince us that a man who self identifies as homosexual, who is sexually attracted to women, that is having a heterosexual relationship with a woman....is actually a gay man.

Which is absurd. And as elegant a demonstration of how little sense your argument makes. You're quite simply clueless. And allowing your bigotry and personal animus toward gays to overwhelm your reason. 

No thank you.



> Michael Swift was the pseudonym used by a Gay activist writer for the Boston Community Gay News - the article cited was satirical in nature and written back in the 80s - given the advances the perverts movement has made over the past 2 decades what he satirized no longer seems so far away.



Odd, you didn't present it as satire. 

Glad I asked.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

JakeStarkey said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again?  this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a  self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for,  they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays DO have children...I've had five. Why are our families less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
> 
> Also, can you please name for us the state or locality that requires procreation in order to apply for a civil marriage license? Can you cite one instance of a civil marriage license being revoked due to the couple's inability or refusal to procreate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop the lies.
> 
> Folks argue all the time on the Board that reproduction is a requirement.  Pop23 lives and dies by that stupdiity.
> 
> People who can't have children get married and adopt, hetero and homo.
> 
> Parents, homo and hetero, abuse children.
> 
> The issue is bad parenting, not sexual orientation.
> 
> Your conclusions do not hold up.
Click to expand...


Actually it hasn't happened once. It's just your Left wing delusion misinterpreting what people are saying.  So when we say that the purpose of marriage is the creation of a family, you read that children have to be a requirement for any marriage, purposely bypassing the general concept and reading into it a rigid rule that was never implied.  You, being an immoral Leftist, not only lie to everyone, but you lie to yourself too.


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Actually it hasn't happened once. It's just your Left wing delusion misinterpreting what people are saying.  So when we say that the purpose of marriage is the creation of a family, you read that children have to be a requirement for any marriage, purposely bypassing the general concept and reading into it a rigid rule that was never implied.  You, being an immoral Leftist, not only lie to everyone, but you lie to yourself too.



Then by your own admission, the standard that you'd have us to exclude gays from marriage* doesn't exist *and *applies to no one.*

Rendering it a rather irrational basis to exclude anyone from marriage, don't you think?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

g5000 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
> 
> 
> 
> It's like I keep saying.
> 
> Behind the mask of every anti-gay marriage bigot is a Westboro Baptist.  You just have to keep them talking long enough for the mask to slip.
Click to expand...


Say it out loud.  The truth will set you free.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> After scanning through the rather hysterical and bizarre rantings by homophobes about the age of consent- and their fascination with pedophiilia and feces and anuses- I can only come to the obvious conclusion.
> 
> Homophobes only raise these issues because they realize that Americans now want to treat homosexuals equally and fairly- and that pisses them off.
> 
> So they try to invoke 'protect the kids'- and try to whip up hysteria to equate homosexuals with pedophiles.
> 
> No matter how much such equations endangers children.



What's a homophobe?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again... we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that sexual deviancy is a threat to children and THAT is why we can never normalize sexual abnormality.
> 
> 
> 
> What is it that is a threat to children?  Explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Progressives have lowered age of consent to 13 and 14 in most Eurotrash and South American nations.
> 
> 
> Of course, if I elaborate on this any further by providing an entire plethora of historical examples of the slippery fecal-faggot fornicating fellatio fiends moving onto little boys and girls, I'll get banned again for accusing LBGT supporters of being pedophiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Progressives have raised the age of consent in this country...at the same time expanding the civil rights of LBGT citizens.   (I know you will ignore that fact)
Click to expand...


What progressives raised the age of consent in this country?  Please be specific.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> But at the end of the day, setting their propensity for contracting deadly viruses... Homosexuality is a direct threat to children.
> 
> And that is why we cannot allow threats to children become culturally normalized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hateful bigoted idiocy.
Click to expand...


Formidable riposte!  Who can argue against such logic!


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Gadawg73 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one with a mind that is occupied productively gives a shit about gay folk getting married.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is SO true.
> 
> Just as no one with a mind that is occupied productively, give a shit about people who can't accept Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> gay marriage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage... is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have been married 38 years to my wife. Only an ignorant mother hen would oppose gay folk that love each other marrying. Some folk have to be busy bodies and have bad heterosexual marriages so they have to find some one to look down on. If your marriage is healthy no other marriage be it heterosexual or gay has any influence on it. Sorry to hear things are not going well for you. Good luck.
Click to expand...



Oh, the "how does it affect you?" idiocy for the millionth time.  Does it ever occur to you dipsticks that people might be concerned about more than themselves, that they want a strong, healthy society too?


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> After scanning through the rather hysterical and bizarre rantings by homophobes about the age of consent- and their fascination with pedophiilia and feces and anuses- I can only come to the obvious conclusion.
> 
> Homophobes only raise these issues because they realize that Americans now want to treat homosexuals equally and fairly- and that pisses them off.
> 
> So they try to invoke 'protect the kids'- and try to whip up hysteria to equate homosexuals with pedophiles.
> 
> No matter how much such equations endangers children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's a homophobe?
Click to expand...


Look it up.


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one with a mind that is occupied productively gives a shit about gay folk getting married.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is SO true.
> 
> Just as no one with a mind that is occupied productively, give a shit about people who can't accept Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> gay marriage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage... is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have been married 38 years to my wife. Only an ignorant mother hen would oppose gay folk that love each other marrying. Some folk have to be busy bodies and have bad heterosexual marriages so they have to find some one to look down on. If your marriage is healthy no other marriage be it heterosexual or gay has any influence on it. Sorry to hear things are not going well for you. Good luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, the "how does it affect you?" idiocy for the millionth time.  Does it ever occur to you dipsticks that people might be concerned about more than themselves, that they want a strong, healthy society too?
Click to expand...


Does it ever occur to you that gay marriage will actually strengthen society, rather than weaken it?

As remember, gays and lesbians are part of society. Recognition of marriage does nothing to straights, while benefiting gays and their families. So its all benefit. Further, it encourages monogomy. Which is another benefit. There's also the financial benefits of all those extra weddings.

From a societal perspective, gay marriage is pure creamery butter. With essentially zero cost. Making opposition to it all the more bizarre. It doesn't effect you, costs you nothing and benefits society. What's not to love?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Mendacious admits defeat and runs away.
> 
> Marriage Equality will happen before fall nationwide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The USA has had marriage equality for years.  A union of two men or two women is not a marriage any more than a union of 6 men and 8 women is a marriage, or a union of a man and his horse is a marriage.
> 
> A marriage is one man and one woman----------always has been, always will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except it isn't legally...and never has been religiously. I attended a lesbian wedding at a Southern Baptist Church in 1986...long before any legal recognition.
> 
> 
> 20 years from now, Catholic Churches will be marrying gays, you watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually the Catholic Church has demonstrated it can remain true to its teachings impervious to the tide of popular trends. This isn't the first battle we've had with a depraved culture engrossed in homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh...that's why meat in Friday's are still a sin and un baptized babies are still in purgatory, right?
Click to expand...

You don't know the difference between doctrine, which is unchangable and disciplines which are. That was a statement, not a question.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that you adopted your daughter because you fucked up. Is that right?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> Totally incorrect.  She was lovingly planned by my wife and I.  She had her...I adopted her.  One of the best things in our lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's her father?  Whether you got sperm at a sperm bank or have a father that you keep out of the picture, one way or another you perverted the natural order to have your arrangement and delusion.  It was entirely a self centered act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So the millions of heterosexuals that use IVF and AI are "selfish" and "delusional" as well? Our children have two parents, which studies have shown provides the best outcomes for children, two *parents*.
> 
> Why did you have children? I'm going to bet you dollars to donuts that you did it for all the same reasons that gays have children. Do you want to take our children away from us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I married a woman, therefore setting into play a union that can bring children into the world. You deliberately set up a union that can't under any condition produce children naturally. The law should prohibited people like you from having children, deliberately depriving them of a father or a mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck with that, Fascist.
Click to expand...

I dream big and remember how often people are wrong about what's possible.


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Totally incorrect.  She was lovingly planned by my wife and I.  She had her...I adopted her.  One of the best things in our lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where's her father?  Whether you got sperm at a sperm bank or have a father that you keep out of the picture, one way or another you perverted the natural order to have your arrangement and delusion.  It was entirely a self centered act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So the millions of heterosexuals that use IVF and AI are "selfish" and "delusional" as well? Our children have two parents, which studies have shown provides the best outcomes for children, two *parents*.
> 
> Why did you have children? I'm going to bet you dollars to donuts that you did it for all the same reasons that gays have children. Do you want to take our children away from us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I married a woman, therefore setting into play a union that can bring children into the world. You deliberately set up a union that can't under any condition produce children naturally. The law should prohibited people like you from having children, deliberately depriving them of a father or a mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck with that, Fascist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dream big and remember how often people are wrong about what's possible.
Click to expand...


Oh, its not that your plan is unrealistic and fundamentally incompatible with our nation's beliefs and freedoms.

*Its that you want to.* That given the power, you'd enact laws just like that.......literally prohibiting people you don't like from having children. As I said, gays and lesbians have far more to worry from you and your ilk regarding the loss of rights, then you ever have from them. As given the power, you'd do some pretty monstrous things to them.

And given the power, they'd simply go about their lives around you.

And the astonishing part? The part that leaves rational people with their jaw dropped? *You consider yourself the victim here. *


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one with a mind that is occupied productively gives a shit about gay folk getting married.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is SO true.
> 
> Just as no one with a mind that is occupied productively, give a shit about people who can't accept Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> gay marriage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage... is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have been married 38 years to my wife. Only an ignorant mother hen would oppose gay folk that love each other marrying. Some folk have to be busy bodies and have bad heterosexual marriages so they have to find some one to look down on. If your marriage is healthy no other marriage be it heterosexual or gay has any influence on it. Sorry to hear things are not going well for you. Good luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, the "how does it affect you?" idiocy for the millionth time.  Does it ever occur to you dipsticks that people might be concerned about more than themselves, that they want a strong, healthy society too?
Click to expand...


Well, then it's a good thing that my civil marriage to my life partner of 20 years only makes our society stronger and healthier then.


----------



## Conservative65

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one with a mind that is occupied productively gives a shit about gay folk getting married.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is SO true.
> 
> Just as no one with a mind that is occupied productively, give a shit about people who can't accept Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> gay marriage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage... is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have been married 38 years to my wife. Only an ignorant mother hen would oppose gay folk that love each other marrying. Some folk have to be busy bodies and have bad heterosexual marriages so they have to find some one to look down on. If your marriage is healthy no other marriage be it heterosexual or gay has any influence on it. Sorry to hear things are not going well for you. Good luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, the "how does it affect you?" idiocy for the millionth time.  Does it ever occur to you dipsticks that people might be concerned about more than themselves, that they want a strong, healthy society too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, then it's a good thing that my civil marriage to my life partner of 20 years only makes our society stronger and healthier then.
Click to expand...


Anytime two freaks do something abnormal thinking that what you have will ever come close to my real marriage with a woman, it weakens society.


----------



## Seawytch

Conservative65 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one with a mind that is occupied productively gives a shit about gay folk getting married.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is SO true.
> 
> Just as no one with a mind that is occupied productively, give a shit about people who can't accept Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> gay marriage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage... is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have been married 38 years to my wife. Only an ignorant mother hen would oppose gay folk that love each other marrying. Some folk have to be busy bodies and have bad heterosexual marriages so they have to find some one to look down on. If your marriage is healthy no other marriage be it heterosexual or gay has any influence on it. Sorry to hear things are not going well for you. Good luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, the "how does it affect you?" idiocy for the millionth time.  Does it ever occur to you dipsticks that people might be concerned about more than themselves, that they want a strong, healthy society too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, then it's a good thing that my civil marriage to my life partner of 20 years only makes our society stronger and healthier then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anytime two freaks do something abnormal thinking that what you have will ever come close to my real marriage with a woman, it weakens society.
Click to expand...


If that were actually true and not your bigoted, homophobic, anti gay hyperbole...you'd actually be winning cases in court because then you'd be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing my civil marriage. 

But alas for the bigots, there is no societal harm in allowing gays to marry their consenting adult life partners. Too bad for you, great for the rest of the country.


----------



## Mac1958

Seawytch said:


> ...there is no societal harm in allowing gays to marry their consenting adult life partners. Too bad for you, great for the rest of the country.



I'd think that is the ultimate test.

While we do allow things that are considered harmful (smoking, drinking, whatever), if gay marriage cannot clearly be shown to do harm to a society then there isn't a compelling argument against it.  Outside of adherence to a religious book, and that ain't good enough.

.


----------



## ninja007

the libs in this thread keep talking about no need to procreate; not surprising since they defend millions of babies being slaughtered.


----------



## bodecea

ninja007 said:


> the libs in this thread keep talking about no need to procreate; not surprising since they defend millions of babies being slaughtered.


I think you hit on an excellent strategy.  Blame the gays for abortion.


----------



## ninja007

bodecea said:


> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the libs in this thread keep talking about no need to procreate; not surprising since they defend millions of babies being slaughtered.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you hit on an excellent strategy.  Blame the gays for abortion.
Click to expand...



it went over your head- libs are trying to justify no procreation. Get it? If no procreation is the norm, gay sex is the new norm; get it? (because gays CANNOT procreate)


----------



## GreenBean

Skylar said:


> They are related via several venues - one - they are both Mental illness -two- they are both unhealthy - three - for the sake of this discussion , they are related in that they are both modes of HIV transmission
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality isn't a mental illness. So says the APA for about a generation and change. They've found no particular psychopathology associated with homosexuality. Gays and lesbians aren't different than straights in psychological functioning. They simply have a different sexual preference.
> 
> *And as is your way, you ignore anything that contradicts you. *But really, who cares? The APA vs. you on what constitutes a mental illness has the same winner every time. And its not you....as you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Where as the APA has collective millennium of relevant experience in psychological assessment and have extensively tested the issue. And in a generation, the evidence reaffirming their 1973 conclusion has only grown.
> 
> And you have failed to establish any particular relevance between intravenous drug use and homosexuality. Rendering your post on the matter irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only wrong in the fantasy world in which you wallow - in the REAL World of hard cruel facts - I've never been wrong in any discussion with you . Sorry Pal Tinkerbell is not going to swoop out of the sky and sprinkle your castle with fairy dust - the only thing a real tinkerbell might do for you is give you a Golden shower.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the real world, almost all abusers of children are heterosexual men.* A child is more than 100 times more likely to be abused by a heterosexual man having a relationship with their mother or female relative than by a homosexual. *But as is your way, you ignore anything that contradicts you. And irrationally focus on the homosexual, ignoring the heterosexual men comprise the overwhelming majority of sexual predators of children.
> 
> Worse, you've laughably tried to convince us that a man who self identifies as homosexual, who is sexually attracted to women, that is having a heterosexual relationship with a woman....is actually a gay man.
> 
> Which is absurd. And as elegant a demonstration of how little sense your argument makes. You're quite simply clueless. And allowing your bigotry and personal animus toward gays to overwhelm your reason.
> 
> No thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Swift was the pseudonym used by a Gay activist writer for the Boston Community Gay News - the article cited was satirical in nature and written back in the 80s - given the advances the perverts movement has made over the past 2 decades what he satirized no longer seems so far away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Odd, you didn't present it as satire.
> 
> Glad I asked.
Click to expand...





> Homosexuality isn't a mental illness. So says the APA for about a generation and change. They've found no particular psychopathology associated with homosexuality. Gays and lesbians aren't different than straights in psychological functioning. They simply have a different sexual preference.



Psychology initially studied homosexuality as an abnormal  phenomenon. Until the 1970s, psychology/psychiatry viewed homosexuality as a pathology and a mental illness.

That classification began to be scrutinized by some researchers, they claimed that science failed to produce any empirical evidence or scientific basis for regarding homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality- based on their revised definitions of what was normal and abnormal and what constituted a mental disorder. It was also challenged by politically charged gay activist groups.

*As a result of very limited research*, and highly controversial and tainted research at the time, minor opposition to the the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder arose. Some such as Dr. Nicholas Cummings one of the primary movers in having Homosexuality declassified as a mental Illness and author of the proposal to remove it from the DSM made the following admission ...

"....I made the resolution that being gay was not a mental illness, that it was character logical,.... I also said with that, that the APA, if it passes this resolution, *will also vote to continue research that demonstrates whatever the research demonstrates. **Unbiased, open research**. "*

Dr Cummings, is a true scientist and a firm believer in Scientific Objectivity, which is a basis of all science, or at least its supposed to be. Objectivity is a basic philosophical concept, related to reality and truth. Objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases. Scientific Objectivity is a value that informs how scientific studies are conducted and how scientific truths are arrived at. It is the idea that scientists, in attempting to uncover truths about the natural world, must aspire to eliminate personal biases, emotional involvement, etc . Today, it is nowhere to be found in the APA Scientific Objectivity has been swept under the carpet and completely forgotten. Since at least the Mid 90s leftist Ideology rules at the APA. Cummings has stated that its members are cherry picking results to fit their Agenda. As per Cummings the gay rights movement sort of captured the APA.

The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder after years of political pressure from gay activists and under the limited weight of tainted and poorly implemented studies. The American Psychiatrics association board of trustees passed this decision followed by a statement which listed among the reasons for their decision *as changing social norms and growing gay rights activism* . So basically, a scientific institution was coerced into changing a scientific opinion or classification due to* political pressure and false evidence.*




> The APA vs. you



Dr. Rogers Wright- Co Author of Destructive trends in Mental Health - Amazon.com Destructive Trends in Mental Health The Well Intentioned Path to Harm 9780415950862 Rogers H. Wright Nicholas A. Cummings Books


Dr. Nicholas Cumming [Mentioned above  - the man who wrote the motion to have Homosexuality declassified as a mental illness back in the 70s]

Dr. Jeffrey Satinover stated that mental-health organizations had allowed themselves to be manipulated and commandeered by the gay agenda which has deliberately distorted research findings to serve their own goals. He called this distortion of the science, "*appalling beyond imagination.*" Dr. Satinover has also taught constitutional law at Princeton.

Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons - stated that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has continuously ignored evidence that homosexuality is a manifestation of a psychiatric disorder. In their recent call for the legalization of homosexual marriage, *"the APA has revealed a political bias that is of no service to homosexuals*,"

There are dozens of vocal opponents who oppose the APA - and thousands more who lack the courage to speak out- it is an unwritten law that "*Thous shalt not oppose LGBT*"  under penalty of Academic death




> In the real world, almost all abusers of children are heterosexual men.* A child is more than 100 times more likely to be abused by a heterosexual man having a relationship with their mother or female relative than by a homosexual. *



You pulled that 100X figure out of your ass - you are not as ignorant , nor as lacking in intelligence as your posts would seem to indicate - it appears to me you are just plain lazy - get your numbers straight.... speaking of pulling things out of your ass .......... uh ... nah ... I'm not gonna go there rt now ...

Anyway - leave your son in the care of a faggot and the odds are approximately 300X more likely that he'll get schooled on travelling the Hershey highway than if you were to leave him in the care of a sane person. 

Gay Men comprise about 2 - 3 % of the population - yet are responsible for about 35% of Child Molestation cases


----------



## GreenBean

Skylar said:


> They are related via several venues - one - they are both Mental illness -two- they are both unhealthy - three - for the sake of this discussion , they are related in that they are both modes of HIV transmission
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality isn't a mental illness. So says the APA for about a generation and change. They've found no particular psychopathology associated with homosexuality. Gays and lesbians aren't different than straights in psychological functioning. They simply have a different sexual preference.
> 
> *And as is your way, you ignore anything that contradicts you. *But really, who cares? The APA vs. you on what constitutes a mental illness has the same winner every time. And its not you....as you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Where as the APA has collective millennium of relevant experience in psychological assessment and have extensively tested the issue. And in a generation, the evidence reaffirming their 1973 conclusion has only grown.
> 
> And you have failed to establish any particular relevance between intravenous drug use and homosexuality. Rendering your post on the matter irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only wrong in the fantasy world in which you wallow - in the REAL World of hard cruel facts - I've never been wrong in any discussion with you . Sorry Pal Tinkerbell is not going to swoop out of the sky and sprinkle your castle with fairy dust - the only thing a real tinkerbell might do for you is give you a Golden shower.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the real world, almost all abusers of children are heterosexual men.* A child is more than 100 times more likely to be abused by a heterosexual man having a relationship with their mother or female relative than by a homosexual. *But as is your way, you ignore anything that contradicts you. And irrationally focus on the homosexual, ignoring the heterosexual men comprise the overwhelming majority of sexual predators of children.
> 
> Worse, you've laughably tried to convince us that a man who self identifies as homosexual, who is sexually attracted to women, that is having a heterosexual relationship with a woman....is actually a gay man.
> 
> Which is absurd. And as elegant a demonstration of how little sense your argument makes. You're quite simply clueless. And allowing your bigotry and personal animus toward gays to overwhelm your reason.
> 
> No thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Swift was the pseudonym used by a Gay activist writer for the Boston Community Gay News - the article cited was satirical in nature and written back in the 80s - given the advances the perverts movement has made over the past 2 decades what he satirized no longer seems so far away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Odd, you didn't present it as satire.
> 
> Glad I asked.
Click to expand...





> Odd, you didn't present it as satire.



I provided you the link - like the old saying - you can lead a Jack Ass to water but you can't make it think.



> Glad I asked.



You didn't ask-you only asked who the author was because you were too lazy to look it up yourself


----------



## GreenBean

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> After scanning through the rather hysterical and bizarre rantings by homophobes about the age of consent- and their fascination with pedophiilia and feces and anuses- I can only come to the obvious conclusion.
> 
> Homophobes only raise these issues because they realize that Americans now want to treat homosexuals equally and fairly- and that pisses them off.
> 
> So they try to invoke 'protect the kids'- and try to whip up hysteria to equate homosexuals with pedophiles.
> 
> No matter how much such equations endangers children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's a homophobe?
Click to expand...

A member of an enlightened oppressed intellectual minority


----------



## JakeStarkey

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again?  this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a  self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for,  they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays DO have children...I've had five. Why are our families less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
> 
> Also, can you please name for us the state or locality that requires procreation in order to apply for a civil marriage license? Can you cite one instance of a civil marriage license being revoked due to the couple's inability or refusal to procreate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop the lies.
> 
> Folks argue all the time on the Board that reproduction is a requirement.  Pop23 lives and dies by that stupdiity.
> 
> People who can't have children get married and adopt, hetero and homo.
> 
> Parents, homo and hetero, abuse children.
> 
> The issue is bad parenting, not sexual orientation.
> 
> Your conclusions do not hold up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it hasn't happened once. It's just your Left wing delusion misinterpreting what people are saying.  So when we say that the purpose of marriage is the creation of a family, you read that children have to be a requirement for any marriage, purposely bypassing the general concept and reading into it a rigid rule that was never implied.  You, being an immoral Leftist, not only lie to everyone, but you lie to yourself too.
Click to expand...


Now marriage is about family, not necessarily children?

Slide step and changing the goal line.

But it does not matter.

You don't define what is family.  You are no more an authority that Keys.

End of that nonsense.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> If that were actually true and not your bigoted, homophobic, anti gay hyperbole...you'd actually be winning cases in court.



ROFL! 

Those cases aren't being 'heard' in court... they're being sent to courts, where the jurist is a subjective advocate for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality.  There's no 'win' there.

IF those cases had been 'heard' and the 'ruling' had followed sound reason... then the elections which followed such would not have resulted in the political advocates of those 'rulings' being kicked to the curb.

As it stands now, since the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality took power in 08, your political power structure has lost >1300 public offices, across entire spectrum: local, state and federal.




Seawytch said:


> But alas for the bigots...



*Bigotry*: _intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself._

Huh.. now isn't that YOU, showing intolerance toward those who hold opinions that are different from YOURS?

In truth, Sexual Abnormality threatens children, by diluting the soundly reasoned constructs which are designed to protect children, from people who reason perversely.... who reject sound sexual propriety; through which sound families are formed, where children are raised through the complimenting natures of the respective genders; a function that sexual abnormality wholly rejects.

It turns out that the mere tolerance of sexual deviancy threatens the safety and well being of children and in THAT... you see the reason that the Ideological Left is being rejected, at every level of government, throughout the United States.


----------



## GreenBean

JakeStarkey said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do gays NEED to adopt children, again?  this itself seems like a phony argument that becomes a  self fulfilling rationalization, along the lines of: Gays need rights because they have children so we need to protect that, because they LOVE their children and their spouses....That is the most irrational cyclical argument floating out in internet land. Gays can't HAVE children, there for,  they don't need parental rights, which is all marriage comes down to. Period, it is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays DO have children...I've had five. Why are our families less deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?
> 
> Also, can you please name for us the state or locality that requires procreation in order to apply for a civil marriage license? Can you cite one instance of a civil marriage license being revoked due to the couple's inability or refusal to procreate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another strawman. Nobody's claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage. What we are saying is that when you deliberately construct a union that can't produce children, you shouldn't have the right to abuse children by sucking them into your deviant apparatus utilizing artificial means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop the lies.
> 
> Folks argue all the time on the Board that reproduction is a requirement.  Pop23 lives and dies by that stupdiity.
> 
> People who can't have children get married and adopt, hetero and homo.
> 
> Parents, homo and hetero, abuse children.
> 
> The issue is bad parenting, not sexual orientation.
> 
> Your conclusions do not hold up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it hasn't happened once. It's just your Left wing delusion misinterpreting what people are saying.  So when we say that the purpose of marriage is the creation of a family, you read that children have to be a requirement for any marriage, purposely bypassing the general concept and reading into it a rigid rule that was never implied.  You, being an immoral Leftist, not only lie to everyone, but you lie to yourself too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now marriage is about family, not necessarily children?
> 
> Slide step and changing the goal line.
> 
> But it does not matter.
> 
> You don't define what is family.  You are no more an authority that Keys.
> 
> End of that nonsense.
Click to expand...


Jake -" You, being an immoral Leftist, not only lie to everyone, but you lie to yourself too."


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

GreenBean said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> After scanning through the rather hysterical and bizarre rantings by homophobes about the age of consent- and their fascination with pedophiilia and feces and anuses- I can only come to the obvious conclusion.
> 
> Homophobes only raise these issues because they realize that Americans now want to treat homosexuals equally and fairly- and that pisses them off.
> 
> So they try to invoke 'protect the kids'- and try to whip up hysteria to equate homosexuals with pedophiles.
> 
> No matter how much such equations endangers children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's a homophobe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A member of an enlightened oppressed intellectual minority
Click to expand...


Suppressed... "Intellectually Suppressed Minority".  it is literally the diametric opposite of enlightenment.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

GreenBean said:


> I provided you the link - like the old saying - you can lead a Jack Ass to water but you can't make it think.



The modern dynamic has come to a somewhat different construct there... 

_"You can lead a Leftist to reason, but you can't make then THINK!_


----------



## GreenBean

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I provided you the link - like the old saying - you can lead a Jack Ass to water but you can't make it think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The modern dynamic has come to a somewhat different construct there...
> 
> _"You can lead a Leftist to reason, but you can't make then THINK!_
Click to expand...

Leftist> Democrat> Jack Ass> Liberal  same bag of slime  - Intellectual slouches who allow others to do their thinking for them  and simply recycle the same worn out arguments time and time again.

I think of them as apocalyptic zombies - unthinking , unknowing hoards of ignorant brain-dead shells of people


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

GreenBean said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are related via several venues - one - they are both Mental illness -two- they are both unhealthy - three - for the sake of this discussion , they are related in that they are both modes of HIV transmission
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality isn't a mental illness. So says the APA for about a generation and change. They've found no particular psychopathology associated with homosexuality. Gays and lesbians aren't different than straights in psychological functioning. They simply have a different sexual preference.
> 
> *And as is your way, you ignore anything that contradicts you. *But really, who cares? The APA vs. you on what constitutes a mental illness has the same winner every time. And its not you....as you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Where as the APA has collective millennium of relevant experience in psychological assessment and have extensively tested the issue. And in a generation, the evidence reaffirming their 1973 conclusion has only grown.
> 
> And you have failed to establish any particular relevance between intravenous drug use and homosexuality. Rendering your post on the matter irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only wrong in the fantasy world in which you wallow - in the REAL World of hard cruel facts - I've never been wrong in any discussion with you . Sorry Pal Tinkerbell is not going to swoop out of the sky and sprinkle your castle with fairy dust - the only thing a real tinkerbell might do for you is give you a Golden shower.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the real world, almost all abusers of children are heterosexual men.* A child is more than 100 times more likely to be abused by a heterosexual man having a relationship with their mother or female relative than by a homosexual. *But as is your way, you ignore anything that contradicts you. And irrationally focus on the homosexual, ignoring the heterosexual men comprise the overwhelming majority of sexual predators of children.
> 
> Worse, you've laughably tried to convince us that a man who self identifies as homosexual, who is sexually attracted to women, that is having a heterosexual relationship with a woman....is actually a gay man.
> 
> Which is absurd. And as elegant a demonstration of how little sense your argument makes. You're quite simply clueless. And allowing your bigotry and personal animus toward gays to overwhelm your reason.
> 
> No thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Swift was the pseudonym used by a Gay activist writer for the Boston Community Gay News - the article cited was satirical in nature and written back in the 80s - given the advances the perverts movement has made over the past 2 decades what he satirized no longer seems so far away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Odd, you didn't present it as satire.
> 
> Glad I asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality isn't a mental illness. So says the APA for about a generation and change. They've found no particular psychopathology associated with homosexuality. Gays and lesbians aren't different than straights in psychological functioning. They simply have a different sexual preference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Psychology initially studied homosexuality as an abnormal  phenomenon. Until the 1970s, psychology/psychiatry viewed homosexuality as a pathology and a mental illness.
> 
> That classification began to be scrutinized by some researchers, they claimed that science failed to produce any empirical evidence or scientific basis for regarding homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality- based on their revised definitions of what was normal and abnormal and what constituted a mental disorder. It was also challenged by politically charged gay activist groups.
> 
> *As a result of very limited research*, and highly controversial and tainted research at the time, minor opposition to the the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder arose. Some such as Dr. Nicholas Cummings one of the primary movers in having Homosexuality declassified as a mental Illness and author of the proposal to remove it from the DSM made the following admission ...
> 
> "....I made the resolution that being gay was not a mental illness, that it was character logical,.... I also said with that, that the APA, if it passes this resolution, *will also vote to continue research that demonstrates whatever the research demonstrates. **Unbiased, open research**. "*
> 
> Dr Cummings, is a true scientist and a firm believer in Scientific Objectivity, which is a basis of all science, or at least its supposed to be. Objectivity is a basic philosophical concept, related to reality and truth. Objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases. Scientific Objectivity is a value that informs how scientific studies are conducted and how scientific truths are arrived at. It is the idea that scientists, in attempting to uncover truths about the natural world, must aspire to eliminate personal biases, emotional involvement, etc . Today, it is nowhere to be found in the APA Scientific Objectivity has been swept under the carpet and completely forgotten. Since at least the Mid 90s leftist Ideology rules at the APA. Cummings has stated that its members are cherry picking results to fit their Agenda. As per Cummings the gay rights movement sort of captured the APA.
> 
> The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder after years of political pressure from gay activists and under the limited weight of tainted and poorly implemented studies. The American Psychiatrics association board of trustees passed this decision followed by a statement which listed among the reasons for their decision *as changing social norms and growing gay rights activism* . So basically, a scientific institution was coerced into changing a scientific opinion or classification due to* political pressure and false evidence.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The APA vs. you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dr. Rogers Wright- Co Author of Destructive trends in Mental Health - Amazon.com Destructive Trends in Mental Health The Well Intentioned Path to Harm 9780415950862 Rogers H. Wright Nicholas A. Cummings Books
> 
> 
> Dr. Nicholas Cumming [Mentioned above  - the man who wrote the motion to have Homosexuality declassified as a mental illness back in the 70s]
> 
> Dr. Jeffrey Satinover stated that mental-health organizations had allowed themselves to be manipulated and commandeered by the gay agenda which has deliberately distorted research findings to serve their own goals. He called this distortion of the science, "*appalling beyond imagination.*" Dr. Satinover has also taught constitutional law at Princeton.
> 
> Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons - stated that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has continuously ignored evidence that homosexuality is a manifestation of a psychiatric disorder. In their recent call for the legalization of homosexual marriage, *"the APA has revealed a political bias that is of no service to homosexuals*,"
> 
> There are dozens of vocal opponents who oppose the APA - and thousands more who lack the courage to speak out- it is an unwritten law that "*Thous shalt not oppose LGBT*"  under penalty of Academic death
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the real world, almost all abusers of children are heterosexual men.* A child is more than 100 times more likely to be abused by a heterosexual man having a relationship with their mother or female relative than by a homosexual. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You pulled that 100X figure out of your ass - you are not as ignorant , nor as lacking in intelligence as your posts would seem to indicate - it appears to me you are just plain lazy - get your numbers straight.... speaking of pulling things out of your ass .......... uh ... nah ... I'm not gonna go there rt now ...
> 
> Anyway - leave your son in the care of a faggot and the odds are approximately 300X more likely that he'll get schooled on travelling the Hershey highway than if you were to leave him in the care of a sane person.
> 
> Gay Men comprise about 2 - 3 % of the population - yet are responsible for about 35% of Child Molestation cases
Click to expand...


Indeed... there is nothing objective about "SCIENCE!"... which is the propaganda network of Leftists in academia who deceitfully use the inherent credibility of science, just as they subjectively use the inherent credibility of the government to subjectively and simultaneously push the same agenda.

It is deceit, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant.

What we're seeing here is little more than the reemergence of Old Testament EVIL... it's a lie, wrapped in a deceit, pushed through illicit means toward to goal of getting people to accept that which will inevitably destroy them.


----------



## Conservative65

Seawytch said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is SO true.
> 
> Just as no one with a mind that is occupied productively, give a shit about people who can't accept Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> 
> Marriage... is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> 
> 
> I have been married 38 years to my wife. Only an ignorant mother hen would oppose gay folk that love each other marrying. Some folk have to be busy bodies and have bad heterosexual marriages so they have to find some one to look down on. If your marriage is healthy no other marriage be it heterosexual or gay has any influence on it. Sorry to hear things are not going well for you. Good luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, the "how does it affect you?" idiocy for the millionth time.  Does it ever occur to you dipsticks that people might be concerned about more than themselves, that they want a strong, healthy society too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, then it's a good thing that my civil marriage to my life partner of 20 years only makes our society stronger and healthier then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anytime two freaks do something abnormal thinking that what you have will ever come close to my real marriage with a woman, it weakens society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that were actually true and not your bigoted, homophobic, anti gay hyperbole...you'd actually be winning cases in court because then you'd be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing my civil marriage.
> 
> But alas for the bigots, there is no societal harm in allowing gays to marry their consenting adult life partners. Too bad for you, great for the rest of the country.
Click to expand...

 
Those court cases have nothing to do with the concept of societal harm.  They have to do with the Liberal agenda and a bunch of faggot loving Liberals pushing that agenda. 

So you would support a brother/sister marrying under that concept of equality of consenting adults argument?  Bet you don't.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

GreenBean said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I provided you the link - like the old saying - you can lead a Jack Ass to water but you can't make it think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The modern dynamic has come to a somewhat different construct there...
> 
> _"You can lead a Leftist to reason, but you can't make then THINK!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Leftist> Democrat> Jack Ass> Liberal  same bag of slime  - Intellectual slouches who allow others to do their thinking for them  and simply recycle the same worn out arguments time and time again.
> 
> I think of them as apocalyptic zombies - unthinking , unknowing hoards of ignorant brain-dead shells of people
Click to expand...


Oh, there is no doubt, the Ideological Left are zombies... .


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ah, I see: we now have the gathering of the losers, outcasts in a world that does not understand them, plotting revenge.  Then they will return home to their mommies.


----------



## Seawytch

Conservative65 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been married 38 years to my wife. Only an ignorant mother hen would oppose gay folk that love each other marrying. Some folk have to be busy bodies and have bad heterosexual marriages so they have to find some one to look down on. If your marriage is healthy no other marriage be it heterosexual or gay has any influence on it. Sorry to hear things are not going well for you. Good luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, the "how does it affect you?" idiocy for the millionth time.  Does it ever occur to you dipsticks that people might be concerned about more than themselves, that they want a strong, healthy society too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, then it's a good thing that my civil marriage to my life partner of 20 years only makes our society stronger and healthier then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anytime two freaks do something abnormal thinking that what you have will ever come close to my real marriage with a woman, it weakens society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that were actually true and not your bigoted, homophobic, anti gay hyperbole...you'd actually be winning cases in court because then you'd be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing my civil marriage.
> 
> But alas for the bigots, there is no societal harm in allowing gays to marry their consenting adult life partners. Too bad for you, great for the rest of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those court cases have nothing to do with the concept of societal harm.  They have to do with the Liberal agenda and a bunch of faggot loving Liberals pushing that agenda.
> 
> So you would support a brother/sister marrying under that concept of equality of consenting adults argument?  Bet you don't.
Click to expand...


Actually they have to do with an oppressed minority fighting for their Civil Rights. Only the rabid anti gay bigots don't understand that...but they're dying off and won't matter a whit in a few years. Folks like you will be looked upon in 20 years the way we look on people like George Wallace.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> Actually they have to do with an oppressed minority fighting for their Civil Rights.



There is no potential for a right, which when exercised results in the injury of another to exercise their own rights.

And that is what happens when a culture adopts policy to normalize perverse reasoning... in that singular act, the means of reasonable people to govern themselves through soundly reasoned principle, is lost.

_It has always been thus..._


----------



## bodecea

JakeStarkey said:


> Ah, I see: we now have the gathering of the losers, outcasts in a world that does not understand them, plotting revenge.  Then they will return home to their mommies.


Well, this ranting on message boards is pretty much all they've got left....isn't it?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yup.  The decision will come down later in the summer, and there will be only grumping by them.

Understand this about religious social cons: they honestly believe they are being injured when they cannot make the rest of us live our lives how they tell us.


----------



## Skylar

JakeStarkey said:


> Yup.  The decision will come down later in the summer, and there will be only grumping by them.
> 
> Understand this about religious social cons: they honestly believe they are being injured when they cannot make the rest of us live our lives how they tell us.



Its fascinating, isn't it? Keys has threatened a war against gays that will make 'hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch' if gays don't 'sit down and shut the fuck up'. And you know who he blames for any war against the gays?

The very people he wants to hurt. Its an argument that should come with its own wife beater T-shirt. 

And St. Mikey is even more interesting. Lamenting about how gays are violating his rights by pushing his face into their sexuality.......all while insisting that gays should be legally prevented from ever having children, and pondering how intelligent Putin is for his crack down on the rights to free speech of gays. And exactly as you described, both consider themselves the victims.


----------



## GreenBean

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are related via several venues - one - they are both Mental illness -two- they are both unhealthy - three - for the sake of this discussion , they are related in that they are both modes of HIV transmission
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality isn't a mental illness. So says the APA for about a generation and change. They've found no particular psychopathology associated with homosexuality. Gays and lesbians aren't different than straights in psychological functioning. They simply have a different sexual preference.
> 
> *And as is your way, you ignore anything that contradicts you. *But really, who cares? The APA vs. you on what constitutes a mental illness has the same winner every time. And its not you....as you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Where as the APA has collective millennium of relevant experience in psychological assessment and have extensively tested the issue. And in a generation, the evidence reaffirming their 1973 conclusion has only grown.
> 
> And you have failed to establish any particular relevance between intravenous drug use and homosexuality. Rendering your post on the matter irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only wrong in the fantasy world in which you wallow - in the REAL World of hard cruel facts - I've never been wrong in any discussion with you . Sorry Pal Tinkerbell is not going to swoop out of the sky and sprinkle your castle with fairy dust - the only thing a real tinkerbell might do for you is give you a Golden shower.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the real world, almost all abusers of children are heterosexual men.* A child is more than 100 times more likely to be abused by a heterosexual man having a relationship with their mother or female relative than by a homosexual. *But as is your way, you ignore anything that contradicts you. And irrationally focus on the homosexual, ignoring the heterosexual men comprise the overwhelming majority of sexual predators of children.
> 
> Worse, you've laughably tried to convince us that a man who self identifies as homosexual, who is sexually attracted to women, that is having a heterosexual relationship with a woman....is actually a gay man.
> 
> Which is absurd. And as elegant a demonstration of how little sense your argument makes. You're quite simply clueless. And allowing your bigotry and personal animus toward gays to overwhelm your reason.
> 
> No thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Swift was the pseudonym used by a Gay activist writer for the Boston Community Gay News - the article cited was satirical in nature and written back in the 80s - given the advances the perverts movement has made over the past 2 decades what he satirized no longer seems so far away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Odd, you didn't present it as satire.
> 
> Glad I asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality isn't a mental illness. So says the APA for about a generation and change. They've found no particular psychopathology associated with homosexuality. Gays and lesbians aren't different than straights in psychological functioning. They simply have a different sexual preference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Psychology initially studied homosexuality as an abnormal  phenomenon. Until the 1970s, psychology/psychiatry viewed homosexuality as a pathology and a mental illness.
> 
> That classification began to be scrutinized by some researchers, they claimed that science failed to produce any empirical evidence or scientific basis for regarding homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality- based on their revised definitions of what was normal and abnormal and what constituted a mental disorder. It was also challenged by politically charged gay activist groups.
> 
> *As a result of very limited research*, and highly controversial and tainted research at the time, minor opposition to the the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder arose. Some such as Dr. Nicholas Cummings one of the primary movers in having Homosexuality declassified as a mental Illness and author of the proposal to remove it from the DSM made the following admission ...
> 
> "....I made the resolution that being gay was not a mental illness, that it was character logical,.... I also said with that, that the APA, if it passes this resolution, *will also vote to continue research that demonstrates whatever the research demonstrates. **Unbiased, open research**. "*
> 
> Dr Cummings, is a true scientist and a firm believer in Scientific Objectivity, which is a basis of all science, or at least its supposed to be. Objectivity is a basic philosophical concept, related to reality and truth. Objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases. Scientific Objectivity is a value that informs how scientific studies are conducted and how scientific truths are arrived at. It is the idea that scientists, in attempting to uncover truths about the natural world, must aspire to eliminate personal biases, emotional involvement, etc . Today, it is nowhere to be found in the APA Scientific Objectivity has been swept under the carpet and completely forgotten. Since at least the Mid 90s leftist Ideology rules at the APA. Cummings has stated that its members are cherry picking results to fit their Agenda. As per Cummings the gay rights movement sort of captured the APA.
> 
> The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder after years of political pressure from gay activists and under the limited weight of tainted and poorly implemented studies. The American Psychiatrics association board of trustees passed this decision followed by a statement which listed among the reasons for their decision *as changing social norms and growing gay rights activism* . So basically, a scientific institution was coerced into changing a scientific opinion or classification due to* political pressure and false evidence.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The APA vs. you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dr. Rogers Wright- Co Author of Destructive trends in Mental Health - Amazon.com Destructive Trends in Mental Health The Well Intentioned Path to Harm 9780415950862 Rogers H. Wright Nicholas A. Cummings Books
> 
> 
> Dr. Nicholas Cumming [Mentioned above  - the man who wrote the motion to have Homosexuality declassified as a mental illness back in the 70s]
> 
> Dr. Jeffrey Satinover stated that mental-health organizations had allowed themselves to be manipulated and commandeered by the gay agenda which has deliberately distorted research findings to serve their own goals. He called this distortion of the science, "*appalling beyond imagination.*" Dr. Satinover has also taught constitutional law at Princeton.
> 
> Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons - stated that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has continuously ignored evidence that homosexuality is a manifestation of a psychiatric disorder. In their recent call for the legalization of homosexual marriage, *"the APA has revealed a political bias that is of no service to homosexuals*,"
> 
> There are dozens of vocal opponents who oppose the APA - and thousands more who lack the courage to speak out- it is an unwritten law that "*Thous shalt not oppose LGBT*"  under penalty of Academic death
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the real world, almost all abusers of children are heterosexual men.* A child is more than 100 times more likely to be abused by a heterosexual man having a relationship with their mother or female relative than by a homosexual. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You pulled that 100X figure out of your ass - you are not as ignorant , nor as lacking in intelligence as your posts would seem to indicate - it appears to me you are just plain lazy - get your numbers straight.... speaking of pulling things out of your ass .......... uh ... nah ... I'm not gonna go there rt now ...
> 
> Anyway - leave your son in the care of a faggot and the odds are approximately 300X more likely that he'll get schooled on travelling the Hershey highway than if you were to leave him in the care of a sane person.
> 
> Gay Men comprise about 2 - 3 % of the population - yet are responsible for about 35% of Child Molestation cases
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed... there is nothing objective about "SCIENCE!"... which is the propaganda network of Leftists in academia who deceitfully use the inherent credibility of science, just as they subjectively use the inherent credibility of the government to subjectively and simultaneously push the same agenda.
> 
> It is deceit, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant.
> 
> What we're seeing here is little more than the reemergence of Old Testament EVIL... it's a lie, wrapped in a deceit, pushed through illicit means toward to goal of getting people to accept that which will inevitably destroy them.
Click to expand...


The left leaning liberals have an agenda that has nothing to do with teaching children how to think and everything to do with* teaching them what to think*, or to think in politically correct terms by the official standards set forth by the Democratic party definitions.

In 1979, during the Carter Administration, the Department of Education Organization Act was passed, the U.S. Department of Education began operating in 1980 as a cabinet level position, and the education systems have been going steadily down hill ever since.

Some tenets of the so called Educational System include ...

Promoting Racial Division







Promoting Sexual Perversion

In 2009, Obama nominated homosexual propagandist Kevin Jennings as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Education he was in charge of overseeing the _Safe and Drug-Free Schools program_. Now the drug education programs I personally have no problem with, but the lefts manipulation of the term safe is where the flakiness comes in. *Jennings was in charge of making public schools safe for leftists and homosexuals and to disseminate pro-homosexual propaganda and indoctrination to Americas school children. 

He masterminded a scheme of gay infiltration into the classroom using "tolerance" and anti-bullying programs as a perfect path to classroom indoctrination.  In 1995 Jennings made a speech to a Gay Group in which he somewhat outlined the agendas strategy
*
If the radical right can succeed in portraying us as preying on children, we will lose. Their language .... is laced with subtle and not-so-subtle innuendo that we are after their kids, -   He then went on to propose a strategy of how they could get at our kids

Re-Writing History

"United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Examination





 " rewrites the Constitution of the United States. The high school textbook contains a summary of each Amendment that alters the actual initial intent -- It quotes  the Second Amendment as, "_The people have a right to keep and bear arms in a state militia_."  When the actual amendment states "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"

A parent of a fifth grader in Texas bought to  light another abuse when she objected to a test question following the viewing of a film entitled, Remembering September 11th, which read, Why might the United States be a target for terrorism? The correct answer was Decisions we made in the United States have had negative effects on people elsewhere.  Since when did it become acceptable to teach children that we caused the attack on 9/11? Are Our Children Actually Learning Anything in School Today 

A Massachusetts public school principal, Anne Foley, banned celebrations of Columbus Day and Thanksgiving, labeling them American atrocities parading as historical holidays. She also forbid children to dress up for Halloween. Massachusetts Principal Takes Aim at Fall Holidays, Says Theyre Insensitive


Promoting Left Wing Political Causes

A teacher in Fairfax, Virginia {Michael Denman} gave his students the assignment of doing research on each and every Republican presidential candidate to search for weaknesses in the candidate themselves, as well as their positions. When the information was compiled the students were then told to conspire on a strategy paper on how to best exploit these weaknesses. These papers were to be sent to the Obama campaign.  Wow ! Hows that for Objective ??  - Maggies Notebook






Preaching Class Warfare and Entitlement

A cartoon intended for grade schools "Tax the Rich: An Animated Fairy Tale" which inflicts the impression that the only way that the rich became rich is through tax cuts, loopholes and illegal activities. Kyle Olson of the Education Action Group Foundation (EAG) says the animated video is packed with lies and over-the-top images. _What really put it over the top for me was the image of the supposed rich guy standing on the scale, urinating on the people down below him, .....  I thought that was such a cynical image ....to portray to American people and to students_.


----------



## Skylar

Seawytch said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is SO true.
> 
> Just as no one with a mind that is occupied productively, give a shit about people who can't accept Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> 
> Marriage... is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> 
> 
> I have been married 38 years to my wife. Only an ignorant mother hen would oppose gay folk that love each other marrying. Some folk have to be busy bodies and have bad heterosexual marriages so they have to find some one to look down on. If your marriage is healthy no other marriage be it heterosexual or gay has any influence on it. Sorry to hear things are not going well for you. Good luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, the "how does it affect you?" idiocy for the millionth time.  Does it ever occur to you dipsticks that people might be concerned about more than themselves, that they want a strong, healthy society too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, then it's a good thing that my civil marriage to my life partner of 20 years only makes our society stronger and healthier then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anytime two freaks do something abnormal thinking that what you have will ever come close to my real marriage with a woman, it weakens society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that were actually true and not your bigoted, homophobic, anti gay hyperbole...you'd actually be winning cases in court because then you'd be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing my civil marriage.
> 
> But alas for the bigots, there is no societal harm in allowing gays to marry their consenting adult life partners. Too bad for you, great for the rest of the country.
Click to expand...


None. To the contrary, gay marriage actually strengthens society. It encourages monogamy, it strengthens families, it expands rights, and the economy loves all the money being poured into the extra weddings. There's no downside. And solid, tangible benefits to society.

Which makes opposition to gay marriage all the more bizarre.


----------



## GreenBean

Seawytch said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, the "how does it affect you?" idiocy for the millionth time.  Does it ever occur to you dipsticks that people might be concerned about more than themselves, that they want a strong, healthy society too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then it's a good thing that my civil marriage to my life partner of 20 years only makes our society stronger and healthier then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anytime two freaks do something abnormal thinking that what you have will ever come close to my real marriage with a woman, it weakens society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that were actually true and not your bigoted, homophobic, anti gay hyperbole...you'd actually be winning cases in court because then you'd be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing my civil marriage.
> 
> But alas for the bigots, there is no societal harm in allowing gays to marry their consenting adult life partners. Too bad for you, great for the rest of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those court cases have nothing to do with the concept of societal harm.  They have to do with the Liberal agenda and a bunch of faggot loving Liberals pushing that agenda.
> 
> So you would support a brother/sister marrying under that concept of equality of consenting adults argument?  Bet you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually they have to do with an oppressed minority fighting for their Civil Rights. Only the rabid anti gay bigots don't understand that...but they're dying off and won't matter a whit in a few years. Folks like you will be looked upon in 20 years the way we look on people like George Wallace.
Click to expand...



_"If Harry Potter taught us anything, it's that nobody deserves to live in a closet. "  _
_
I don't think she/it realizes that Harry Potter is a fictional character. _


----------



## Conservative65

Skylar said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been married 38 years to my wife. Only an ignorant mother hen would oppose gay folk that love each other marrying. Some folk have to be busy bodies and have bad heterosexual marriages so they have to find some one to look down on. If your marriage is healthy no other marriage be it heterosexual or gay has any influence on it. Sorry to hear things are not going well for you. Good luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, the "how does it affect you?" idiocy for the millionth time.  Does it ever occur to you dipsticks that people might be concerned about more than themselves, that they want a strong, healthy society too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, then it's a good thing that my civil marriage to my life partner of 20 years only makes our society stronger and healthier then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anytime two freaks do something abnormal thinking that what you have will ever come close to my real marriage with a woman, it weakens society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that were actually true and not your bigoted, homophobic, anti gay hyperbole...you'd actually be winning cases in court because then you'd be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing my civil marriage.
> 
> But alas for the bigots, there is no societal harm in allowing gays to marry their consenting adult life partners. Too bad for you, great for the rest of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None. To the contrary, gay marriage actually strengthens society. It encourages monogamy, it strengthens families, it expands rights, and the economy loves all the money being poured into the extra weddings. There's no downside. And solid, tangible benefits to society.
> 
> Which makes opposition to gay marriage all the more bizarre.
Click to expand...

 
You don't have a right to get married. Nowhere does such a right exist. 

Fags marrying doesn't strengthen monogamy any more than normal marriages doing so.  If you believe that, you would have to be willing to say homos don't cheat on their partners. 

The downside is that two freaks think marrying someone of the same gender is normal.


----------



## GreenBean

Skylar said:


> And solid, tangible benefits to society.



Yup - and it's also wonderful that gayness can be enjoyed and shared this way - every kid has a right to experience inter generational intimacy - isn't that right skylar ?


----------



## Conservative65

Seawytch said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, the "how does it affect you?" idiocy for the millionth time.  Does it ever occur to you dipsticks that people might be concerned about more than themselves, that they want a strong, healthy society too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then it's a good thing that my civil marriage to my life partner of 20 years only makes our society stronger and healthier then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anytime two freaks do something abnormal thinking that what you have will ever come close to my real marriage with a woman, it weakens society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that were actually true and not your bigoted, homophobic, anti gay hyperbole...you'd actually be winning cases in court because then you'd be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing my civil marriage.
> 
> But alas for the bigots, there is no societal harm in allowing gays to marry their consenting adult life partners. Too bad for you, great for the rest of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those court cases have nothing to do with the concept of societal harm.  They have to do with the Liberal agenda and a bunch of faggot loving Liberals pushing that agenda.
> 
> So you would support a brother/sister marrying under that concept of equality of consenting adults argument?  Bet you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually they have to do with an oppressed minority fighting for their Civil Rights. Only the rabid anti gay bigots don't understand that...but they're dying off and won't matter a whit in a few years. Folks like you will be looked upon in 20 years the way we look on people like George Wallace.
Click to expand...

 
Telling a bunch of faggots and lesbians no isn't oppressive unless you're willing to claim that the only answer to any of your requests should be yes. 

They're not dying off.  My children are very well aware that people like you aren't normal.  They'll continue the fight.


----------



## Conservative65

GreenBean said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then it's a good thing that my civil marriage to my life partner of 20 years only makes our society stronger and healthier then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anytime two freaks do something abnormal thinking that what you have will ever come close to my real marriage with a woman, it weakens society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that were actually true and not your bigoted, homophobic, anti gay hyperbole...you'd actually be winning cases in court because then you'd be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing my civil marriage.
> 
> But alas for the bigots, there is no societal harm in allowing gays to marry their consenting adult life partners. Too bad for you, great for the rest of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those court cases have nothing to do with the concept of societal harm.  They have to do with the Liberal agenda and a bunch of faggot loving Liberals pushing that agenda.
> 
> So you would support a brother/sister marrying under that concept of equality of consenting adults argument?  Bet you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually they have to do with an oppressed minority fighting for their Civil Rights. Only the rabid anti gay bigots don't understand that...but they're dying off and won't matter a whit in a few years. Folks like you will be looked upon in 20 years the way we look on people like George Wallace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _"If Harry Potter taught us anything, it's that nobody deserves to live in a closet. "
> 
> I don't think she/it realizes that Harry Potter is a fictional character. _
Click to expand...

 
Much like their fictional claim that two people of the same gender marrying is normal.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I provided you the link - like the old saying - you can lead a Jack Ass to water but you can't make it think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The modern dynamic has come to a somewhat different construct there...
> 
> _"You can lead a Leftist to reason, but you can't make then THINK!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Leftist> Democrat> Jack Ass> Liberal  same bag of slime  - Intellectual slouches who allow others to do their thinking for them  and simply recycle the same worn out arguments time and time again.
> 
> I think of them as apocalyptic zombies - unthinking , unknowing hoards of ignorant brain-dead shells of people
Click to expand...


homophobe- bigot-fascist-racist- right wing nutjob- same bag of slime. Intellectual dimwits who parrot what is fed to them by racist and bigoted sources like Stormfront and WND. 

They are invested with hate- and incapable of actual human love- so they project their hatred onto Americans- they want others to hate Americans as much as they do. 

They hate- and want everyone else to hate as much as they do.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anytime two freaks do something abnormal thinking that what you have will ever come close to my real marriage with a woman, it weakens society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that were actually true and not your bigoted, homophobic, anti gay hyperbole...you'd actually be winning cases in court because then you'd be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing my civil marriage.
> 
> But alas for the bigots, there is no societal harm in allowing gays to marry their consenting adult life partners. Too bad for you, great for the rest of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those court cases have nothing to do with the concept of societal harm.  They have to do with the Liberal agenda and a bunch of faggot loving Liberals pushing that agenda.
> 
> So you would support a brother/sister marrying under that concept of equality of consenting adults argument?  Bet you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually they have to do with an oppressed minority fighting for their Civil Rights. Only the rabid anti gay bigots don't understand that...but they're dying off and won't matter a whit in a few years. Folks like you will be looked upon in 20 years the way we look on people like George Wallace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _"If Harry Potter taught us anything, it's that nobody deserves to live in a closet. "
> 
> I don't think she/it realizes that Harry Potter is a fictional character. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much like their fictional claim that two people of the same gender marrying is normal.
Click to expand...


Mixed race marriage wasn't normal- now it is.

In a few years the same will be true for same gender marriage.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And solid, tangible benefits to society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup - and it's also wonderful that gayness can be enjoyed and shared this way - every kid has a right to experience inter generational intimacy - isn't that right skylar ?
Click to expand...


Every kid has the right to be free of homophobic bullying and battery. 

Homophobes are pissed off about that.


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are related via several venues - one - they are both Mental illness -two- they are both unhealthy - three - for the sake of this discussion , they are related in that they are both modes of HIV transmission
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality isn't a mental illness. So says the APA for about a generation and change. They've found no particular psychopathology associated with homosexuality. Gays and lesbians aren't different than straights in psychological functioning. They simply have a different sexual preference.
> 
> *And as is your way, you ignore anything that contradicts you. *But really, who cares? The APA vs. you on what constitutes a mental illness has the same winner every time. And its not you....as you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Where as the APA has collective millennium of relevant experience in psychological assessment and have extensively tested the issue. And in a generation, the evidence reaffirming their 1973 conclusion has only grown.
> 
> And you have failed to establish any particular relevance between intravenous drug use and homosexuality. Rendering your post on the matter irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only wrong in the fantasy world in which you wallow - in the REAL World of hard cruel facts - I've never been wrong in any discussion with you . Sorry Pal Tinkerbell is not going to swoop out of the sky and sprinkle your castle with fairy dust - the only thing a real tinkerbell might do for you is give you a Golden shower.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the real world, almost all abusers of children are heterosexual men.* A child is more than 100 times more likely to be abused by a heterosexual man having a relationship with their mother or female relative than by a homosexual. *But as is your way, you ignore anything that contradicts you. And irrationally focus on the homosexual, ignoring the heterosexual men comprise the overwhelming majority of sexual predators of children.
> 
> Worse, you've laughably tried to convince us that a man who self identifies as homosexual, who is sexually attracted to women, that is having a heterosexual relationship with a woman....is actually a gay man.
> 
> Which is absurd. And as elegant a demonstration of how little sense your argument makes. You're quite simply clueless. And allowing your bigotry and personal animus toward gays to overwhelm your reason.
> 
> No thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Swift was the pseudonym used by a Gay activist writer for the Boston Community Gay News - the article cited was satirical in nature and written back in the 80s - given the advances the perverts movement has made over the past 2 decades what he satirized no longer seems so far away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Odd, you didn't present it as satire.
> 
> Glad I asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality isn't a mental illness. So says the APA for about a generation and change. They've found no particular psychopathology associated with homosexuality. Gays and lesbians aren't different than straights in psychological functioning. They simply have a different sexual preference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Psychology initially studied homosexuality as an abnormal  phenomenon. Until the 1970s, psychology/psychiatry viewed homosexuality as a pathology and a mental illness.
> 
> That classification began to be scrutinized by some researchers, they claimed that science failed to produce any empirical evidence or scientific basis for regarding homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality- based on their revised definitions of what was normal and abnormal and what constituted a mental disorder. It was also challenged by politically charged gay activist groups.
> 
> *As a result of very limited research*, and highly controversial and tainted research at the time, minor opposition to the the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder arose. Some such as Dr. Nicholas Cummings one of the primary movers in having Homosexuality declassified as a mental Illness and author of the proposal to remove it from the DSM made the following admission ...
> 
> "....I made the resolution that being gay was not a mental illness, that it was character logical,.... I also said with that, that the APA, if it passes this resolution, *will also vote to continue research that demonstrates whatever the research demonstrates. **Unbiased, open research**. "*
> 
> Dr Cummings, is a true scientist and a firm believer in Scientific Objectivity, which is a basis of all science, or at least its supposed to be. Objectivity is a basic philosophical concept, related to reality and truth. Objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases. Scientific Objectivity is a value that informs how scientific studies are conducted and how scientific truths are arrived at. It is the idea that scientists, in attempting to uncover truths about the natural world, must aspire to eliminate personal biases, emotional involvement, etc . Today, it is nowhere to be found in the APA Scientific Objectivity has been swept under the carpet and completely forgotten. Since at least the Mid 90s leftist Ideology rules at the APA. Cummings has stated that its members are cherry picking results to fit their Agenda. As per Cummings the gay rights movement sort of captured the APA.
> 
> The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder after years of political pressure from gay activists and under the limited weight of tainted and poorly implemented studies. The American Psychiatrics association board of trustees passed this decision followed by a statement which listed among the reasons for their decision *as changing social norms and growing gay rights activism* . So basically, a scientific institution was coerced into changing a scientific opinion or classification due to* political pressure and false evidence.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The APA vs. you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dr. Rogers Wright- Co Author of Destructive trends in Mental Health - Amazon.com Destructive Trends in Mental Health The Well Intentioned Path to Harm 9780415950862 Rogers H. Wright Nicholas A. Cummings Books
> 
> 
> Dr. Nicholas Cumming [Mentioned above  - the man who wrote the motion to have Homosexuality declassified as a mental illness back in the 70s]
> 
> Dr. Jeffrey Satinover stated that mental-health organizations had allowed themselves to be manipulated and commandeered by the gay agenda which has deliberately distorted research findings to serve their own goals. He called this distortion of the science, "*appalling beyond imagination.*" Dr. Satinover has also taught constitutional law at Princeton.
> 
> Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons - stated that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has continuously ignored evidence that homosexuality is a manifestation of a psychiatric disorder. In their recent call for the legalization of homosexual marriage, *"the APA has revealed a political bias that is of no service to homosexuals*,"
> 
> There are dozens of vocal opponents who oppose the APA - and thousands more who lack the courage to speak out- it is an unwritten law that "*Thous shalt not oppose LGBT*"  under penalty of Academic death
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the real world, almost all abusers of children are heterosexual men.* A child is more than 100 times more likely to be abused by a heterosexual man having a relationship with their mother or female relative than by a homosexual. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You pulled that 100X figure out of your ass - you are not as ignorant , nor as lacking in intelligence as your posts would seem to indicate - it appears to me you are just plain lazy - get your numbers straight.... speaking of pulling things out of your ass .......... uh ... nah ... I'm not gonna go there rt now ...
> 
> Anyway - leave your son in the care of a faggot and the odds are approximately 300X more likely that he'll get schooled on travelling the Hershey highway than if you were to leave him in the care of a sane person.
> 
> Gay Men comprise about 2 - 3 % of the population - yet are responsible for about 35% of Child Molestation cases
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed... there is nothing objective about "SCIENCE!"... which is the propaganda network of Leftists in academia who deceitfully use the inherent credibility of science, just as they subjectively use the inherent credibility of the government to subjectively and simultaneously push the same agenda.
> 
> It is deceit, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant.
> 
> What we're seeing here is little more than the reemergence of Old Testament EVIL... it's a lie, wrapped in a deceit, pushed through illicit means toward to goal of getting people to accept that which will inevitably destroy them.
Click to expand...


Do ever read what you are proselytizing?  Scientists look for answers in objective ways by testing facts and theories.
What exactly is the inherent credibility of the government?  Would that credibility be found in our leaders in Congress?  Didn't Michael Grimm just resign due to felony charges?
"It is deceit, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant."  What exactly are you alluding to?
You give little credence to the human race by assuming we are ignorant, unable to formulate a thought for ourselves. 
Your prejudice, superstition, and disdain for those who do not follow your undertakings to malign the minority communities will inevitably destroy our society.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, the "how does it affect you?" idiocy for the millionth time.  Does it ever occur to you dipsticks that people might be concerned about more than themselves, that they want a strong, healthy society too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then it's a good thing that my civil marriage to my life partner of 20 years only makes our society stronger and healthier then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anytime two freaks do something abnormal thinking that what you have will ever come close to my real marriage with a woman, it weakens society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that were actually true and not your bigoted, homophobic, anti gay hyperbole...you'd actually be winning cases in court because then you'd be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing my civil marriage.
> 
> But alas for the bigots, there is no societal harm in allowing gays to marry their consenting adult life partners. Too bad for you, great for the rest of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None. To the contrary, gay marriage actually strengthens society. It encourages monogamy, it strengthens families, it expands rights, and the economy loves all the money being poured into the extra weddings. There's no downside. And solid, tangible benefits to society.
> 
> Which makes opposition to gay marriage all the more bizarre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have a right to get married. Nowhere does such a right exist.
> .
> .
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court says you are wrong- and ignorant. We all have the right to get married.

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

Although_Loving_arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

_Maynard v. Hill,_125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as *"the most important relation in life,"*_id._at125 U. S. 205, and as *"the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,*"

In_Meyer v. Nebraska,_262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that *the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,*

In_Griswold v. Connecticut,_381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

_Carey v. Population Services International,_431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that *an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage*,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"


----------



## Syriusly

Skylar said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been married 38 years to my wife. Only an ignorant mother hen would oppose gay folk that love each other marrying. Some folk have to be busy bodies and have bad heterosexual marriages so they have to find some one to look down on. If your marriage is healthy no other marriage be it heterosexual or gay has any influence on it. Sorry to hear things are not going well for you. Good luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, the "how does it affect you?" idiocy for the millionth time.  Does it ever occur to you dipsticks that people might be concerned about more than themselves, that they want a strong, healthy society too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, then it's a good thing that my civil marriage to my life partner of 20 years only makes our society stronger and healthier then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anytime two freaks do something abnormal thinking that what you have will ever come close to my real marriage with a woman, it weakens society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that were actually true and not your bigoted, homophobic, anti gay hyperbole...you'd actually be winning cases in court because then you'd be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing my civil marriage.
> 
> But alas for the bigots, there is no societal harm in allowing gays to marry their consenting adult life partners. Too bad for you, great for the rest of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None. To the contrary, gay marriage actually strengthens society. It encourages monogamy, it strengthens families, it expands rights, and the economy loves all the money being poured into the extra weddings. There's no downside. And solid, tangible benefits to society.
> 
> Which makes opposition to gay marriage all the more bizarre.
Click to expand...


No more bizarre than the opposition to equal rights for any other minority group. 

At its root is bigotry.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are related via several venues - one - they are both Mental illness -two- they are both unhealthy - three - for the sake of this discussion , they are related in that they are both modes of HIV transmission
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality isn't a mental illness. So says the APA for about a generation and change. They've found no particular psychopathology associated with homosexuality. Gays and lesbians aren't different than straights in psychological functioning. They simply have a different sexual preference.
> 
> *And as is your way, you ignore anything that contradicts you. *But really, who cares? The APA vs. you on what constitutes a mental illness has the same winner every time. And its not you....as you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Where as the APA has collective millennium of relevant experience in psychological assessment and have extensively tested the issue. And in a generation, the evidence reaffirming their 1973 conclusion has only grown.
> 
> And you have failed to establish any particular relevance between intravenous drug use and homosexuality. Rendering your post on the matter irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only wrong in the fantasy world in which you wallow - in the REAL World of hard cruel facts - I've never been wrong in any discussion with you . Sorry Pal Tinkerbell is not going to swoop out of the sky and sprinkle your castle with fairy dust - the only thing a real tinkerbell might do for you is give you a Golden shower.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the real world, almost all abusers of children are heterosexual men.* A child is more than 100 times more likely to be abused by a heterosexual man having a relationship with their mother or female relative than by a homosexual. *But as is your way, you ignore anything that contradicts you. And irrationally focus on the homosexual, ignoring the heterosexual men comprise the overwhelming majority of sexual predators of children.
> 
> Worse, you've laughably tried to convince us that a man who self identifies as homosexual, who is sexually attracted to women, that is having a heterosexual relationship with a woman....is actually a gay man.
> 
> Which is absurd. And as elegant a demonstration of how little sense your argument makes. You're quite simply clueless. And allowing your bigotry and personal animus toward gays to overwhelm your reason.
> 
> No thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Swift was the pseudonym used by a Gay activist writer for the Boston Community Gay News - the article cited was satirical in nature and written back in the 80s - given the advances the perverts movement has made over the past 2 decades what he satirized no longer seems so far away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Odd, you didn't present it as satire.
> 
> Glad I asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality isn't a mental illness. So says the APA for about a generation and change. They've found no particular psychopathology associated with homosexuality. Gays and lesbians aren't different than straights in psychological functioning. They simply have a different sexual preference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Psychology initially studied homosexuality as an abnormal  phenomenon. Until the 1970s, psychology/psychiatry viewed homosexuality as a pathology and a mental illness.
> 
> That classification began to be scrutinized by some researchers, they claimed that science failed to produce any empirical evidence or scientific basis for regarding homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality- based on their revised definitions of what was normal and abnormal and what constituted a mental disorder. It was also challenged by politically charged gay activist groups.
> 
> *As a result of very limited research*, and highly controversial and tainted research at the time, minor opposition to the the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder arose. Some such as Dr. Nicholas Cummings one of the primary movers in having Homosexuality declassified as a mental Illness and author of the proposal to remove it from the DSM made the following admission ...
> 
> "....I made the resolution that being gay was not a mental illness, that it was character logical,.... I also said with that, that the APA, if it passes this resolution, *will also vote to continue research that demonstrates whatever the research demonstrates. **Unbiased, open research**. "*
> 
> Dr Cummings, is a true scientist and a firm believer in Scientific Objectivity, which is a basis of all science, or at least its supposed to be. Objectivity is a basic philosophical concept, related to reality and truth. Objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases. Scientific Objectivity is a value that informs how scientific studies are conducted and how scientific truths are arrived at. It is the idea that scientists, in attempting to uncover truths about the natural world, must aspire to eliminate personal biases, emotional involvement, etc . Today, it is nowhere to be found in the APA Scientific Objectivity has been swept under the carpet and completely forgotten. Since at least the Mid 90s leftist Ideology rules at the APA. Cummings has stated that its members are cherry picking results to fit their Agenda. As per Cummings the gay rights movement sort of captured the APA.
> 
> The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder after years of political pressure from gay activists and under the limited weight of tainted and poorly implemented studies. The American Psychiatrics association board of trustees passed this decision followed by a statement which listed among the reasons for their decision *as changing social norms and growing gay rights activism* . So basically, a scientific institution was coerced into changing a scientific opinion or classification due to* political pressure and false evidence.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The APA vs. you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dr. Rogers Wright- Co Author of Destructive trends in Mental Health - Amazon.com Destructive Trends in Mental Health The Well Intentioned Path to Harm 9780415950862 Rogers H. Wright Nicholas A. Cummings Books
> 
> 
> Dr. Nicholas Cumming [Mentioned above  - the man who wrote the motion to have Homosexuality declassified as a mental illness back in the 70s]
> 
> Dr. Jeffrey Satinover stated that mental-health organizations had allowed themselves to be manipulated and commandeered by the gay agenda which has deliberately distorted research findings to serve their own goals. He called this distortion of the science, "*appalling beyond imagination.*" Dr. Satinover has also taught constitutional law at Princeton.
> 
> Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons - stated that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has continuously ignored evidence that homosexuality is a manifestation of a psychiatric disorder. In their recent call for the legalization of homosexual marriage, *"the APA has revealed a political bias that is of no service to homosexuals*,"
> 
> There are dozens of vocal opponents who oppose the APA - and thousands more who lack the courage to speak out- it is an unwritten law that "*Thous shalt not oppose LGBT*"  under penalty of Academic death
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the real world, almost all abusers of children are heterosexual men.* A child is more than 100 times more likely to be abused by a heterosexual man having a relationship with their mother or female relative than by a homosexual. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You pulled that 100X figure out of your ass - you are not as ignorant , nor as lacking in intelligence as your posts would seem to indicate - it appears to me you are just plain lazy - get your numbers straight.... speaking of pulling things out of your ass .......... uh ... nah ... I'm not gonna go there rt now ...
> 
> Anyway - leave your son in the care of a faggot and the odds are approximately 300X more likely that he'll get schooled on travelling the Hershey highway than if you were to leave him in the care of a sane person.
> 
> Gay Men comprise about 2 - 3 % of the population - yet are responsible for about 35% of Child Molestation cases
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed... there is nothing objective about "SCIENCE!"... which is the propaganda network of Leftists in academia who deceitfully use the inherent credibility of science, just as they subjectively use the inherent credibility of the government to subjectively and simultaneously push the same agenda.
> 
> It is deceit, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant.
> 
> What we're seeing here is little more than the reemergence of Old Testament EVIL... it's a lie, wrapped in a deceit, pushed through illicit means toward to goal of getting people to accept that which will inevitably destroy them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The left leaning liberals have an agenda that has nothing to do with teaching children how to think and everything to do with* teaching them what to think*, or to think in politically correct terms by the official standards set forth by the Democratic party definitions.
> 
> In 1979, during the Carter Administration, the Department of Education Organization Act was passed, the U.S. Department of Education began operating in 1980 as a cabinet level position, and the education systems have been going steadily down hill ever since.
> 
> Some tenets of the so called Educational System include ...
> 
> Promoting Racial Division
> 
> 
> Promoting Sexual Perversion
> 
> 
> Re-Writing History
> 
> Promoting Left Wing Political Causes
> 
> 
> ]
Click to expand...


Your post is Orwellian- about the only thing you left out is 

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

What you call 'promoting racial division', non-bigots call promoting racial equality and opposing racial discrimination.
What you call 'promoting sexual perversion', non-bigots call promoting the end of homophobic bullying
What you call 're-writing history', non-bigots call facts.
What you call 'promoting left wing political causes', non-bigots call partisan blinders.

What a hater you are.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, the "how does it affect you?" idiocy for the millionth time.  Does it ever occur to you dipsticks that people might be concerned about more than themselves, that they want a strong, healthy society too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then it's a good thing that my civil marriage to my life partner of 20 years only makes our society stronger and healthier then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anytime two freaks do something abnormal thinking that what you have will ever come close to my real marriage with a woman, it weakens society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that were actually true and not your bigoted, homophobic, anti gay hyperbole...you'd actually be winning cases in court because then you'd be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing my civil marriage.
> 
> But alas for the bigots, there is no societal harm in allowing gays to marry their consenting adult life partners. Too bad for you, great for the rest of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None. To the contrary, gay marriage actually strengthens society. It encourages monogamy, it strengthens families, it expands rights, and the economy loves all the money being poured into the extra weddings. There's no downside. And solid, tangible benefits to society.
> 
> Which makes opposition to gay marriage all the more bizarre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No more bizarre than the opposition to equal rights for any other minority group.
> 
> At its root is bigotry.
Click to expand...

 
Since marriage isn't a right, fight for equality of something that isn't makes such groups like the fags look stupid.


----------



## hazlnut

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.



You like it rubbed ON your face?





> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.



I guess you're not familiar with segregation and the civil rights movement.  Hell, you don't even seem to know about slavery and how slave owners used the bible to justify their "beliefs".



> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells



special rights, like what?



> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.



Isolated examples. 



> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?



Fame?  The old fashion way was through steroids.



> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?









Face it, you're a homophobe and you don't like that more people aren't like you.  A bitter, bigot.

GO to hell.  And leave the country if you don't like it here.


----------



## Skylar

GreenBean said:


> Psychology initially studied homosexuality as an abnormal  phenomenon. Until the 1970s, psychology/psychiatry viewed homosexuality as a pathology and a mental illness.



They did initially. But after decades of studies,* they could find no actual psychopathology associated with homosexuality. *



> homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities"
> 
> American Psychiatric Association, 1974



Homosexuals had the same mental functioning as heterosexuals. They had similarly sound judgment, could think as cognitively, were as stable when tested. They were in fact indistinguishable in psychological testing as their healthy heterosexual counterparts. The only difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals was sexual preference. And the APA concluded that the stark lack of psychopathology among homosexuals demonstrated that homosexuality was not itself psychopathology. The American Psychological Association reviewed the evidence and came to the same conclusion in 1975.

*The evidence convinced them. *And since then, the evidence has only gotten stronger. Reinforcing their findings from more than 40 years ago.

You say that homosexuality is a mental illness. And you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You have no training in psychopathology. You have no experience in the field. And you're emotionally invested in personal enmity toward homosexuals to such a degree that you'll ignore any source that doesn't agree with you. Even if those sources are eminently qualified, backed with evidence, and have decades of experience. *Your sole basis of credibility is that a source agree with you.*

And you're nobody. Which begs the question......what possible relevance does your personal beliefs have with the actual mental health of homosexuals? And the answer is obvious:

_None. _



> *As a result of very limited research*, and highly controversial and tainted research at the time, minor opposition to the the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder arose. Some such as Dr. Nicholas Cummings one of the primary movers in having Homosexuality declassified as a mental Illness and author of the proposal to remove it from the DSM made the following admission ...



Your assessment of controversial and tainted is that a source disagree with you. If they don't find what you believe, then they lack credibility. Its a perfect circle of bullshit, as you only hear what you already believe.

But why would we ignore a source just because it disagrees with you?* Again, you're nobody.* And you've demonstrated profoundly poor reasoning skills regarding homosexuals. Offering us the fetid rhetorical turd of 'a self identified heterosexual, who is sexually attracted to women, and is in a heterosexual relationship with a woman, is actually a gay man' nonsense. All so you can continue to rail against homosexuals.

Agreement with you simply isn't a standard of credibility. Nor does disagreement with you reduce credibility. Not to anyone who doesn't share your irrational prejudices.



> Objectivity is a basic philosophical concept, related to reality and truth. Objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases. Scientific Objectivity is a value that informs how scientific studies are conducted and how scientific truths are arrived at. It is the idea that scientists, in attempting to uncover truths about the natural world, must aspire to eliminate personal biases, emotional involvement, etc . Today, it is nowhere to be found in the APA Scientific Objectivity has been swept under the carpet and completely forgotten. Since at least the Mid 90s leftist Ideology rules at the APA. Cummings has stated that its members are cherry picking results to fit their Agenda. As per Cummings the gay rights movement sort of captured the APA.



And this is the folly of your process. As you lack objectivity.* You only accept sources as valid if they agree with what you already believe.* If they don't, you ignore them completely. The APA, with 134,000 members is summarily dismissed by you because they don't agree with you. While you've repeatedly cited the Family Research Council, an openly biased source that has flagrantly misrepresented the research of other scientists, as they agree with you.

You're literally violating your own standards of 'scientific objectivism', and embracing the very cherry picking you claim to condemn. All so you can rail against gays.



> Dr Cummings, is a true scientist and a firm believer in Scientific Objectivity, which is a basis of all science, or at least its supposed to be. Objectivity is a basic philosophical concept, related to reality and truth.



Dr. Cummings says what you believe, so he's a 'true scientist'. If he didn't, you wouldn't be citing him. Worse, you're citing and ignoring your own sources. As Cumming's criticism of the APA is for its stance on reparative therapy. *He stands by his assessment that homosexuality isn't a mental illness. *With his criticism of the organization occurring in the 1980s. A decade after the APA made its assessment regarding homosexuality.

All of which you know, but really hope we don't.

But as is your way, *you ignore anything that you don't want to believe. *So you'll cite Cummings in as much as he agrees with you. And ignore him on what you don't. Where by any rational standard, he's either a credible source, or he isn't.

*You're literally citing and ignoring the same source.* And demonstrating oh-so elegantly how utterly devoid your process is of objectivity. And how eagerly you embrace the cherry picking fallacy.



> You pulled that 100X figure out of your ass - you are not as ignorant , nor as lacking in intelligence as your posts would seem to indicate - it appears to me you are just plain lazy - get your numbers straight.... speaking of pulling things out of your ass .......... uh ... nah ... I'm not gonna go there rt now ...



You're confusing me for you. You pull numbers out of your ass.  So you assume that everyone else must as well. Just like you cherry pick flagrantly and assume everyone else must as well.

Perhaps this will help alleviate your confusion.



> In a study of 269 cases of child sex abuse, only two offenders where found to be gay or lesbian. More relevant was the finding that of the cases involving molestation of a boy by a man, seventy-four percent of the men were or had been in a heterosexual relationship with the boys mother or another female relative. The conclusion was found that "*a child's risk of being molested by his or her relative's heterosexual partner is over one hundred times greater than by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual." - *
> 
> Gay and Lesbian Adoptive Parents Issues and Concerns - FindLaw



With the study being listed here:

Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals 

*All of which you'll ignore because you don't want to believe it. *Just like you'll ignore the American Psychiatric association. Just like you'll ignore the American Psychological Association. Just like you ignored Dr. Cummings. *Your only standard of credibility is that a source agree with you.*

You're like the Avatar of confirmation bias. And remain spectacularly, willfully ignorant. But the world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes. And we're not similarly obligated to ignore any source that is inconvenient to your argument.


> Gay Men comprise about 2 - 3 % of the population - yet are responsible for about 35% of Child Molestation cases
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed... there is nothing objective about "SCIENCE!"... which is the propaganda network of Leftists in academia who deceitfully use the inherent credibility of science, just as they subjectively use the inherent credibility of the government to subjectively and simultaneously push the same agenda.
Click to expand...


The obvious problem is that you're not being objective. Almost all sexual molesters of children are self identified heterosexuals. With 74% of the abusers of boys being heterosexual men in heterosexual relationships with the mothers or other close female relative of the boy they molested. So per you reasoning,* a self identifying heterosexual man, who is sexually attracted to women, who is in a heterosexual physical relationship with a woman.........is actually a gay man? *

Laughing....that's absurd. You can type the word 'objective', but you can't apply the meaning. Your hatred overrides your reason.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are related via several venues - one - they are both Mental illness -two- they are both unhealthy - three - for the sake of this discussion , they are related in that they are both modes of HIV transmission
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality isn't a mental illness. So says the APA for about a generation and change. They've found no particular psychopathology associated with homosexuality. Gays and lesbians aren't different than straights in psychological functioning. They simply have a different sexual preference.
> 
> *And as is your way, you ignore anything that contradicts you. *But really, who cares? The APA vs. you on what constitutes a mental illness has the same winner every time. And its not you....as you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Where as the APA has collective millennium of relevant experience in psychological assessment and have extensively tested the issue. And in a generation, the evidence reaffirming their 1973 conclusion has only grown.
> 
> And you have failed to establish any particular relevance between intravenous drug use and homosexuality. Rendering your post on the matter irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only wrong in the fantasy world in which you wallow - in the REAL World of hard cruel facts - I've never been wrong in any discussion with you . Sorry Pal Tinkerbell is not going to swoop out of the sky and sprinkle your castle with fairy dust - the only thing a real tinkerbell might do for you is give you a Golden shower.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the real world, almost all abusers of children are heterosexual men.* A child is more than 100 times more likely to be abused by a heterosexual man having a relationship with their mother or female relative than by a homosexual. *But as is your way, you ignore anything that contradicts you. And irrationally focus on the homosexual, ignoring the heterosexual men comprise the overwhelming majority of sexual predators of children.
> 
> Worse, you've laughably tried to convince us that a man who self identifies as homosexual, who is sexually attracted to women, that is having a heterosexual relationship with a woman....is actually a gay man.
> 
> Which is absurd. And as elegant a demonstration of how little sense your argument makes. You're quite simply clueless. And allowing your bigotry and personal animus toward gays to overwhelm your reason.
> 
> No thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Swift was the pseudonym used by a Gay activist writer for the Boston Community Gay News - the article cited was satirical in nature and written back in the 80s - given the advances the perverts movement has made over the past 2 decades what he satirized no longer seems so far away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Odd, you didn't present it as satire.
> 
> Glad I asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality isn't a mental illness. So says the APA for about a generation and change. They've found no particular psychopathology associated with homosexuality. Gays and lesbians aren't different than straights in psychological functioning. They simply have a different sexual preference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Psychology initially studied homosexuality as an abnormal  phenomenon. Until the 1970s, psychology/psychiatry viewed homosexuality as a pathology and a mental illness
Click to expand...


homosexuality was viewed as a mental illness for 23 years- the APA declared it a pathology in 1950- and changed that designation in 1973. 

Homophobes like yourself cling to a brief period in the history of mental health- that changed over 40 years ago. 

Psychology did study homosexuality- and with mixed results. The reality is that the initial designation of homosexuality as a disease was not based on firm science but was a mixture of politics and science- and that is how the designation changed also.

There is an excellent history of the change of the DSM

Transcript This American Life

_Now, prior to Evelyn Hooker, all of the research in homosexuality-- all of it-- was done on people who were already under serious psychiatric treatment. Let me repeat that. In the history of psychiatric research, no one had ever conducted a study on a homosexual population that wasn't either in therapy, or prison, a mental hospital, or the disciplinary barracks of the armed services.

Evelyn thought about this. And decided that this kind of research was distorting psychiatry's conclusions about homosexual populations. To test her theory, Evelyn came up with an experiment. Through her former student, she located 30 homosexuals who had never sought therapy in their lives, and matched those homosexuals with a group of heterosexuals of comparable age, IQ, and education. Evelyn then put both groups through a battery of psychological tests, including a Rorschach test, the famous ink blot test.

*After disguising her subjects, Evelyn gave the results to three experienced psychiatrists and asked them to identify the homosexuals. She figured that if homosexuals were inherently pathological, the psychiatrists would be able to pick them out easily. But the judges were completely unable to distinguish the homos from hets. Equally important was the fact that the judges categorized 2/3 of both the homosexuals and the heterosexuals as perfectly well adjusted normally functioning human beings.*_

And my favorite quote from that story:

_*In other words, each side continues to charge the other with being unscientific*. Ronald Bayer is a public health historian at Columbia University, who has written a history of the change in the DSM and how psychiatrists view homosexuality.
_
*Ronald Bayer*
_*The interesting thing, in a debate like this, is both sides wrap themselves in the mantle of science. And both sides charge that the other side is being unscientific*. That is just the nature of these controversies. But the fundamental question of whether or not homosexuality is a disease, it seems to me, is not a scientific question._


----------



## Syriusly

ninja007 said:


> the libs in this thread keep talking about no need to procreate; not surprising since they defend millions of babies being slaughtered.



Why am I not surprised that the same people who don't want equality for homosexuals also oppose a woman controlling her own body.


----------



## JakeStarkey

GreenBean and Keys' social con nonsense is rejected overwhelmingly by the millennial generation, so all they are really doing is bloviating and blathering.  Most youth and young aldults in social con churches reject such nonsense as well.

Keys, there will only be a war against those who war against society, so I suggest you stop your war crys.


----------



## Seawytch

Conservative65 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then it's a good thing that my civil marriage to my life partner of 20 years only makes our society stronger and healthier then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anytime two freaks do something abnormal thinking that what you have will ever come close to my real marriage with a woman, it weakens society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that were actually true and not your bigoted, homophobic, anti gay hyperbole...you'd actually be winning cases in court because then you'd be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing my civil marriage.
> 
> But alas for the bigots, there is no societal harm in allowing gays to marry their consenting adult life partners. Too bad for you, great for the rest of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those court cases have nothing to do with the concept of societal harm.  They have to do with the Liberal agenda and a bunch of faggot loving Liberals pushing that agenda.
> 
> So you would support a brother/sister marrying under that concept of equality of consenting adults argument?  Bet you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually they have to do with an oppressed minority fighting for their Civil Rights. Only the rabid anti gay bigots don't understand that...but they're dying off and won't matter a whit in a few years. Folks like you will be looked upon in 20 years the way we look on people like George Wallace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Telling a bunch of faggots and lesbians no isn't oppressive unless you're willing to claim that the only answer to any of your requests should be yes.
> 
> They're not dying off.  My children are very well aware that people like you aren't normal.  They'll continue the fight.
Click to expand...


Then they too will be social pariahs.

_Topline data in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, support that conclusion. In addition to 77 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds (63 percent "strongly"), gay marriage is broadly backed by 30- to 39-year-olds, 68 percent. That falls to half of 40- to 64-year-olds, and bottoms out at 38 percent of seniors._

Americans Ideology and Age Drive Gay Marriage Views - ABC News


----------



## Skylar

Conservative65 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, the "how does it affect you?" idiocy for the millionth time.  Does it ever occur to you dipsticks that people might be concerned about more than themselves, that they want a strong, healthy society too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then it's a good thing that my civil marriage to my life partner of 20 years only makes our society stronger and healthier then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anytime two freaks do something abnormal thinking that what you have will ever come close to my real marriage with a woman, it weakens society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that were actually true and not your bigoted, homophobic, anti gay hyperbole...you'd actually be winning cases in court because then you'd be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing my civil marriage.
> 
> But alas for the bigots, there is no societal harm in allowing gays to marry their consenting adult life partners. Too bad for you, great for the rest of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None. To the contrary, gay marriage actually strengthens society. It encourages monogamy, it strengthens families, it expands rights, and the economy loves all the money being poured into the extra weddings. There's no downside. And solid, tangible benefits to society.
> 
> Which makes opposition to gay marriage all the more bizarre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have a right to get married. Nowhere does such a right exist.
Click to expand...


Says you. The courts have long recognized that marriage is a fundamental right. 

Your agreement or disagreement is simply irrelevant to the status of marriage as a right. As our rights aren't based on your agreement. 



> Fags marrying doesn't strengthen monogamy any more than normal marriages doing so.



And I think that heterosexual marriages strengthen monogamy too. More marriage, more monogamy. What's not to love?



> The downside is that two freaks think marrying someone of the same gender is normal.



How is are two people that love each other getting married a 'downside'? What is the cost? Because we've already established the elaborate benefits.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is SO true.
> 
> Just as no one with a mind that is occupied productively, give a shit about people who can't accept Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> 
> Marriage... is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> 
> 
> I have been married 38 years to my wife. Only an ignorant mother hen would oppose gay folk that love each other marrying. Some folk have to be busy bodies and have bad heterosexual marriages so they have to find some one to look down on. If your marriage is healthy no other marriage be it heterosexual or gay has any influence on it. Sorry to hear things are not going well for you. Good luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, the "how does it affect you?" idiocy for the millionth time.  Does it ever occur to you dipsticks that people might be concerned about more than themselves, that they want a strong, healthy society too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, then it's a good thing that my civil marriage to my life partner of 20 years only makes our society stronger and healthier then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anytime two freaks do something abnormal thinking that what you have will ever come close to my real marriage with a woman, it weakens society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that were actually true and not your bigoted, homophobic, anti gay hyperbole...you'd actually be winning cases in court because then you'd be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing my civil marriage.
> 
> But alas for the bigots, there is no societal harm in allowing gays to marry their consenting adult life partners. Too bad for you, great for the rest of the country.
Click to expand...

Is that how court cases are decided?


----------



## The2ndAmendment

Skylar said:


> Does it ever occur to you that gay marriage will actually strengthen society, rather than weaken it?



Yes. In fact, if most men entered a gay marriage, women would be left on the streets, heralding a return to the natural order or breadwinner and caretaker.

Too bad most of us aren't gay though.

I had to bring a girl back from El Salvador, because the feminist indocrinated women of America want men to be both breadwinner and caretaker of the household.

Have my babies, take care of them, make food. Keep the nest clean. If you nag me I'll put my cock in your mouth. Don't like it? There's the door.

"But I'm a career oriented woman!"


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been married 38 years to my wife. Only an ignorant mother hen would oppose gay folk that love each other marrying. Some folk have to be busy bodies and have bad heterosexual marriages so they have to find some one to look down on. If your marriage is healthy no other marriage be it heterosexual or gay has any influence on it. Sorry to hear things are not going well for you. Good luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, the "how does it affect you?" idiocy for the millionth time.  Does it ever occur to you dipsticks that people might be concerned about more than themselves, that they want a strong, healthy society too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, then it's a good thing that my civil marriage to my life partner of 20 years only makes our society stronger and healthier then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anytime two freaks do something abnormal thinking that what you have will ever come close to my real marriage with a woman, it weakens society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that were actually true and not your bigoted, homophobic, anti gay hyperbole...you'd actually be winning cases in court because then you'd be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing my civil marriage.
> 
> But alas for the bigots, there is no societal harm in allowing gays to marry their consenting adult life partners. Too bad for you, great for the rest of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that how court cases are decided?
Click to expand...


It is a factor, yes. It's one of the primary reason anti gay marriage laws are losing...the bigots cannot come up with a societal harm that meets a reasonable person standard.


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been married 38 years to my wife. Only an ignorant mother hen would oppose gay folk that love each other marrying. Some folk have to be busy bodies and have bad heterosexual marriages so they have to find some one to look down on. If your marriage is healthy no other marriage be it heterosexual or gay has any influence on it. Sorry to hear things are not going well for you. Good luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, the "how does it affect you?" idiocy for the millionth time.  Does it ever occur to you dipsticks that people might be concerned about more than themselves, that they want a strong, healthy society too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, then it's a good thing that my civil marriage to my life partner of 20 years only makes our society stronger and healthier then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anytime two freaks do something abnormal thinking that what you have will ever come close to my real marriage with a woman, it weakens society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that were actually true and not your bigoted, homophobic, anti gay hyperbole...you'd actually be winning cases in court because then you'd be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing my civil marriage.
> 
> But alas for the bigots, there is no societal harm in allowing gays to marry their consenting adult life partners. Too bad for you, great for the rest of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that how court cases are decided?
Click to expand...


Factually? Yeah. That's how court cases are decided. The 'harm' to society imagined by your ilk just hasn't happened. While the harm of denying marriage equality is well established. And recognized by the courts.


----------



## Skylar

The2ndAmendment said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it ever occur to you that gay marriage will actually strengthen society, rather than weaken it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. In fact, if most men entered a gay marriage, women would be left on the streets, heralding a return to the natural order or breadwinner and caretaker.
Click to expand...


Huh? Most men aren't entering a gay marriage. 



> I had to bring a girl back from El Salvador, because the feminist indocrinated women of America want men to be both breadwinner and caretaker of the household.



Wait, what? What possible relevance does gay marriage have with your personal baggage with heterosexual women?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

hazlnut said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You like it rubbed ON your face?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you're not familiar with segregation and the civil rights movement.  Hell, you don't even seem to know about slavery and how slave owners used the bible to justify their "beliefs".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> special rights, like what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isolated examples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fame?  The old fashion way was through steroids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face it, you're a homophobe and you don't like that more people aren't like you.  A bitter, bigot.
> 
> GO to hell.  And leave the country if you don't like it here.
Click to expand...


Speaking of leaving the country, you should visit your Mooslem brethren in Saudi Arabia and tell them how gay you are. Please have a friend get video of it to upload their tolerant response to Youtube. They'll kill you, but you'll be an inspiration to other gay Mooslims, a martyr for the cause. It was nice knowing you.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the libs in this thread keep talking about no need to procreate; not surprising since they defend millions of babies being slaughtered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that the same people who don't want equality for homosexuals also oppose a woman controlling her own body.
Click to expand...

Why is it you fags only care about children and adopting them once they're born?


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then it's a good thing that my civil marriage to my life partner of 20 years only makes our society stronger and healthier then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anytime two freaks do something abnormal thinking that what you have will ever come close to my real marriage with a woman, it weakens society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that were actually true and not your bigoted, homophobic, anti gay hyperbole...you'd actually be winning cases in court because then you'd be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing my civil marriage.
> 
> But alas for the bigots, there is no societal harm in allowing gays to marry their consenting adult life partners. Too bad for you, great for the rest of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None. To the contrary, gay marriage actually strengthens society. It encourages monogamy, it strengthens families, it expands rights, and the economy loves all the money being poured into the extra weddings. There's no downside. And solid, tangible benefits to society.
> 
> Which makes opposition to gay marriage all the more bizarre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No more bizarre than the opposition to equal rights for any other minority group.
> 
> At its root is bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since marriage isn't a right, fight for equality of something that isn't makes such groups like the fags look stupid.
Click to expand...


Since marriage is a right- recognized repeatedly by the Supreme Court going back almost 100 years- your post just make bigots look stupid

_Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as *"the most important relation in life,"*id.at125 U. S. 205, and as *"the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,*"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that *the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,*

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."_


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, the "how does it affect you?" idiocy for the millionth time.  Does it ever occur to you dipsticks that people might be concerned about more than themselves, that they want a strong, healthy society too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then it's a good thing that my civil marriage to my life partner of 20 years only makes our society stronger and healthier then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anytime two freaks do something abnormal thinking that what you have will ever come close to my real marriage with a woman, it weakens society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that were actually true and not your bigoted, homophobic, anti gay hyperbole...you'd actually be winning cases in court because then you'd be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing my civil marriage.
> 
> But alas for the bigots, there is no societal harm in allowing gays to marry their consenting adult life partners. Too bad for you, great for the rest of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that how court cases are decided?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a factor, yes. It's one of the primary reason anti gay marriage laws are losing...the bigots cannot come up with a societal harm that meets a reasonable person standard.
Click to expand...

So you admit the courts were swayes by flowery arguments instead of the Constitution. That's all I needed to know.


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then it's a good thing that my civil marriage to my life partner of 20 years only makes our society stronger and healthier then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anytime two freaks do something abnormal thinking that what you have will ever come close to my real marriage with a woman, it weakens society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that were actually true and not your bigoted, homophobic, anti gay hyperbole...you'd actually be winning cases in court because then you'd be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing my civil marriage.
> 
> But alas for the bigots, there is no societal harm in allowing gays to marry their consenting adult life partners. Too bad for you, great for the rest of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that how court cases are decided?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a factor, yes. It's one of the primary reason anti gay marriage laws are losing...the bigots cannot come up with a societal harm that meets a reasonable person standard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you admit the courts were swayes by flowery arguments instead of the Constitution. That's all I needed to know.
Click to expand...


The lack of harm to society is a powerful argument against the claims of gay marriage opponents. And yes, the courts should take this into consideration.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I provided you the link - like the old saying - you can lead a Jack Ass to water but you can't make it think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The modern dynamic has come to a somewhat different construct there...
> 
> _"You can lead a Leftist to reason, but you can't make then THINK!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Leftist> Democrat> Jack Ass> Liberal  same bag of slime  - Intellectual slouches who allow others to do their thinking for them  and simply recycle the same worn out arguments time and time again.
> 
> I think of them as apocalyptic zombies - unthinking , unknowing hoards of ignorant brain-dead shells of people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> homophobe- bigot-fascist-racist- right wing nutjob- same bag of slime. Intellectual dimwits who parrot what is fed to them by racist and bigoted sources like Stormfront and WND.
> 
> They are invested with hate- and incapable of actual human love- so they project their hatred onto Americans- they want others to hate Americans as much as they do.
> 
> They hate- and want everyone else to hate as much as they do.
Click to expand...

For a prosecutor of "hate" you sure have a lot of it yourself.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the libs in this thread keep talking about no need to procreate; not surprising since they defend millions of babies being slaughtered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that the same people who don't want equality for homosexuals also oppose a woman controlling her own body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it you fags only care about children and adopting them once they're born?
Click to expand...


LOL....you are even more confused as usual. You seem to think that anyone who doesn't want to promote hate towards those you so cutely call 'fags' is a homosexual. 

Clearly homosexuals do care about children- that is why they both give birth to children- and adopt the children that were abandoned by their heterosexual parents.


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I provided you the link - like the old saying - you can lead a Jack Ass to water but you can't make it think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The modern dynamic has come to a somewhat different construct there...
> 
> _"You can lead a Leftist to reason, but you can't make then THINK!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Leftist> Democrat> Jack Ass> Liberal  same bag of slime  - Intellectual slouches who allow others to do their thinking for them  and simply recycle the same worn out arguments time and time again.
> 
> I think of them as apocalyptic zombies - unthinking , unknowing hoards of ignorant brain-dead shells of people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> homophobe- bigot-fascist-racist- right wing nutjob- same bag of slime. Intellectual dimwits who parrot what is fed to them by racist and bigoted sources like Stormfront and WND.
> 
> They are invested with hate- and incapable of actual human love- so they project their hatred onto Americans- they want others to hate Americans as much as they do.
> 
> They hate- and want everyone else to hate as much as they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For a prosecutor of "hate" you sure have a lot of it yourself.
Click to expand...


Says the guy who pontificates on how 'intelligent' Putin is for cracking down on gays and lesbians. And insists that gays and lesbians should never legally be allowed to have children.

But tell us again how 'even Jesus went on a rampage' in your defense of a war against gays?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And solid, tangible benefits to society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup - and it's also wonderful that gayness can be enjoyed and shared this way - every kid has a right to experience inter generational intimacy - isn't that right skylar ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every kid has the right to be free of homophobic bullying and battery.
> 
> Homophobes are pissed off about that.
Click to expand...

How often are homosexuals being bashed.....or is this another "back alley abortion" argument?


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I provided you the link - like the old saying - you can lead a Jack Ass to water but you can't make it think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The modern dynamic has come to a somewhat different construct there...
> 
> _"You can lead a Leftist to reason, but you can't make then THINK!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Leftist> Democrat> Jack Ass> Liberal  same bag of slime  - Intellectual slouches who allow others to do their thinking for them  and simply recycle the same worn out arguments time and time again.
> 
> I think of them as apocalyptic zombies - unthinking , unknowing hoards of ignorant brain-dead shells of people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> homophobe- bigot-fascist-racist- right wing nutjob- same bag of slime. Intellectual dimwits who parrot what is fed to them by racist and bigoted sources like Stormfront and WND.
> 
> They are invested with hate- and incapable of actual human love- so they project their hatred onto Americans- they want others to hate Americans as much as they do.
> 
> They hate- and want everyone else to hate as much as they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For a prosecutor of "hate" you sure have a lot of it yourself.
Click to expand...


Oh I certainly dislike bigots- but I don't hate anyone.

Unlike bigots- their hearts are filled full of hate- and that is why they promote hatred and discrimination towards homosexuals and African Americans and Latino's and Jews and women.


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And solid, tangible benefits to society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup - and it's also wonderful that gayness can be enjoyed and shared this way - every kid has a right to experience inter generational intimacy - isn't that right skylar ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every kid has the right to be free of homophobic bullying and battery.
> 
> Homophobes are pissed off about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How often are homosexuals being bashed.....or is this another "back alley abortion" argument?
Click to expand...


In this thread alone?


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And solid, tangible benefits to society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup - and it's also wonderful that gayness can be enjoyed and shared this way - every kid has a right to experience inter generational intimacy - isn't that right skylar ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every kid has the right to be free of homophobic bullying and battery.
> 
> Homophobes are pissed off about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How often are homosexuals being bashed.....or is this another "back alley abortion" argument?
Click to expand...


Less and less now- thanks to the very media campaigns, gay rights campaigns and school education that you so vehemantly oppose.

Like I said- less bigotry pisses the homophobes off.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the libs in this thread keep talking about no need to procreate; not surprising since they defend millions of babies being slaughtered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that the same people who don't want equality for homosexuals also oppose a woman controlling her own body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it you fags only care about children and adopting them once they're born?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....you are even more confused as usual. You seem to think that anyone who doesn't want to promote hate towards those you so cutely call 'fags' is a homosexual.
> 
> Clearly homosexuals do care about children- that is why they both give birth to children- and adopt the children that were abandoned by their heterosexual parents.
Click to expand...

Any child abandoned by heterosexual parents needs replacement heterosexuals, not freaks and perverts to adopt them.


----------



## Skylar

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the libs in this thread keep talking about no need to procreate; not surprising since they defend millions of babies being slaughtered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that the same people who don't want equality for homosexuals also oppose a woman controlling her own body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it you fags only care about children and adopting them once they're born?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....you are even more confused as usual. You seem to think that anyone who doesn't want to promote hate towards those you so cutely call 'fags' is a homosexual.
> 
> Clearly homosexuals do care about children- that is why they both give birth to children- and adopt the children that were abandoned by their heterosexual parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any child abandoned by heterosexual parents needs replacement heterosexuals, not freaks and perverts to adopt them.
Click to expand...


You were saying about bashing of gays?


----------



## Lilah

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the libs in this thread keep talking about no need to procreate; not surprising since they defend millions of babies being slaughtered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that the same people who don't want equality for homosexuals also oppose a woman controlling her own body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it you fags only care about children and adopting them once they're born?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....you are even more confused as usual. You seem to think that anyone who doesn't want to promote hate towards those you so cutely call 'fags' is a homosexual.
> 
> Clearly homosexuals do care about children- that is why they both give birth to children- and adopt the children that were abandoned by their heterosexual parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any child abandoned by heterosexual parents needs replacement heterosexuals, not freaks and perverts to adopt them.
Click to expand...


So scratch  your name off the adoption list.


----------



## Syriusly

Skylar said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I provided you the link - like the old saying - you can lead a Jack Ass to water but you can't make it think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The modern dynamic has come to a somewhat different construct there...
> 
> _"You can lead a Leftist to reason, but you can't make then THINK!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Leftist> Democrat> Jack Ass> Liberal  same bag of slime  - Intellectual slouches who allow others to do their thinking for them  and simply recycle the same worn out arguments time and time again.
> 
> I think of them as apocalyptic zombies - unthinking , unknowing hoards of ignorant brain-dead shells of people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> homophobe- bigot-fascist-racist- right wing nutjob- same bag of slime. Intellectual dimwits who parrot what is fed to them by racist and bigoted sources like Stormfront and WND.
> 
> They are invested with hate- and incapable of actual human love- so they project their hatred onto Americans- they want others to hate Americans as much as they do.
> 
> They hate- and want everyone else to hate as much as they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For a prosecutor of "hate" you sure have a lot of it yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the guy who pontificates on how 'intelligent' Putin is for cracking down on gays and lesbians. And insists that gays and lesbians should never legally be allowed to have children.
> 
> But tell us again how 'even Jesus went on a rampage' in your defense of a war against gays?
Click to expand...


Yeah- since Saintboy has declared that lesbians should never be legally allowed to have children, I have thought about the 'slippery slope' implications of his statement. 

We know homophobes love slippery slopes.

So if the State says that lesbians cannot have children.....that would lead to the State removing those children from their parents.....and since the State can remove children from their parents simply because they are lesbians, then the State would naturally require lesbians who get pregnant to have abortions.....and then the State could start on any other parents they find less than desirable. 

I love slippery slope arguments.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the libs in this thread keep talking about no need to procreate; not surprising since they defend millions of babies being slaughtered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that the same people who don't want equality for homosexuals also oppose a woman controlling her own body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it you fags only care about children and adopting them once they're born?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....you are even more confused as usual. You seem to think that anyone who doesn't want to promote hate towards those you so cutely call 'fags' is a homosexual.
> 
> Clearly homosexuals do care about children- that is why they both give birth to children- and adopt the children that were abandoned by their heterosexual parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any child abandoned by heterosexual parents needs replacement heterosexuals, not freaks and perverts to adopt them.
Click to expand...

I adopted our daughter.  She was not abandoned, but well planned.   Are you calling her parents freaks and perverts?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And solid, tangible benefits to society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup - and it's also wonderful that gayness can be enjoyed and shared this way - every kid has a right to experience inter generational intimacy - isn't that right skylar ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every kid has the right to be free of homophobic bullying and battery.
> 
> Homophobes are pissed off about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How often are homosexuals being bashed.....or is this another "back alley abortion" argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Less and less now- thanks to the very media campaigns, gay rights campaigns and school education that you so vehemantly oppose.
> 
> Like I said- less bigotry pisses the homophobes off.
Click to expand...

So people who oppose homosexuality are upset because gays aren't being beaten? Do you ever read the stupid shit you type?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the libs in this thread keep talking about no need to procreate; not surprising since they defend millions of babies being slaughtered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that the same people who don't want equality for homosexuals also oppose a woman controlling her own body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it you fags only care about children and adopting them once they're born?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....you are even more confused as usual. You seem to think that anyone who doesn't want to promote hate towards those you so cutely call 'fags' is a homosexual.
> 
> Clearly homosexuals do care about children- that is why they both give birth to children- and adopt the children that were abandoned by their heterosexual parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any child abandoned by heterosexual parents needs replacement heterosexuals, not freaks and perverts to adopt them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I adopted our daughter.  She was not abandoned, but well planned.   Are you calling her parents freaks and perverts?
Click to expand...

Yes. You understand perfectly now.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You like it rubbed ON your face?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you're not familiar with segregation and the civil rights movement.  Hell, you don't even seem to know about slavery and how slave owners used the bible to justify their "beliefs".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> special rights, like what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isolated examples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fame?  The old fashion way was through steroids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face it, you're a homophobe and you don't like that more people aren't like you.  A bitter, bigot.
> 
> GO to hell.  And leave the country if you don't like it here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of leaving the country, you should visit your Mooslem brethren in Saudi Arabia and tell them how gay you are. Please have a friend get video of it to upload their tolerant response to Youtube. They'll kill you, but you'll be an inspiration to other gay Mooslims, a martyr for the cause. It was nice knowing you.
Click to expand...


Yeah- Homophobes do love how in some countries they can kill homosexuals. 

They have a real soft spot in their hearts for Russia and Saudi Arabia. 

I wonder why they haven't moved there to be with their like minded brethren?


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And solid, tangible benefits to society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup - and it's also wonderful that gayness can be enjoyed and shared this way - every kid has a right to experience inter generational intimacy - isn't that right skylar ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every kid has the right to be free of homophobic bullying and battery.
> 
> Homophobes are pissed off about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How often are homosexuals being bashed.....or is this another "back alley abortion" argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Less and less now- thanks to the very media campaigns, gay rights campaigns and school education that you so vehemantly oppose.
> 
> Like I said- less bigotry pisses the homophobes off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So people who oppose homosexuality are upset because gays aren't being beaten? Do you ever read the stupid shit you type?
Click to expand...


Less and less now gay bashing now- thanks to the very media campaigns, gay rights campaigns and school education that you so vehemantly oppose.

Like I said- less bigotry pisses the homophobes off.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup - and it's also wonderful that gayness can be enjoyed and shared this way - every kid has a right to experience inter generational intimacy - isn't that right skylar ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every kid has the right to be free of homophobic bullying and battery.
> 
> Homophobes are pissed off about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How often are homosexuals being bashed.....or is this another "back alley abortion" argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Less and less now- thanks to the very media campaigns, gay rights campaigns and school education that you so vehemantly oppose.
> 
> Like I said- less bigotry pisses the homophobes off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So people who oppose homosexuality are upset because gays aren't being beaten? Do you ever read the stupid shit you type?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Less and less now gay bashing now- thanks to the very media campaigns, gay rights campaigns and school education that you so vehemantly oppose.
> 
> Like I said- less bigotry pisses the homophobes off.
Click to expand...

So you just admitted to being a shrill idiot. Understood.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

Skylar  I said if you don't like it, there's the door.


----------



## Skylar

The2ndAmendment said:


> Skylar  I said if you don't like it, there's the door.



And no one really gives a shit what you said. So what possible relevance does your personal issues with women have with a thread on homosexuality?


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every kid has the right to be free of homophobic bullying and battery.
> 
> Homophobes are pissed off about that.
> 
> 
> 
> How often are homosexuals being bashed.....or is this another "back alley abortion" argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Less and less now- thanks to the very media campaigns, gay rights campaigns and school education that you so vehemantly oppose.
> 
> Like I said- less bigotry pisses the homophobes off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So people who oppose homosexuality are upset because gays aren't being beaten? Do you ever read the stupid shit you type?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Less and less now gay bashing now- thanks to the very media campaigns, gay rights campaigns and school education that you so vehemantly oppose.
> 
> Like I said- less bigotry pisses the homophobes off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you just admitted to being a shrill idiot. Understood.
Click to expand...


Clearly we can add lack of reading comprehension to bigotry as your attributes

Less and less now gay bashing now- thanks to the very media campaigns, gay rights campaigns and school education that you so vehemantly oppose.

Like I said- less bigotry pisses the homophobes off.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

Skylar said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar  I said if you don't like it, there's the door.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And no one really gives a shit what you said. So what possible relevance does your personal issues with women have with a thread on homosexuality?
Click to expand...


I don't have any issues with them. If they give me an issue, I shove my cock in their mouth or boot them out the door.

It's a good way to live.

Pussy is good, but so is writing music, building fancy furniture, and writing papers on mathematics. As is learning and writing a book.

I'll give her the world, but when she demands the moon and the stars...there's the door.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

The2ndAmendment said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar  I said if you don't like it, there's the door.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And no one really gives a shit what you said. So what possible relevance does your personal issues with women have with a thread on homosexuality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have any issues with them. If they give me an issue, I shove my cock in their mouth or boot them out the door.
> 
> It's a good way to live.
> 
> Pussy is good, but so is writing music, building fancy furniture, and writing papers on mathematics. As is learning and writing a book.
> 
> I'll give her the world, but when she demands the moon and the stars...there's the door.
Click to expand...



Someone asked if gay marriage strengthens society. I answered the question.


----------



## Skylar

The2ndAmendment said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar  I said if you don't like it, there's the door.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And no one really gives a shit what you said. So what possible relevance does your personal issues with women have with a thread on homosexuality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have any issues with them.
Click to expand...


Which is why you lamented about women and posted a video where some random dude whines about how male female relationships are over. 

Because both sound pretty problematic. And your personal issues with women have nothing to do with this thread.

Well, unless you're giving up women entirely and plan on sucking a dick. In which case marriage rights for gays might be relevant to you.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

Skylar said:


> Well, unless you're giving up women entirely and plan on sucking a dick. In which case marriage rights for gays might be relevant to you.



Nope. Clean the nest, cook for the nest, put more babies in the nest, and stfu. That's my rule. I'll provide everything else.

Try it, you'll be happier. You will have to get a woman from the third world though.

The worst (yet most adhered to) cliche is:

"Happy Wife, Happy Life."

Why? Why does your happiness depend on someone's elses? The moment you reject this, and make her happiness depend on yours, is the day you truly become a free man. I live in no fear or subjugation to any woman, nor shall I ever again.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Skylar said:


> None. To the contrary, gay marriage actually strengthens society.



That is not just false, it is hysterically false.  

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.  

Marriage is such, because that is how nature designed the human species, with two distinct, but complimenting genders.

Marriage provides for the traits respective to each gender to nurture and train children though the distinct perspectives common to each.  By lowering the standards of marriage, the Ideological Left has long since injured the institution of marriage... resulting in exponentially more children being born into single parent homes, encouraging divorce, rendering two gender families into one gender families... 

The evidence is conclusive that children living in homes where one gender is represented children tend to grow up absent sufficient training, thus lacking the discipline to provide for them the means to focus cognitively, thus producing the epidemic of drug addles youths through the ill-advised treatment of the psychological alphabet soup maladies; ADD, ADHD, ODD and so on and so forth of fictitious 'disorders' which has lead generations of children who have failed to develop into sound, well balanced adults.

Adding further devolution of the marriage standard is only going to promote more perverse iterations of poorly founded children with little means to function independently and exponential growth in children who develop disorders wherein they identify themselves as homosexual or some other form of sexual and maturation abnormality.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Marriage is such, because that is how nature designed the human species, with two distinct, but complimenting genders.
> 
> Marriage provides for the traits respective to each gender to nurture and train children though the distinct perspectives common to each.



That's how it used to be. Now men are supposed to assume all the roles and responsibilities of women as well, because if they don't, that woman will take half their income, property and all the children.

Don't get married.

My girlfriend keeps asking (in spanish) when are we getting married. The moment she's married, I lose all my leverage, most importantly the ability to boot her out the door without financial consequence.

Even an unspoiled third-world immigrant woman like her is looking for the "doomhammer"


----------



## Skylar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> None. To the contrary, gay marriage actually strengthens society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not just false, it is hysterically false.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...


Says you. In 36 of 50 States, marriage also includes a man and a man. Or a woman and a woman. With 48 of 50 States recognizing same sex marriage as being just as legally valid and recognized as different sex marriage.



> Marriage is such, because that is how nature designed the human species, with two distinct, but complimenting genders.



Marriage isn't designed by 'nature'. Its designed by us. And it means whatever we say it means.



> Marriage provides for the traits respective to each gender to nurture and train children though the distinct perspectives common to each.  By lowering the standards of marriage, the Ideological Left has long since injured the institution of marriage... resulting in exponentially more children being born into single parent homes, encouraging divorce, rendering two gender families into one gender families...



How is the 'institution of marriage' damaged by allowing gays and lesbians into it? Remember, gays and lesbians are having children already. The only question is, will the parents of these children be married, or will they not. And the courts have already recognized the harm to these children by the denial of the right to marry to their parents.



> "And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law
> in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family
> and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.
> 
> ....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of samesex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families
> by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces
> benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security."
> 
> Windsor V. US.



Your vague and imaginary 'institutional' harm doesn't actually exist. While the specific and real harm to the children of same sex parents when their parents aren't allowed to marry does exist.

So.....gay marriage doesn't hurt you or diminish society in any way, promotes monogamy, expands rights, is a shot in the arm of the economy, and benefits children. What's not to love?



> The evidence is conclusive that children living in homes where one gender is represented children tend to grow up absent sufficient training, thus lacking the discipline to provide for them the means to focus cognitively, thus producing the epidemic of drug addles youths through the ill-advised treatment of the psychological alphabet soup maladies; ADD, ADHD, ODD and so on and so forth of fictitious 'disorders' which has lead generations of children who have failed to develop into sound, well balanced adults.



And by the 'evidence is conclusive', you mean whatever you just made up? Remember, you don't actually have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And routinely offer your opinion as 'irrefutable fact', despite the fact that you can back it with nothing but your ability to type it. Remember all your made up 'facts' regarding the transmission of HIV? You were laughably clueless. Demonstrating yet again that you citing yourself is meaningless jabber.

Show us the evidence. Don't tell us about it.


----------



## bodecea

The2ndAmendment said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Marriage is such, because that is how nature designed the human species, with two distinct, but complimenting genders.
> 
> Marriage provides for the traits respective to each gender to nurture and train children though the distinct perspectives common to each.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how it used to be. Now men are supposed to assume all the roles and responsibilities of women as well, because if they don't, that woman will take half their income, property and all the children.
> 
> Don't get married.
> 
> My girlfriend keeps asking (in spanish) when are we getting married. The moment she's married, I lose all my leverage, most importantly the ability to boot her out the door without financial consequence.
> 
> Even an unspoiled third-world immigrant woman like her is looking for the "doomhammer"
Click to expand...

If I were her, I'd dump you pronto.


----------



## Skylar

bodecea said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Marriage is such, because that is how nature designed the human species, with two distinct, but complimenting genders.
> 
> Marriage provides for the traits respective to each gender to nurture and train children though the distinct perspectives common to each.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how it used to be. Now men are supposed to assume all the roles and responsibilities of women as well, because if they don't, that woman will take half their income, property and all the children.
> 
> Don't get married.
> 
> My girlfriend keeps asking (in spanish) when are we getting married. The moment she's married, I lose all my leverage, most importantly the ability to boot her out the door without financial consequence.
> 
> Even an unspoiled third-world immigrant woman like her is looking for the "doomhammer"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I were her, I'd dump you pronto.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that screed has 'high maintenance' written all over it. As a general rule, if you're having problems in every one of your relationships, you may want to look more closely at the common denominator: 

Yourself.


----------



## Skylar

The2ndAmendment said:


> Nope. Clean the nest, cook for the nest, put more babies in the nest, and stfu. That's my rule.



Wow. And the ladies aren't lining up at your door? 

Color me shocked. 

And how is any of these even remotely relevant to homosexuality?


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I provided you the link - like the old saying - you can lead a Jack Ass to water but you can't make it think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The modern dynamic has come to a somewhat different construct there...
> 
> _"You can lead a Leftist to reason, but you can't make then THINK!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Leftist> Democrat> Jack Ass> Liberal  same bag of slime  - Intellectual slouches who allow others to do their thinking for them  and simply recycle the same worn out arguments time and time again.
> 
> I think of them as apocalyptic zombies - unthinking , unknowing hoards of ignorant brain-dead shells of people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> homophobe- bigot-fascist-racist- right wing nutjob- same bag of slime. Intellectual dimwits who parrot what is fed to them by racist and bigoted sources like Stormfront and WND.
> 
> They are invested with hate- and incapable of actual human love- so they project their hatred onto Americans- they want others to hate Americans as much as they do.
> 
> They hate- and want everyone else to hate as much as they do.
Click to expand...

Get Help -Seriously - you need psychiatric help


----------



## The2ndAmendment

bodecea said:


> If I were her, I'd dump you pronto.



Why? She gets free shelter, food, gets to see every movie (thank god I know spanish haha), went skiing and iceskating the day after christmas, etc.

Why would you dump a guy that houses and provides for you, and takes you places? Is the Earth not enough, or must you also have the Moon and the Stars?

Is keeping the house clean and cooking to much of a burden for all of that in return?


----------



## Skylar

The2ndAmendment said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I were her, I'd dump you pronto.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? She gets free shelter, food, gets to see every movie (thank god I know spanish haha), went skiing and iceskating the day after christmas, etc.
> 
> Why would you dump a guy that houses and provides for you, and takes you places? Is the Earth not enough, or must you also have the Moon and the Stars?
> 
> Is keeping the house clean and cooking to much of a burden for all of that in return?
Click to expand...


Because you sound really high maintenance with serious issues with women that border on obsessive. I mean look at this thread. It has nothing to do with your women problems, and yet you splattered your issues all over it.

I can't imagine being in a relationship with that. It sounds exhausting.


----------



## GreenBean

Skylar said:


> They did initially. But after decades of studies,* they could find no actual psychopathology associated with homosexuality. *



Wrong - you my friend are one sad slimy little buttfucker -you haven't got a shred of independent free thought in your minute little cranium . 

Compulsive homosexuality is a symptom-complex associated with extreme personality distortion. This extreme personality distortion demonstrably has its roots the earliest childhood and even infantile experiences of the individual and perpetuated by the compulsive strategies evolved during the course of his existence. 

These constitute a neurotic aspect of the individuals personaliy and orientation structure. Homosexuality is essentially an outgrowth of acquired conflict relating to the whole person.* It is the symbolic expression of a person's inner conflict in sexual language.*

*The American Journal of Psychoanalysis 
*
Homosexual people tend to experience more mental health problems than heterosexual people, research indicates.

 Rates of depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, phobia, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and alcohol and drug dependence were significantly higher in homosexual respondents.

Four percent had a depressive episode in the last week, compared to two percent of heterosexual people. The rate of alcohol dependence was ten percent versus five percent, and for self-harming it was nine percent versus five percent.

The proportion of homosexual people who described themselves as being fairly or very happy was 30 percent, versus 40 percent for heterosexual people.

In the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey, participants chosen to be representative of the UK population gave information on neurotic symptoms, common mental disorders, probable psychosis, suicidal thoughts, and alcohol and drug use, as well as aspects of sexual identity and perceived discrimination.

.......   Get a Clue you pathetic Zombie ,  if you yourself are not a cum guzzling turd burglar and truly just someone who actually believes they are arguing for a just cause - consider the fact that people such as yourself are doing more harm than good


----------



## The2ndAmendment

Skylar said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? She gets free shelter, food, gets to see every movie (thank god I know spanish haha), went skiing and iceskating the day after christmas, etc.
> 
> Why would you dump a guy that houses and provides for you, and takes you places? Is the Earth not enough, or must you also have the Moon and the Stars?
> 
> Is keeping the house clean and cooking to much of a burden for all of that in return?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't imagine being in a relationship with that. It sounds exhausting.
Click to expand...


Ok, let's trade places, I'll do the cooking and cleaning, and you work 70 hours a week. I'll happily assume that "exhausting" role.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I provided you the link - like the old saying - you can lead a Jack Ass to water but you can't make it think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The modern dynamic has come to a somewhat different construct there...
> 
> _"You can lead a Leftist to reason, but you can't make then THINK!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Leftist> Democrat> Jack Ass> Liberal  same bag of slime  - Intellectual slouches who allow others to do their thinking for them  and simply recycle the same worn out arguments time and time again.
> 
> I think of them as apocalyptic zombies - unthinking , unknowing hoards of ignorant brain-dead shells of people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> homophobe- bigot-fascist-racist- right wing nutjob- same bag of slime. Intellectual dimwits who parrot what is fed to them by racist and bigoted sources like Stormfront and WND.
> 
> They are invested with hate- and incapable of actual human love- so they project their hatred onto Americans- they want others to hate Americans as much as they do.
> 
> They hate- and want everyone else to hate as much as they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get Help -Seriously - you need psychiatric help
Click to expand...


LOL.....my life is not the one filled full of hate

homophobe- bigot-fascist-racist- right wing nutjob- same bag of slime. Intellectual dimwits who parrot what is fed to them by racist and bigoted sources like Stormfront and WND.

They are invested with hate- and incapable of actual human love- so they project their hatred onto Americans- they want others to hate Americans as much as they do.

They hate- and want everyone else to hate as much as they do


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> They did initially. But after decades of studies,* they could find no actual psychopathology associated with homosexuality. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong - you my friend are one sad slimy little buttfucker -you haven't got a shred of independent free thought in your minute little cranium .
Click to expand...


Except for the studies which disagree with your anal and feces obsessed brain.

Your hatred of homosexuals- and fear of being anally raped fuels your obsession.


----------



## GreenBean

Skylar said:


> Homosexuals had the same mental functioning as heterosexuals. They had similarly sound judgment, could think as cognitively, were as stable when tested. They were in fact indistinguishable in psychological testing as their healthy heterosexual counterparts




WRONG - The study - and the only study that ever produced those results of which you speak is the evelyn hooker study - *Even the APA propagandists don't cite that anymore - it has been thoroughly and absolutely discredited .

*
Hooker, a professor at the University of California at LA is credited in the medical and psychological community, and most especially amongst Gay activists, with establishing that there is no measurable psychological difference between heterosexual and homosexual men. Her work proposed that homosexuality is merely a normal minority variation of human sexuality.  It was first published  in the Journal of Projective Techniques in 1957, and is flaunted as proof that homosexual activity is a normal and valid lifestyle. Her 1957 study served as a basis for most of the later hyperbole of the Gay movements ideology, including the notion that any objection to the Gay agenda is born from an irrational fear, that they have since labeled "homophobia."

Hookers Studies failed the most basic of Litmus tests regarding Objectivity.  Hooker was an associate of theMattachine Society and was lobbied and eventually convinced to conduct a research study of homosexuality for the sole purpose of advancing their Agenda.

The study, "*The adjustment of the male overt homosexual*", Hooker administered several standardized personality tests to two sets of men, the first group of 30 was homosexual and heavily screened by the Mattachine Society and the other heterosexual. The whole purpose of the study was to examine the instances of mental instability in homosexuals, However, individuals who showed the slightest signs of mental instability were excluded ,* it was not a random test and was designed to arrive at predetermined results.*

Evelyn Hooker Study Flawed




> Similar Studies with different Findings
> 
> 1.} Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Studies  Sexual minority status and psychotic symptoms Jan. 2014
> 
> The aim of this study was to examine whether sexual minorities are at increased risk for psychotic symptoms and to explore mediating pathways. The study concluded that homosexual orientation is most definitely associated with psychotic symptoms and further states that the study adds to the growing body of literature linking minority status with psychosis and other mental health problems. In an effort to remain politically correct the paper presented goes on to suggest that their findings are possibly due to experiences of discrimination and social exclusion.
> 
> The risk of psychotic symptoms is two to three times greater among homosexual participants in the study than among heterosexual participants. The researchers found this result using data from the Netherlands Mental Health and Incidence Studies (NEMESIS-1 and NEMESIS-2), two large-scale epidemiological studies which aim to investigate how often mental health problems occur in the general population. Sexual minority status and psychotic symptoms
> 
> 
> 
> 2.} Dr. Apu Chakraborty of University College London, UK.
> 
> This Study explored the rates of mental disorder among 7,403 adults living in the UK, whose details were obtained from the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2007. Rates of depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, phobia, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and alcohol and drug dependence were significantly higher in homosexual respondents.  Hookers "study" only used two groups of 30 men each, and the homosexual respondents were hand picked, where as in the University College Study they were not. Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals
> 
> Elevated levels of psychiatric problems in nonheterosexual people are "very worrying and call not only for a response by professionals in primary care and mental health services but also efforts at prevention," Apu Chakraborty, PhD, MSc, MRCPsych, of the Department of Mental Health Sciences, University College London, United Kingdom, and colleagues conclude. Medscape.com


----------



## Syriusly

The2ndAmendment said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Marriage is such, because that is how nature designed the human species, with two distinct, but complimenting genders.
> 
> Marriage provides for the traits respective to each gender to nurture and train children though the distinct perspectives common to each.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how it used to be. Now men are supposed to assume all the roles and responsibilities of women as well, because if they don't, that woman will take half their income, property and all the children.
> 
> Don't get married.
> 
> My girlfriend keeps asking (in spanish) when are we getting married. The moment she's married, I lose all my leverage, most importantly the ability to boot her out the door without financial consequence.
> 
> Even an unspoiled third-world immigrant woman like her is looking for the "doomhammer"
Click to expand...


Why am I not surprised that you are against gay rights too.


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> They did initially. But after decades of studies,* they could find no actual psychopathology associated with homosexuality. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong - you my friend are one sad slimy little buttfucker -you haven't got a shred of independent free thought in your minute little cranium .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except for the studies which disagree with your anal and feces obsessed brain.
> 
> Your hatred of homosexuals- and fear of being anally raped fuels your obsession.
Click to expand...


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Evelyn Hooker Study Flawed
> 
> ]



YOu cite your own looney bigoted website?

Wow- like racists citing  Stormfront to prove why blacks are bad.


----------



## GreenBean

> Except for the studies which disagree with your anal and feces obsessed brain.



*CHALLENGE ....*

Name a single objective study  - I know - yo can't - because you haven't gotten a clue as to what you're talking about .

And not studies from propaganda machines such as UC Davis or the Mattachine Society - ROFL - a single study not produced by a gay activist - you can't - there are none that will prove your point .  Go for it Faggot


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> None. To the contrary, gay marriage actually strengthens society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not just false, it is hysterically false.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Marriage is such, because that is how nature designed the human species, with two distinct, but complimenting genders.
> 
> Marriage provides for the traits respective to each gender to nurture and train children though the distinct perspectives common to each.  By lowering the standards of marriage, the Ideological Left has long since injured the institution of marriage... resulting in exponentially more children being born into single parent homes, encouraging divorce, rendering two gender families into one gender families...
> 
> The evidence is conclusive that children living in homes where one gender is represented children tend to grow up absent sufficient training, thus lacking the discipline to provide for them the means to focus cognitively, thus producing the epidemic of drug addles youths through the ill-advised treatment of the psychological alphabet soup maladies; ADD, ADHD, ODD and so on and so forth of fictitious 'disorders' which has lead generations of children who have failed to develop into sound, well balanced adults.
> 
> Adding further devolution of the marriage standard is only going to promote more perverse iterations of poorly founded children with little means to function independently and exponential growth in children who develop disorders wherein they identify themselves as homosexual or some other form of sexual and maturation abnormality.
Click to expand...


Ronan Farrow's father left when Ronan was only 6 years leaving Ronan to be raised by his mother.  He's proven to be highly intelligent and very successful despite his father's incestuous affair with his adopted sister and his father's sexual abuse of another adopted sister, which I think you would agree certainly lowered the standards of marriage.

Below is a picture of Neil Patrick Harris' twins, born of his and his partner's DNA.  They are privileged to be ensconced in a loving and safe environment where they will be afforded the opportunity  to grow and thrive.  If they learn of sexual biases it will be from fear mongers such as you.
Living in harmony would be ideal, but we are a culture of many different people, and some of us are not open to the concept of equality.








Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> None. To the contrary, gay marriage actually strengthens society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not just false, it is hysterically false.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Marriage is such, because that is how nature designed the human species, with two distinct, but complimenting genders.
> 
> Marriage provides for the traits respective to each gender to nurture and train children though the distinct perspectives common to each.  By lowering the standards of marriage, the Ideological Left has long since injured the institution of marriage... resulting in exponentially more children being born into single parent homes, encouraging divorce, rendering two gender families into one gender families...
> 
> The evidence is conclusive that children living in homes where one gender is represented children tend to grow up absent sufficient training, thus lacking the discipline to provide for them the means to focus cognitively, thus producing the epidemic of drug addles youths through the ill-advised treatment of the psychological alphabet soup maladies; ADD, ADHD, ODD and so on and so forth of fictitious 'disorders' which has lead generations of children who have failed to develop into sound, well balanced adults.
> 
> Adding further devolution of the marriage standard is only going to promote more perverse iterations of poorly founded children with little means to function independently and exponential growth in children who develop disorders wherein they identify themselves as homosexual or some other form of sexual and maturation abnormality.
Click to expand...


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evelyn Hooker Study Flawed
> 
> ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu cite your own looney bigoted website?
> 
> Wow- like racists citing  Stormfront to prove why blacks are bad.
Click to expand...

Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals Psych Central

Evelyn Hooker Study Flawed

Sexual minority status and psychotic symptoms findings from the Ne... - PubMed - NCBI

Medscape Medscape Access

Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth Jeffrey Satinover 9780801056253 Amazon.com Books

All were cited in the last post - go for it slimeball - or concede


----------



## The2ndAmendment

Syriusly said:


> Why am I not surprised that you are against gay rights too.



I'm not, as a Libertarian, I don't care what fecal faggots fiends do in the privacy of their bedroom. If they adpot children, they should get marriage benefits, and hetero couples without children shouldn't get any marriage benefits. Just don't force me to accept it as normal. Don't teach it to kids in school as normal.

Fecal Faggot fornicating fellatio-fiends are what they are: Unnatural.


----------



## GreenBean

Lilah said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> None. To the contrary, gay marriage actually strengthens society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not just false, it is hysterically false.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Marriage is such, because that is how nature designed the human species, with two distinct, but complimenting genders.
> 
> Marriage provides for the traits respective to each gender to nurture and train children though the distinct perspectives common to each.  By lowering the standards of marriage, the Ideological Left has long since injured the institution of marriage... resulting in exponentially more children being born into single parent homes, encouraging divorce, rendering two gender families into one gender families...
> 
> The evidence is conclusive that children living in homes where one gender is represented children tend to grow up absent sufficient training, thus lacking the discipline to provide for them the means to focus cognitively, thus producing the epidemic of drug addles youths through the ill-advised treatment of the psychological alphabet soup maladies; ADD, ADHD, ODD and so on and so forth of fictitious 'disorders' which has lead generations of children who have failed to develop into sound, well balanced adults.
> 
> Adding further devolution of the marriage standard is only going to promote more perverse iterations of poorly founded children with little means to function independently and exponential growth in children who develop disorders wherein they identify themselves as homosexual or some other form of sexual and maturation abnormality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ronan Farrow's father left when Ronan was only 6 years leaving Ronan to be raised by his mother.  He's proven to be highly intelligent and very successful despite his father's incestuous affair with his adopted sister and his father's sexual abuse of another adopted sister, which I think you would agree certainly lowered the standards of marriage.
> 
> Below is a picture of Neil Patrick Harris' twins, born of his and his partner's DNA.  They are privileged to be ensconced in a loving and safe environment where they will be afforded the opportunity  to grow and thrive.  If they learn of sexual biases it will be from fear mongers such as you.
> Living in harmony would be ideal, but we are a culture of many different people, and some of us are not open to equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> None. To the contrary, gay marriage actually strengthens society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not just false, it is hysterically false.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Marriage is such, because that is how nature designed the human species, with two distinct, but complimenting genders.
> 
> Marriage provides for the traits respective to each gender to nurture and train children though the distinct perspectives common to each.  By lowering the standards of marriage, the Ideological Left has long since injured the institution of marriage... resulting in exponentially more children being born into single parent homes, encouraging divorce, rendering two gender families into one gender families...
> 
> The evidence is conclusive that children living in homes where one gender is represented children tend to grow up absent sufficient training, thus lacking the discipline to provide for them the means to focus cognitively, thus producing the epidemic of drug addles youths through the ill-advised treatment of the psychological alphabet soup maladies; ADD, ADHD, ODD and so on and so forth of fictitious 'disorders' which has lead generations of children who have failed to develop into sound, well balanced adults.
> 
> Adding further devolution of the marriage standard is only going to promote more perverse iterations of poorly founded children with little means to function independently and exponential growth in children who develop disorders wherein they identify themselves as homosexual or some other form of sexual and maturation abnormality.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




> Ronan Farrow's father left when Ronan was only 6 years leaving Ronan to be raised by his mother.  He's proven to be highly intelligent and very successful despite his father's incestuous affair with his adopted sister and his father's sexual abuse of another adopted sister, which I think you would agree certainly lowered the standards of marriage.



AS I stated and Science agrees "Homosexuality is a product of early childhood trauma" and apparently Mr. Farrow had plenty.


----------



## GreenBean

The2ndAmendment said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Marriage is such, because that is how nature designed the human species, with two distinct, but complimenting genders.
> 
> Marriage provides for the traits respective to each gender to nurture and train children though the distinct perspectives common to each.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how it used to be. Now men are supposed to assume all the roles and responsibilities of women as well, because if they don't, that woman will take half their income, property and all the children.
> 
> Don't get married.
> 
> My girlfriend keeps asking (in spanish) when are we getting married. The moment she's married, I lose all my leverage, most importantly the ability to boot her out the door without financial consequence.
> 
> Even an unspoiled third-world immigrant woman like her is looking for the "doomhammer"
Click to expand...


Hope she can't read your post - if she gets on your PC - LOL


----------



## Lilah

GreenBean said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> None. To the contrary, gay marriage actually strengthens society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not just false, it is hysterically false.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Marriage is such, because that is how nature designed the human species, with two distinct, but complimenting genders.
> 
> Marriage provides for the traits respective to each gender to nurture and train children though the distinct perspectives common to each.  By lowering the standards of marriage, the Ideological Left has long since injured the institution of marriage... resulting in exponentially more children being born into single parent homes, encouraging divorce, rendering two gender families into one gender families...
> 
> The evidence is conclusive that children living in homes where one gender is represented children tend to grow up absent sufficient training, thus lacking the discipline to provide for them the means to focus cognitively, thus producing the epidemic of drug addles youths through the ill-advised treatment of the psychological alphabet soup maladies; ADD, ADHD, ODD and so on and so forth of fictitious 'disorders' which has lead generations of children who have failed to develop into sound, well balanced adults.
> 
> Adding further devolution of the marriage standard is only going to promote more perverse iterations of poorly founded children with little means to function independently and exponential growth in children who develop disorders wherein they identify themselves as homosexual or some other form of sexual and maturation abnormality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ronan Farrow's father left when Ronan was only 6 years leaving Ronan to be raised by his mother.  He's proven to be highly intelligent and very successful despite his father's incestuous affair with his adopted sister and his father's sexual abuse of another adopted sister, which I think you would agree certainly lowered the standards of marriage.
> 
> Below is a picture of Neil Patrick Harris' twins, born of his and his partner's DNA.  They are privileged to be ensconced in a loving and safe environment where they will be afforded the opportunity  to grow and thrive.  If they learn of sexual biases it will be from fear mongers such as you.
> Living in harmony would be ideal, but we are a culture of many different people, and some of us are not open to equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> None. To the contrary, gay marriage actually strengthens society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not just false, it is hysterically false.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Marriage is such, because that is how nature designed the human species, with two distinct, but complimenting genders.
> 
> Marriage provides for the traits respective to each gender to nurture and train children though the distinct perspectives common to each.  By lowering the standards of marriage, the Ideological Left has long since injured the institution of marriage... resulting in exponentially more children being born into single parent homes, encouraging divorce, rendering two gender families into one gender families...
> 
> The evidence is conclusive that children living in homes where one gender is represented children tend to grow up absent sufficient training, thus lacking the discipline to provide for them the means to focus cognitively, thus producing the epidemic of drug addles youths through the ill-advised treatment of the psychological alphabet soup maladies; ADD, ADHD, ODD and so on and so forth of fictitious 'disorders' which has lead generations of children who have failed to develop into sound, well balanced adults.
> 
> Adding further devolution of the marriage standard is only going to promote more perverse iterations of poorly founded children with little means to function independently and exponential growth in children who develop disorders wherein they identify themselves as homosexual or some other form of sexual and maturation abnormality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ronan Farrow's father left when Ronan was only 6 years leaving Ronan to be raised by his mother.  He's proven to be highly intelligent and very successful despite his father's incestuous affair with his adopted sister and his father's sexual abuse of another adopted sister, which I think you would agree certainly lowered the standards of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AS I stated and Science agrees "Homosexuality is a product of early childhood trauma" and apparently Mr. Farrow had plenty.
Click to expand...


He's not gay.


----------



## Syriusly

The2ndAmendment said:


> Fecal Faggot fornicating fellatio-fiends are what they are: Unnatural.



Yet so superior to bigots like yourself.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> None. To the contrary, gay marriage actually strengthens society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not just false, it is hysterically false.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Marriage is such, because that is how nature designed the human species, with two distinct, but complimenting genders.
> 
> Marriage provides for the traits respective to each gender to nurture and train children though the distinct perspectives common to each.  By lowering the standards of marriage, the Ideological Left has long since injured the institution of marriage... resulting in exponentially more children being born into single parent homes, encouraging divorce, rendering two gender families into one gender families...
> 
> The evidence is conclusive that children living in homes where one gender is represented children tend to grow up absent sufficient training, thus lacking the discipline to provide for them the means to focus cognitively, thus producing the epidemic of drug addles youths through the ill-advised treatment of the psychological alphabet soup maladies; ADD, ADHD, ODD and so on and so forth of fictitious 'disorders' which has lead generations of children who have failed to develop into sound, well balanced adults.
> 
> Adding further devolution of the marriage standard is only going to promote more perverse iterations of poorly founded children with little means to function independently and exponential growth in children who develop disorders wherein they identify themselves as homosexual or some other form of sexual and maturation abnormality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ronan Farrow's father left when Ronan was only 6 years leaving Ronan to be raised by his mother.  He's proven to be highly intelligent and very successful despite his father's incestuous affair with his adopted sister and his father's sexual abuse of another adopted sister, which I think you would agree certainly lowered the standards of marriage.
> 
> Below is a picture of Neil Patrick Harris' twins, born of his and his partner's DNA.  They are privileged to be ensconced in a loving and safe environment where they will be afforded the opportunity  to grow and thrive.  If they learn of sexual biases it will be from fear mongers such as you.
> Living in harmony would be ideal, but we are a culture of many different people, and some of us are not open to equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> None. To the contrary, gay marriage actually strengthens society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not just false, it is hysterically false.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Marriage is such, because that is how nature designed the human species, with two distinct, but complimenting genders.
> 
> Marriage provides for the traits respective to each gender to nurture and train children though the distinct perspectives common to each.  By lowering the standards of marriage, the Ideological Left has long since injured the institution of marriage... resulting in exponentially more children being born into single parent homes, encouraging divorce, rendering two gender families into one gender families...
> 
> The evidence is conclusive that children living in homes where one gender is represented children tend to grow up absent sufficient training, thus lacking the discipline to provide for them the means to focus cognitively, thus producing the epidemic of drug addles youths through the ill-advised treatment of the psychological alphabet soup maladies; ADD, ADHD, ODD and so on and so forth of fictitious 'disorders' which has lead generations of children who have failed to develop into sound, well balanced adults.
> 
> Adding further devolution of the marriage standard is only going to promote more perverse iterations of poorly founded children with little means to function independently and exponential growth in children who develop disorders wherein they identify themselves as homosexual or some other form of sexual and maturation abnormality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ronan Farrow's father left when Ronan was only 6 years leaving Ronan to be raised by his mother.  He's proven to be highly intelligent and very successful despite his father's incestuous affair with his adopted sister and his father's sexual abuse of another adopted sister, which I think you would agree certainly lowered the standards of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AS I stated and Science agrees "Homosexuality is a product of early childhood trauma" and apparently Mr. Farrow had plenty.
Click to expand...


Actually no science agrees with that.


----------



## GreenBean

Lilah said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> None. To the contrary, gay marriage actually strengthens society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not just false, it is hysterically false.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Marriage is such, because that is how nature designed the human species, with two distinct, but complimenting genders.
> 
> Marriage provides for the traits respective to each gender to nurture and train children though the distinct perspectives common to each.  By lowering the standards of marriage, the Ideological Left has long since injured the institution of marriage... resulting in exponentially more children being born into single parent homes, encouraging divorce, rendering two gender families into one gender families...
> 
> The evidence is conclusive that children living in homes where one gender is represented children tend to grow up absent sufficient training, thus lacking the discipline to provide for them the means to focus cognitively, thus producing the epidemic of drug addles youths through the ill-advised treatment of the psychological alphabet soup maladies; ADD, ADHD, ODD and so on and so forth of fictitious 'disorders' which has lead generations of children who have failed to develop into sound, well balanced adults.
> 
> Adding further devolution of the marriage standard is only going to promote more perverse iterations of poorly founded children with little means to function independently and exponential growth in children who develop disorders wherein they identify themselves as homosexual or some other form of sexual and maturation abnormality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ronan Farrow's father left when Ronan was only 6 years leaving Ronan to be raised by his mother.  He's proven to be highly intelligent and very successful despite his father's incestuous affair with his adopted sister and his father's sexual abuse of another adopted sister, which I think you would agree certainly lowered the standards of marriage.
> 
> Below is a picture of Neil Patrick Harris' twins, born of his and his partner's DNA.  They are privileged to be ensconced in a loving and safe environment where they will be afforded the opportunity  to grow and thrive.  If they learn of sexual biases it will be from fear mongers such as you.
> Living in harmony would be ideal, but we are a culture of many different people, and some of us are not open to equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> None. To the contrary, gay marriage actually strengthens society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not just false, it is hysterically false.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Marriage is such, because that is how nature designed the human species, with two distinct, but complimenting genders.
> 
> Marriage provides for the traits respective to each gender to nurture and train children though the distinct perspectives common to each.  By lowering the standards of marriage, the Ideological Left has long since injured the institution of marriage... resulting in exponentially more children being born into single parent homes, encouraging divorce, rendering two gender families into one gender families...
> 
> The evidence is conclusive that children living in homes where one gender is represented children tend to grow up absent sufficient training, thus lacking the discipline to provide for them the means to focus cognitively, thus producing the epidemic of drug addles youths through the ill-advised treatment of the psychological alphabet soup maladies; ADD, ADHD, ODD and so on and so forth of fictitious 'disorders' which has lead generations of children who have failed to develop into sound, well balanced adults.
> 
> Adding further devolution of the marriage standard is only going to promote more perverse iterations of poorly founded children with little means to function independently and exponential growth in children who develop disorders wherein they identify themselves as homosexual or some other form of sexual and maturation abnormality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ronan Farrow's father left when Ronan was only 6 years leaving Ronan to be raised by his mother.  He's proven to be highly intelligent and very successful despite his father's incestuous affair with his adopted sister and his father's sexual abuse of another adopted sister, which I think you would agree certainly lowered the standards of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AS I stated and Science agrees "Homosexuality is a product of early childhood trauma" and apparently Mr. Farrow had plenty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's not gay.
Click to expand...



You sure about that ?  

Does Ronan Farrow s Sexuality Matter VICE United States


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evelyn Hooker Study Flawed
> 
> ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu cite your own looney bigoted website?
> 
> Wow- like racists citing  Stormfront to prove why blacks are bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evelyn Hooker Study Flawed
Click to expand...


Lets focus on you citing your own looney website- this is the source you want us to believe:





Yep- looney as all get out.


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> None. To the contrary, gay marriage actually strengthens society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not just false, it is hysterically false.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Marriage is such, because that is how nature designed the human species, with two distinct, but complimenting genders.
> 
> Marriage provides for the traits respective to each gender to nurture and train children though the distinct perspectives common to each.  By lowering the standards of marriage, the Ideological Left has long since injured the institution of marriage... resulting in exponentially more children being born into single parent homes, encouraging divorce, rendering two gender families into one gender families...
> 
> The evidence is conclusive that children living in homes where one gender is represented children tend to grow up absent sufficient training, thus lacking the discipline to provide for them the means to focus cognitively, thus producing the epidemic of drug addles youths through the ill-advised treatment of the psychological alphabet soup maladies; ADD, ADHD, ODD and so on and so forth of fictitious 'disorders' which has lead generations of children who have failed to develop into sound, well balanced adults.
> 
> Adding further devolution of the marriage standard is only going to promote more perverse iterations of poorly founded children with little means to function independently and exponential growth in children who develop disorders wherein they identify themselves as homosexual or some other form of sexual and maturation abnormality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ronan Farrow's father left when Ronan was only 6 years leaving Ronan to be raised by his mother.  He's proven to be highly intelligent and very successful despite his father's incestuous affair with his adopted sister and his father's sexual abuse of another adopted sister, which I think you would agree certainly lowered the standards of marriage.
> 
> Below is a picture of Neil Patrick Harris' twins, born of his and his partner's DNA.  They are privileged to be ensconced in a loving and safe environment where they will be afforded the opportunity  to grow and thrive.  If they learn of sexual biases it will be from fear mongers such as you.
> Living in harmony would be ideal, but we are a culture of many different people, and some of us are not open to equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> None. To the contrary, gay marriage actually strengthens society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not just false, it is hysterically false.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Marriage is such, because that is how nature designed the human species, with two distinct, but complimenting genders.
> 
> Marriage provides for the traits respective to each gender to nurture and train children though the distinct perspectives common to each.  By lowering the standards of marriage, the Ideological Left has long since injured the institution of marriage... resulting in exponentially more children being born into single parent homes, encouraging divorce, rendering two gender families into one gender families...
> 
> The evidence is conclusive that children living in homes where one gender is represented children tend to grow up absent sufficient training, thus lacking the discipline to provide for them the means to focus cognitively, thus producing the epidemic of drug addles youths through the ill-advised treatment of the psychological alphabet soup maladies; ADD, ADHD, ODD and so on and so forth of fictitious 'disorders' which has lead generations of children who have failed to develop into sound, well balanced adults.
> 
> Adding further devolution of the marriage standard is only going to promote more perverse iterations of poorly founded children with little means to function independently and exponential growth in children who develop disorders wherein they identify themselves as homosexual or some other form of sexual and maturation abnormality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ronan Farrow's father left when Ronan was only 6 years leaving Ronan to be raised by his mother.  He's proven to be highly intelligent and very successful despite his father's incestuous affair with his adopted sister and his father's sexual abuse of another adopted sister, which I think you would agree certainly lowered the standards of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AS I stated and Science agrees "Homosexuality is a product of early childhood trauma" and apparently Mr. Farrow had plenty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually no science agrees with that.
Click to expand...



Step up to plate Penis Breath - I gave you the challenge a few posts ago - apparently its way beyond your intellectual capacity to prove your point with legitimate sources.  Go for it Faggot - what have you got to lose ? - Your Pride ? - you never had any -you're a Homo .


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evelyn Hooker Study Flawed
> 
> ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu cite your own looney bigoted website?
> 
> Wow- like racists citing  Stormfront to prove why blacks are bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evelyn Hooker Study Flawed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets focus on you citing your own looney website- this is the source you want us to believe:
> 
> View attachment 35661
> 
> Yep- looney as all get out.
Click to expand...



That's about all you got - isn't it ?  
Try refuting its content - too deep for you ?

Or how about

Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth Jeffrey Satinover 9780801056253 Amazon.com Books

Sexual minority status and psychotic symptoms findings from the Ne... - PubMed - NCBI

Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals Psych Central

Medscape Medscape Access

The homosexual revolution End time abomination David A Noebel Amazon.com Books

Selling Homosexuality Gay Rights Activists use of rhetoric media DIJG

Breaking Obama s Safe Schools Czar s Question to 14 Year Olds Spit vs. Swallow 8230 Is it Rude audio-video The Gateway Pundit

Homosexuals brainwashing our children in elementary schools


----------



## Lilah

GreenBean said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> None. To the contrary, gay marriage actually strengthens society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not just false, it is hysterically false.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Marriage is such, because that is how nature designed the human species, with two distinct, but complimenting genders.
> 
> Marriage provides for the traits respective to each gender to nurture and train children though the distinct perspectives common to each.  By lowering the standards of marriage, the Ideological Left has long since injured the institution of marriage... resulting in exponentially more children being born into single parent homes, encouraging divorce, rendering two gender families into one gender families...
> 
> The evidence is conclusive that children living in homes where one gender is represented children tend to grow up absent sufficient training, thus lacking the discipline to provide for them the means to focus cognitively, thus producing the epidemic of drug addles youths through the ill-advised treatment of the psychological alphabet soup maladies; ADD, ADHD, ODD and so on and so forth of fictitious 'disorders' which has lead generations of children who have failed to develop into sound, well balanced adults.
> 
> Adding further devolution of the marriage standard is only going to promote more perverse iterations of poorly founded children with little means to function independently and exponential growth in children who develop disorders wherein they identify themselves as homosexual or some other form of sexual and maturation abnormality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ronan Farrow's father left when Ronan was only 6 years leaving Ronan to be raised by his mother.  He's proven to be highly intelligent and very successful despite his father's incestuous affair with his adopted sister and his father's sexual abuse of another adopted sister, which I think you would agree certainly lowered the standards of marriage.
> 
> Below is a picture of Neil Patrick Harris' twins, born of his and his partner's DNA.  They are privileged to be ensconced in a loving and safe environment where they will be afforded the opportunity  to grow and thrive.  If they learn of sexual biases it will be from fear mongers such as you.
> Living in harmony would be ideal, but we are a culture of many different people, and some of us are not open to equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> None. To the contrary, gay marriage actually strengthens society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not just false, it is hysterically false.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Marriage is such, because that is how nature designed the human species, with two distinct, but complimenting genders.
> 
> Marriage provides for the traits respective to each gender to nurture and train children though the distinct perspectives common to each.  By lowering the standards of marriage, the Ideological Left has long since injured the institution of marriage... resulting in exponentially more children being born into single parent homes, encouraging divorce, rendering two gender families into one gender families...
> 
> The evidence is conclusive that children living in homes where one gender is represented children tend to grow up absent sufficient training, thus lacking the discipline to provide for them the means to focus cognitively, thus producing the epidemic of drug addles youths through the ill-advised treatment of the psychological alphabet soup maladies; ADD, ADHD, ODD and so on and so forth of fictitious 'disorders' which has lead generations of children who have failed to develop into sound, well balanced adults.
> 
> Adding further devolution of the marriage standard is only going to promote more perverse iterations of poorly founded children with little means to function independently and exponential growth in children who develop disorders wherein they identify themselves as homosexual or some other form of sexual and maturation abnormality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ronan Farrow's father left when Ronan was only 6 years leaving Ronan to be raised by his mother.  He's proven to be highly intelligent and very successful despite his father's incestuous affair with his adopted sister and his father's sexual abuse of another adopted sister, which I think you would agree certainly lowered the standards of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AS I stated and Science agrees "Homosexuality is a product of early childhood trauma" and apparently Mr. Farrow had plenty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's not gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You sure about that ?
> 
> Does Ronan Farrow s Sexuality Matter VICE United States
Click to expand...


Actually I'm not sure any more than you are.  He's a great-looking man, highly intelligent, and I would respect him whatever his sexual orientation.  I've always found people of intelligence to be fascinating, and there are a myriad of subjects to discuss without bringing a person's bedroom habits into the equation.


----------



## GreenBean

Lilah said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not just false, it is hysterically false.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Marriage is such, because that is how nature designed the human species, with two distinct, but complimenting genders.
> 
> Marriage provides for the traits respective to each gender to nurture and train children though the distinct perspectives common to each.  By lowering the standards of marriage, the Ideological Left has long since injured the institution of marriage... resulting in exponentially more children being born into single parent homes, encouraging divorce, rendering two gender families into one gender families...
> 
> The evidence is conclusive that children living in homes where one gender is represented children tend to grow up absent sufficient training, thus lacking the discipline to provide for them the means to focus cognitively, thus producing the epidemic of drug addles youths through the ill-advised treatment of the psychological alphabet soup maladies; ADD, ADHD, ODD and so on and so forth of fictitious 'disorders' which has lead generations of children who have failed to develop into sound, well balanced adults.
> 
> Adding further devolution of the marriage standard is only going to promote more perverse iterations of poorly founded children with little means to function independently and exponential growth in children who develop disorders wherein they identify themselves as homosexual or some other form of sexual and maturation abnormality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ronan Farrow's father left when Ronan was only 6 years leaving Ronan to be raised by his mother.  He's proven to be highly intelligent and very successful despite his father's incestuous affair with his adopted sister and his father's sexual abuse of another adopted sister, which I think you would agree certainly lowered the standards of marriage.
> 
> Below is a picture of Neil Patrick Harris' twins, born of his and his partner's DNA.  They are privileged to be ensconced in a loving and safe environment where they will be afforded the opportunity  to grow and thrive.  If they learn of sexual biases it will be from fear mongers such as you.
> Living in harmony would be ideal, but we are a culture of many different people, and some of us are not open to equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not just false, it is hysterically false.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Marriage is such, because that is how nature designed the human species, with two distinct, but complimenting genders.
> 
> Marriage provides for the traits respective to each gender to nurture and train children though the distinct perspectives common to each.  By lowering the standards of marriage, the Ideological Left has long since injured the institution of marriage... resulting in exponentially more children being born into single parent homes, encouraging divorce, rendering two gender families into one gender families...
> 
> The evidence is conclusive that children living in homes where one gender is represented children tend to grow up absent sufficient training, thus lacking the discipline to provide for them the means to focus cognitively, thus producing the epidemic of drug addles youths through the ill-advised treatment of the psychological alphabet soup maladies; ADD, ADHD, ODD and so on and so forth of fictitious 'disorders' which has lead generations of children who have failed to develop into sound, well balanced adults.
> 
> Adding further devolution of the marriage standard is only going to promote more perverse iterations of poorly founded children with little means to function independently and exponential growth in children who develop disorders wherein they identify themselves as homosexual or some other form of sexual and maturation abnormality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ronan Farrow's father left when Ronan was only 6 years leaving Ronan to be raised by his mother.  He's proven to be highly intelligent and very successful despite his father's incestuous affair with his adopted sister and his father's sexual abuse of another adopted sister, which I think you would agree certainly lowered the standards of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AS I stated and Science agrees "Homosexuality is a product of early childhood trauma" and apparently Mr. Farrow had plenty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's not gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You sure about that ?
> 
> Does Ronan Farrow s Sexuality Matter VICE United States
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I'm not sure any more than you are.  He's a great-looking man, highly intelligent, and I would respect him whatever his sexual orientation.  I've always found people of intelligence to be fascinating, and there are a myriad of subjects to discuss without bringing a person's bedroom habits into the equation.
Click to expand...


I agree - leave Doogie Howser alone - so far as I know he's respectable until proven otherwise.  Queer or not


----------



## The2ndAmendment

Syriusly said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fecal Faggot fornicating fellatio-fiends are what they are: Unnatural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet so superior to bigots like yourself.
Click to expand...


A gay man played the trombone while I played the organ for my own composition. He has many talents to boast of in the music world that I don't.

However, that doesn't make his fecal fornication any more natural.

All of my gay friends know that I do not approve of their behavior. They usually find out when they try to touch me thinking I'm a closet homo.


----------



## GreenBean

The2ndAmendment said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fecal Faggot fornicating fellatio-fiends are what they are: Unnatural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet so superior to bigots like yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A gay man played the trombone while I played the organ for my own composition. He has many talents to boast of in the music world that I don't.
> 
> However, that doesn't make fecal fornication any more natural.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to create neural linguistic suggestions ?


----------



## The2ndAmendment

GreenBean said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, that doesn't make fecal fornication any more natural.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to create neural linguistic suggestions ?
Click to expand...


Are you going to argue that gays don't fornicate in fecal regions?


----------



## Skylar

GreenBean said:


> Compulsive homosexuality is a symptom-complex associated with extreme personality distortion. This extreme personality distortion demonstrably has its roots the earliest childhood and even infantile experiences of the individual and perpetuated by the compulsive strategies evolved during the course of his existence.
> 
> These constitute a neurotic aspect of the individuals personaliy and orientation structure. Homosexuality is essentially an outgrowth of acquired conflict relating to the whole person.* It is the symbolic expression of a person's inner conflict in sexual language.*



Dude, *this is from 1957* from a guy named Harry Gershman. If you're going to ape someone, the least you can do is attribute the quote. And of course, all of Gershman's conclusions are drawn from an era when ALL research into homosexuals was from the prison population or mental hospitals. With many of Gershman's sources being from the 1930s.

When you drew from the population at large, as was done Evelyn Hooker, gays and lesbians are as functioning and well adjusted as the population at large. There's a reason that homosexuality was recognized as a mental illness for only 23 years by the APA.........the conclusions didn't hold up.

With legions of research since the APA's recognition that homosexuality wasn't a mental illness affirming this conclusion. But you got back to when the first season of I Love Lucy was still on the air as your primary source and ignore everything since?

That's ridiculous.



> *The American Journal of Psychoanalysis
> *
> Homosexual people tend to experience more mental health problems than heterosexual people, research indicates.
> 
> Rates of depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, phobia, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and alcohol and drug dependence were significantly higher in homosexual respondents.
> 
> Four percent had a depressive episode in the last week, compared to two percent of heterosexual people. The rate of alcohol dependence was ten percent versus five percent, and for self-harming it was nine percent versus five percent.
> 
> The proportion of homosexual people who described themselves as being fairly or very happy was 30 percent, versus 40 percent for heterosexual people.
> 
> In the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey, participants chosen to be representative of the UK population gave information on neurotic symptoms, common mental disorders, probable psychosis, suicidal thoughts, and alcohol and drug use, as well as aspects of sexual identity and perceived discrimination.



And when you look at the EXACT same source, it tells you why:



> He stated that, although the level of discrimination was low, it was still significantly higher than against heterosexual people. This “lends support to the idea that people who feel discriminated against experience social stressors, which in turn increases their risk of experiencing mental health problems,” he says....
> 
> ......The study is published in the _British Journal of Psychiatry_. Dr. Chakraborty and his team write, *“Discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation predicted certain neurotic disorder outcomes, even after adjustment for potentially confounding variables.”*
> 
> Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals Psych Central



*This is your source.* And they indicate its DISCRIMINATION against gays, not homosexuality that results in the negative outcomes.

And just as you* ignored* Dr. Cummings *while at the same time citing him*, you *ignore* the very researchers and study you cite *while at the same time citing it*. That takes cherry picking to a brand new level. There's simply no source you won't ignore if they don't say what you already believe.

You'll even ignore your own sources. And this you call 'objectivity'? You clearly don't understand the meaning of the word. You're engaging in rampant confirmation bias yet again.

And of course, still can't assimilate or even address the evidence that utterly obliterates your claims:



> _Now, prior to Evelyn Hooker, all of the research in homosexuality-- all of it-- was done on people who were already under serious psychiatric treatment. Let me repeat that. In the history of psychiatric research, no one had ever conducted a study on a homosexual population that wasn't either in therapy, or prison, a mental hospital, or the disciplinary barracks of the armed services.
> 
> Evelyn thought about this. And decided that this kind of research was distorting psychiatry's conclusions about homosexual populations. To test her theory, Evelyn came up with an experiment. Through her former student, she located 30 homosexuals who had never sought therapy in their lives, and matched those homosexuals with a group of heterosexuals of comparable age, IQ, and education. Evelyn then put both groups through a battery of psychological tests, including a Rorschach test, the famous ink blot test.
> 
> *After disguising her subjects, Evelyn gave the results to three experienced psychiatrists and asked them to identify the homosexuals. She figured that if homosexuals were inherently pathological, the psychiatrists would be able to pick them out easily. But the judges were completely unable to distinguish the homos from hets. Equally important was the fact that the judges categorized 2/3 of both the homosexuals and the heterosexuals as perfectly well adjusted normally functioning human beings.*_
> 
> Transcript This American Life



How do you deal with these results? The same way you deal with Dr. Cummings, the same way you deal with the researchers you just cited*. You ignore them and pretend they don't exist.* If only reality worked that way. Your willful ignorance is not a standard of science or objectivity. But desperation.

And of course, you demanded a source for my numbers and I gave them to you.



> In a study of 269 cases of child sex abuse, only two offenders where found to be gay or lesbian. More relevant was the finding that of the cases involving molestation of a boy by a man, seventy-four percent of the men were or had been in a heterosexual relationship with the boys mother or another female relative. The conclusion was found that "*a child's risk of being molested by his or her relative's heterosexual partner is over one hundred times greater than by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual." - *
> 
> Gay and Lesbian Adoptive Parents Issues and Concerns - FindLaw



Backed by this study: Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals 

Which you then promptly ignored...for no particular reason. You ignoring evidence doesn't mean the evidence ceases to exist. You refusing to acknowledge these studies doesn't mean that we can't see them.

And there's still your own comic 'logic' to mock and enjoy.


> Gay Men comprise about 2 - 3 % of the population - yet are responsible for about 35% of Child Molestation cases
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed... there is nothing objective about "SCIENCE!"... which is the propaganda network of Leftists in academia who deceitfully use the inherent credibility of science, just as they subjectively use the inherent credibility of the government to subjectively and simultaneously push the same agenda.
Click to expand...


The obvious problem is that you're not being objective. Almost all sexual molesters of children are self identified heterosexuals. With 74% of the abusers of boys being heterosexual men in heterosexual relationships with the mothers or other close female relative of the boy they molested. So per you reasoning,* a self identifying heterosexual man, who is sexually attracted to women, who is in a heterosexual physical relationship with a woman.........is actually a gay man? *

Laughing....that's absurd. Your reasoning is hopelessly broken, your standards are wildly inconsistent with you ignoring your own sources repeatedly, and you're deeply commited to Confirmation Bias, as you will ignore any source if they don't say what you believe.

*Even if the source is your own.* You can't teach that kind of willful ignorance.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

GreenBean said:


> Hope she can't read your post - if she gets on your PC - LOL



She barely speaks english, and even if she did, she can't read well even in spanish. If you want a real woman, go to the forests of El Salvador. I met her through an El Salvadorean immigrant at my job when I went to El Salvador with the immigrant. I didn't return immediately, even though she went back to the states, because I found something I couldn't let go of - a 100% unspoiled woman.


----------



## Skylar

The2ndAmendment said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hope she can't read your post - if she gets on your PC - LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She barely speaks english, and even if she did, she can't read well even in spanish. If you want a real woman, go to the forests of El Salvador.
Click to expand...


Again...wow. If you need a woman to be completely dependent on you in order to maintain a relationship.....what does that say about you?


----------



## The2ndAmendment

Skylar said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hope she can't read your post - if she gets on your PC - LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She barely speaks english, and even if she did, she can't read well even in spanish. If you want a real woman, go to the forests of El Salvador.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again...wow. If you need a woman to be completely dependent on you in order to maintain a relationship.....what does that say about you?
Click to expand...


Seeing that she has a house, food, and access to events, and she is not physically abused whatsoever, and I get her pretty little pussy every day (sometimes twice and thrice), it's make me a:

Happy Winner.

I even get to continue my music and woodworking hobbies when I get a 50 hour work week instead of 70 hours.

Skylar Google the video: "Angry Mangina Syndrome"


----------



## Skylar

The2ndAmendment said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hope she can't read your post - if she gets on your PC - LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She barely speaks english, and even if she did, she can't read well even in spanish. If you want a real woman, go to the forests of El Salvador.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again...wow. If you need a woman to be completely dependent on you in order to maintain a relationship.....what does that say about you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seeing that she has a house, food, and access to events, and she is not physically abused whatsoever, and I get her pretty little pussy every day (sometimes twice and thrice), it's make me a:
> 
> Happy Winner.
> 
> I even get to continue my music and woodworking hobbies when I get a 50 hour work week instead of 70 hours.
Click to expand...



But you can't maintain a relationship unless the woman you're with is completely dependant on you. Where shes' illiterate, doesn't speak the language, has no marketable skills, and without you would go homeless. Its only in such an uneven power structure, where the women you're with have no power at all...

....that you can maintain a relationship with a woman. 

That speaks volumes.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

Skylar said:


> That speaks volumes.



What speaks volumes is my last four relationships. In the end I was swindled and bled dry.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Except for the studies which disagree with your anal and feces obsessed brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *CHALLENGE ....*
> 
> Name a single objective study  - I know - yo can't - because you haven't gotten a clue as to what you're talking about .
> 
> And not studies from propaganda machines such as UC Davis or the Mattachine Society - ROFL - a single study not produced by a gay activist - you can't - there are none that will prove your point .  Go for it Faggot
Click to expand...


Well what I can guarantee is that you will not find any study 'objective' that agrees with your pre-determined bias.

But sure.
Homosexuality and Mental Health

_In a review of published studies comparing homosexual and heterosexual samples on psychological tests, Gonsiorek (1982) found that, although some differences have been observed in test results between homosexuals and heterosexuals, both groups consistently score within the normal range. Gonsiorek concluded that "Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality" (Gonsiorek, 1982, p. 74; see also reviews by Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston & McKee, 1978; Riess, 1980).

Hooker's findings have since been replicated by many other investigators using a variety of research methods. Freedman (1971), for example, used Hooker's basic design to study lesbian and heterosexual women. Instead of projective tests, he administered objectively-scored personality tests to the women. His conclusions were similar to those of Hooker._

http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/wasson.pdf
Gonsiorek- The Empirical Basis for the Demise of the Illness Model of Homosexuality
Gonsiorek- Results of Psychological Testing on Homosexual Populations
Reiss- Psychologocial Tests in Homosexuality
Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walseon & McKee- Pschological Adjustment of Nonpatient homosexuals


----------



## Syriusly

The2ndAmendment said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> That speaks volumes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What speaks volumes is my last four relationships. In the end I was swindled and bled dry.
Click to expand...


What is the old saying?

Fool me once....shame on you.....


----------



## Skylar

The2ndAmendment said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> That speaks volumes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What speaks volumes is my last four relationships. In the end I was swindled and bled dry.
Click to expand...


The common denominator in your last 4 relationships....was you. Do you think you may have had something to do with it?


----------



## Skylar

The2ndAmendment said:


> Skylar Google the video: "Angry Mangina Syndrome"



Is this another youtube thing where some whiny guy tells us why relationships between men and women are dead?


----------



## The2ndAmendment

Syriusly said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> That speaks volumes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What speaks volumes is my last four relationships. In the end I was swindled and bled dry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the old saying?
> 
> Fool me once....shame on you.....
Click to expand...


Right, never again. I hold all the cards. Even the pussy card.


----------



## bodecea

The2ndAmendment said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> That speaks volumes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What speaks volumes is my last four relationships. In the end I was swindled and bled dry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the old saying?
> 
> Fool me once....shame on you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, never again. I hold all the cards. Even the pussy card.
Click to expand...

Way to make sure to be alone.


----------



## Syriusly

Skylar said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> That speaks volumes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What speaks volumes is my last four relationships. In the end I was swindled and bled dry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The common denominator in your last 4 relationships....was you. Do you think you may have had something to do with it?
Click to expand...


Yeah I think we have all met people like him before- always complaining how everyone he marries or dates or is room mates with or works with etc, etc is the reason why everything fell apart. 

Is it a shock he blames homosexuals too?


----------



## The2ndAmendment

bodecea said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> That speaks volumes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What speaks volumes is my last four relationships. In the end I was swindled and bled dry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the old saying?
> 
> Fool me once....shame on you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, never again. I hold all the cards. Even the pussy card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Way to make sure to be alone.
Click to expand...


So you've demonstrated yourself to be the typical spoiled American woman. There are plenty of manginas and white knights out there for you.

The Earth isn't enough for you, you want the moon and stars.


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And solid, tangible benefits to society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup - and it's also wonderful that gayness can be enjoyed and shared this way - every kid has a right to experience inter generational intimacy - isn't that right skylar ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every kid has the right to be free of homophobic bullying and battery.
> 
> Homophobes are pissed off about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How often are homosexuals being bashed.....or is this another "back alley abortion" argument?
Click to expand...



_Another survey of more than 7,000 seventh- and eighth-grade students from a large Midwestern county examined the effects of school [social] climate and homophobic bullying on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning (LGBQ) youth and found that
LGBQ youth were more likely than heterosexual youth to report high levels of bullying and substance use;
Students who were questioning their sexual orientation reported more bullying, homophobic victimization, unexcused absences from school, drug use, feelings of depression, and suicidal behaviors than either heterosexual or LGB students;

LGB students who did not experience homophobic teasing reported the lowest levels of depression and suicidal feelings of all student groups (heterosexual, LGB, and questioning students); and

All students, regardless of sexual orientation, reported the lowest levels of depression, suicidal feelings, alcohol and marijuana use, and unexcused absences from school when they were

In a positive school climate and
Not experiencing homophobic teasing._

LGBT Youth Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Health CDC


----------



## The2ndAmendment

Syriusly said:


> The common denominator in your last 4 relationships....was you. Do you think you may have had something to do with it?


[/QUOTE]

You're right, it was. I was a mangina. I even gave the moons and the stars.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

Skylar 

In the words of Charlie Sheen (to the judge who asked him about prostitutes):

"I don't pay them for sex. I pay them to leave."


----------



## The2ndAmendment

Syriusly said:


> Is it a shock he blames homosexuals too?



I don't blame them for anything. I've to realize that the rise of homosexuality in dying civilizations was actually the incentive of totalitarian feminism.

Ever heard of Rome's "bachelor tax"  ??????


----------



## bodecea

The2ndAmendment said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> That speaks volumes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What speaks volumes is my last four relationships. In the end I was swindled and bled dry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the old saying?
> 
> Fool me once....shame on you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, never again. I hold all the cards. Even the pussy card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Way to make sure to be alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you've demonstrated yourself to be the typical spoiled American woman. There are plenty of manginas and white knights out there for you.
> 
> The Earth isn't enough for you, you want the moon and stars.
Click to expand...

I'm quite happily married without being a tyrant.


----------



## bodecea

The2ndAmendment said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The common denominator in your last 4 relationships....was you. Do you think you may have had something to do with it?
Click to expand...


You're right, it was. I was a mangina. I even gave the moons and the stars.[/QUOTE]
Bitterness is your life now, it appears.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

bodecea said:


> I'm quite happily married without being a tyrant.



Yes, I'm quite sure your husband bends over backwards to keep you happy. How do you get him to do this without him fearing your displeasure?


----------



## Seawytch

The2ndAmendment said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite happily married without being a tyrant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm quite sure your husband bends over backwards to keep you happy. How do you get him to do this without him fearing your displeasure?
Click to expand...


She doesn't have a husband. The term equal partners is foreign to you isn't it?


----------



## The2ndAmendment

The2ndAmendment said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> That speaks volumes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What speaks volumes is my last four relationships. In the end I was swindled and bled dry.
Click to expand...

 OH yeah, let me add to this, each of them had a backup boyfriend within the week at their beck and call.

The Cock Carosel goes round'n'round,


----------



## The2ndAmendment

Seawytch said:


> She doesn't have a husband. The term equal partners is foreign to you isn't it?



Yes it is foreign, because in the United States, women wield all the legal power once married. Never mind how much power they wield before marriage.

In order to have an "equal partner" I had to forgaging in the forests of El Salvador.

I don't ask her of her anything. She already does the only things I require without asking: ****, cook and clean.

If she has a "headache" I simply don't bring her anywhere until she no longer has a headache. Seems to be the best cure. After several applications of my medical discovery, she became immune to headaches.


----------



## Syriusly

The2ndAmendment said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> She doesn't have a husband. The term equal partners is foreign to you isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is foreign, because in the United States, women wield all the legal power once married. Never mind how much power they wield before marriage.
> 
> In order to have an "equal partner" I had to forgaging in the forests of El Salvador.
> 
> I don't ask her of her anything. She already does the only things I require without asking: ****, cook and clean.
> 
> If she has a "headache" I simply don't bring her anywhere until she no longer has a headache. Seems to be the best cure. After several applications of my medical discovery, she became immune to headaches.
Click to expand...


What a charmer.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

Syriusly said:


> What a charmer.



There's plenty of Prince Charmings manning the cock caroseul.


----------



## The2ndAmendment




----------



## mdk

This thread sure has taken a turn for the bizarre.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

mdk said:


> This thread sure has taken a turn for the bizarre.



One cannot talk about homosexuality without feminism in a full depth discussion.


----------



## Skylar

The2ndAmendment said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread sure has taken a turn for the bizarre.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One cannot talk about homosexuality without feminism in a full depth discussion.
Click to expand...


On the contrary, its entirely possible. We did it for for about a week before you arrived.


----------



## GreenBean

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And solid, tangible benefits to society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup - and it's also wonderful that gayness can be enjoyed and shared this way - every kid has a right to experience inter generational intimacy - isn't that right skylar ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every kid has the right to be free of homophobic bullying and battery.
> 
> Homophobes are pissed off about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How often are homosexuals being bashed.....or is this another "back alley abortion" argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _Another survey of more than 7,000 seventh- and eighth-grade students from a large Midwestern county examined the effects of school [social] climate and homophobic bullying on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning (LGBQ) youth and found that
> LGBQ youth were more likely than heterosexual youth to report high levels of bullying and substance use;
> Students who were questioning their sexual orientation reported more bullying, homophobic victimization, unexcused absences from school, drug use, feelings of depression, and suicidal behaviors than either heterosexual or LGB students;
> 
> LGB students who did not experience homophobic teasing reported the lowest levels of depression and suicidal feelings of all student groups (heterosexual, LGB, and questioning students); and
> 
> All students, regardless of sexual orientation, reported the lowest levels of depression, suicidal feelings, alcohol and marijuana use, and unexcused absences from school when they were
> 
> In a positive school climate and
> Not experiencing homophobic teasing._
> 
> LGBT Youth Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Health CDC
Click to expand...



Bullying Sucks, it always has and always will, but life sucks too and unfortunately bullying and learning to stand up to it are part of growing up - It;s a hardening process and  has been since the beginning of time .

Bullying is a terrifying facet of aggressive human behavior, imposed upon the weak and vulnerable. It can be somewhat suppressed , which is a good thing, but never completely ended unless human beings somehow become pre - programmed machines.

Kevin Jennings, masterminded *a scheme of gay infiltration into the classroom using "tolerance" and anti-bullying programs as a perfect path to classroom indoctrination.*  In 1995 Jennings made a speech to a Gay Group in which he somewhat outlined the agendas strategy

"....If the radical right can succeed in portraying us as preying on children, we will lose. Their language .... is laced with subtle and not-so-subtle innuendo that we are after their kids..." -  - K. Jennings 

An important aspect of the Jennings *strategy involves linking the Gay Agenda to universal values that all members of society share*. Basically to latch onto *tolerance, diversity, safety, and peaceful coexistence amongst children of many variations - which is a good thing. It's a tactic referred to as Framing*.  From this simple dirt path, they seek to build a super-highway into the minds of our youth. Anybody who objected to the Gay Agendas planned indoctrination would be heretofore be labeled a heartless bully, a homophobic demon with a complete disregard for children and students.



"....This *framing* short-circuited their arguments [heterosexuals] and left them back-pedaling from day one, .... [N]o one could speak up against our frame and say, Why, yes, I do think students should kill themselves , This allowed us to set the terms for debate ". - Kevin Jennings

An important goal of the framing campaign, as well as the Gay Agenda in general according to Jennings, is that eventually when normal straight people hear that someone is promoting homosexuality, they would say *-Yeah, who cares? *- because they would not necessarily equate homosexuality with what it really is - evil, bad, devious and in opposition to common human morality .

Jennings, an accused but never convicted promoter of pedophilia, was a founder of  the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network {GLSEN}. The same group that gave courses


----------



## The2ndAmendment

Skylar said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread sure has taken a turn for the bizarre.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One cannot talk about homosexuality without feminism in a full depth discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, its entirely possible. We did it for for about a week before you arrived.
Click to expand...


Which means the entire thread was smoke and mirrors.


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except for the studies which disagree with your anal and feces obsessed brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *CHALLENGE ....*
> 
> Name a single objective study  - I know - yo can't - because you haven't gotten a clue as to what you're talking about .
> 
> And not studies from propaganda machines such as UC Davis or the Mattachine Society - ROFL - a single study not produced by a gay activist - you can't - there are none that will prove your point .  Go for it Faggot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well what I can guarantee is that you will not find any study 'objective' that agrees with your pre-determined bias.
> 
> But sure.
> Homosexuality and Mental Health
> 
> _In a review of published studies comparing homosexual and heterosexual samples on psychological tests, Gonsiorek (1982) found that, although some differences have been observed in test results between homosexuals and heterosexuals, both groups consistently score within the normal range. Gonsiorek concluded that "Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality" (Gonsiorek, 1982, p. 74; see also reviews by Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston & McKee, 1978; Riess, 1980).
> 
> Hooker's findings have since been replicated by many other investigators using a variety of research methods. Freedman (1971), for example, used Hooker's basic design to study lesbian and heterosexual women. Instead of projective tests, he administered objectively-scored personality tests to the women. His conclusions were similar to those of Hooker._
> 
> http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/wasson.pdf
> Gonsiorek- The Empirical Basis for the Demise of the Illness Model of Homosexuality
> Gonsiorek- Results of Psychological Testing on Homosexual Populations
> Reiss- Psychologocial Tests in Homosexuality
> Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walseon & McKee- Pschological Adjustment of Nonpatient homosexuals
Click to expand...


1.] Homosexuality and Mental Health .....
"...And not studies from propaganda machines such as* UC Davis *or the Mattachine Society "  

2.]  John Gonsiorek !  Seriously ? - why would you quote him when you don't know the first thing about his work ... read up on what you posted and then get back to me - there are some elements of some of his studies that would seem to aid your argument - and also other elements that would work against you - Tread carefully of this one little fella - or I'll blow it up in your face.

3.] Reiss- Psychologocial Tests in Homosexuality

I'm not familiar with this one -care to post a link ?

4.] Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walseon & McKee- Pschological Adjustment of Nonpatient homosexuals



> This paper critically reviews research studies comparing adjustment levels of nonpatient homosexuals and heterosexuals, and concludes that findings to date have not demonstrated that the homosexual individual is any less psychologically adjusted than his heterosexual counterpart.



Produced by the APA - a political tool of the Gay Agenda - I am not familiar with its content - and it is not available online so obviously neither are you - other than the fact that it has a title which suited your needs .  When you manage to get beyond the title perhaps then we can chat . Facts such as how the study subjects were chosen, from what sector of the population were they chosen, were they random or like most other studies produced by Gay activists were they chosen with the objective of arriving at a predetermined findings.


You know nothing about this study , other than its title - and it is highly unlikely that the  authors would divulge information about how they chose their subjects seeing what happenned to previous propagandists who attempted this.


----------



## skye

Don't ask don't tell.

Nobody cares about people's sexual life

Do not ask

Do not tell

God what's wrong with that?


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except for the studies which disagree with your anal and feces obsessed brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *CHALLENGE ....*
> 
> Name a single objective study  - I know - yo can't - because you haven't gotten a clue as to what you're talking about .
> 
> And not studies from propaganda machines such as UC Davis or the Mattachine Society - ROFL - a single study not produced by a gay activist - you can't - there are none that will prove your point .  Go for it Faggot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well what I can guarantee is that you will not find any study 'objective' that agrees with your pre-determined bias.
> 
> But sure.
> Homosexuality and Mental Health
> 
> _In a review of published studies comparing homosexual and heterosexual samples on psychological tests, Gonsiorek (1982) found that, although some differences have been observed in test results between homosexuals and heterosexuals, both groups consistently score within the normal range. Gonsiorek concluded that "Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality" (Gonsiorek, 1982, p. 74; see also reviews by Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston & McKee, 1978; Riess, 1980).
> 
> Hooker's findings have since been replicated by many other investigators using a variety of research methods. Freedman (1971), for example, used Hooker's basic design to study lesbian and heterosexual women. Instead of projective tests, he administered objectively-scored personality tests to the women. His conclusions were similar to those of Hooker._
> 
> http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/wasson.pdf
> Gonsiorek- The Empirical Basis for the Demise of the Illness Model of Homosexuality
> Gonsiorek- Results of Psychological Testing on Homosexual Populations
> Reiss- Psychologocial Tests in Homosexuality
> Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walseon & McKee- Pschological Adjustment of Nonpatient homosexuals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.] Homosexuality and Mental Health .....
> "...And not studies from propaganda machines such as* UC Davis *or the Mattachine Society "
> 
> 2.]  John Gonsiorek !  Seriously ? - why would you quote him when you don't know the first thing about his work ... read up on what you posted and then get back to me - there are some elements of some of his studies that would seem to aid your argument - and also other elements that would work against you - Tread carefully of this one little fella - or I'll blow it up in your face.
> 
> 3.] Reiss- Psychologocial Tests in Homosexuality
> 
> I'm not familiar with this one -care to post a link ?
> 
> 4.] Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walseon & McKee- Pschological Adjustment of Nonpatient homosexuals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This paper critically reviews research studies comparing adjustment levels of nonpatient homosexuals and heterosexuals, and concludes that findings to date have not demonstrated that the homosexual individual is any less psychologically adjusted than his heterosexual counterpart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Produced by the APA - a political tool of the Gay Agenda - I am not familiar with its content - and it is not available online so obviously neither are you - other than the fact that it has a title which suited your needs .  When you manage to get beyond the title perhaps then we can chat . Facts such as how the study subjects were chosen, from what sector of the population were they chosen, were they random or like most other studies produced by Gay activists were they chosen with the objective of arriving at a predetermined findings.
> 
> 
> You know nothing about this study , other than its title - and it is highly unlikely that the  authors would divulge information about how they chose their subjects seeing what happenned to previous propagandists who attempted this.
Click to expand...


'produced by the APA'- the largest association of psychiatrists in the United States.

Yeah- meanwhile you cite your own looney tunes website.

Look- I clearly can't stop your bigotry- I am not responsible for whatever sad excuse of a life has caused you to hate Americans so much-  but I will continue to point out your bigotry- your homophobia and your hate.


----------



## skye

Men or women waving their flags....sexual flags on everybody's noses.....

what for my dears?

what for


----------



## GreenBean

The2ndAmendment said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hope she can't read your post - if she gets on your PC - LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She barely speaks english, and even if she did, she can't read well even in spanish. If you want a real woman, go to the forests of El Salvador.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again...wow. If you need a woman to be completely dependent on you in order to maintain a relationship.....what does that say about you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seeing that she has a house, food, and access to events, and she is not physically abused whatsoever, and I get her pretty little pussy every day (sometimes twice and thrice), it's make me a:
> 
> Happy Winner.
> 
> I even get to continue my music and woodworking hobbies when I get a 50 hour work week instead of 70 hours.
> 
> Skylar Google the video: "Angry Mangina Syndrome"
Click to expand...



Sounds to me like you need a whore - not a wife my friend . My wife is my life partner - but to each his own.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And solid, tangible benefits to society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup - and it's also wonderful that gayness can be enjoyed and shared this way - every kid has a right to experience inter generational intimacy - isn't that right skylar ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every kid has the right to be free of homophobic bullying and battery.
> 
> Homophobes are pissed off about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How often are homosexuals being bashed.....or is this another "back alley abortion" argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _Another survey of more than 7,000 seventh- and eighth-grade students from a large Midwestern county examined the effects of school [social] climate and homophobic bullying on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning (LGBQ) youth and found that
> LGBQ youth were more likely than heterosexual youth to report high levels of bullying and substance use;
> Students who were questioning their sexual orientation reported more bullying, homophobic victimization, unexcused absences from school, drug use, feelings of depression, and suicidal behaviors than either heterosexual or LGB students;
> 
> LGB students who did not experience homophobic teasing reported the lowest levels of depression and suicidal feelings of all student groups (heterosexual, LGB, and questioning students); and
> 
> All students, regardless of sexual orientation, reported the lowest levels of depression, suicidal feelings, alcohol and marijuana use, and unexcused absences from school when they were
> 
> In a positive school climate and
> Not experiencing homophobic teasing._
> 
> LGBT Youth Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Health CDC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullying Sucks, it always has and always will, but life sucks too and unfortunately bullying and learning to stand up to it are part of growing up - It;s a hardening process and  has been since the beginning of time .
> ]
Click to expand...


Bullying doesn't just 'suck'- homophobic bigots like yourself have inflicted this on homosexuals for decades. 

And yes- I am sure you rationalize it as just 'toughening the f*gs up'.

You are just pissed that it is no longer politically correct to go out with 3 of your friends and find some 120 lbs boy you think is queer and beat them up to 'bitch smack' them back into the closet.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

GreenBean said:


> Sounds to me like you need a whore - not a wife my friend . My wife is my life partner - but to each his own.



Lose your house and job. See if she stays. Guaranteed she'll have another guy within the week (assuming she hasn't hit the wall)


----------



## Syriusly

The2ndAmendment said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread sure has taken a turn for the bizarre.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One cannot talk about homosexuality without feminism in a full depth discussion.
Click to expand...


Its like a cornucopia of all the things that bigots hate- you left out 'Affirmative action' too.


----------



## skye

people give too much importance to sex.

meh


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except for the studies which disagree with your anal and feces obsessed brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *CHALLENGE ....*
> 
> Name a single objective study  - I know - yo can't - because you haven't gotten a clue as to what you're talking about .
> 
> And not studies from propaganda machines such as UC Davis or the Mattachine Society - ROFL - a single study not produced by a gay activist - you can't - there are none that will prove your point .  Go for it Faggot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well what I can guarantee is that you will not find any study 'objective' that agrees with your pre-determined bias.
> 
> But sure.
> Homosexuality and Mental Health
> 
> _In a review of published studies comparing homosexual and heterosexual samples on psychological tests, Gonsiorek (1982) found that, although some differences have been observed in test results between homosexuals and heterosexuals, both groups consistently score within the normal range. Gonsiorek concluded that "Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality" (Gonsiorek, 1982, p. 74; see also reviews by Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston & McKee, 1978; Riess, 1980).
> 
> Hooker's findings have since been replicated by many other investigators using a variety of research methods. Freedman (1971), for example, used Hooker's basic design to study lesbian and heterosexual women. Instead of projective tests, he administered objectively-scored personality tests to the women. His conclusions were similar to those of Hooker._
> 
> http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/wasson.pdf
> Gonsiorek- The Empirical Basis for the Demise of the Illness Model of Homosexuality
> Gonsiorek- Results of Psychological Testing on Homosexual Populations
> Reiss- Psychologocial Tests in Homosexuality
> Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walseon & McKee- Pschological Adjustment of Nonpatient homosexuals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.] Homosexuality and Mental Health .....
> "...And not studies from propaganda machines such as* UC Davis *or the Mattachine Society "
> 
> 2.]  John Gonsiorek !  Seriously ? - why would you quote him when you don't know the first thing about his work ... read up on what you posted and then get back to me - there are some elements of some of his studies that would seem to aid your argument - and also other elements that would work against you - Tread carefully of this one little fella - or I'll blow it up in your face.
> 
> 3.] Reiss- Psychologocial Tests in Homosexuality
> 
> I'm not familiar with this one -care to post a link ?
> 
> 4.] Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walseon & McKee- Pschological Adjustment of Nonpatient homosexuals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This paper critically reviews research studies comparing adjustment levels of nonpatient homosexuals and heterosexuals, and concludes that findings to date have not demonstrated that the homosexual individual is any less psychologically adjusted than his heterosexual counterpart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Produced by the APA - a political tool of the Gay Agenda - I am not familiar with its content - and it is not available online so obviously neither are you - other than the fact that it has a title which suited your needs .  When you manage to get beyond the title perhaps then we can chat . Facts such as how the study subjects were chosen, from what sector of the population were they chosen, were they random or like most other studies produced by Gay activists were they chosen with the objective of arriving at a predetermined findings.
> 
> 
> You know nothing about this study , other than its title - and it is highly unlikely that the  authors would divulge information about how they chose their subjects seeing what happenned to previous propagandists who attempted this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'produced by the APA'- the largest association of psychiatrists in the United States.
> 
> Yeah- meanwhile you cite your own looney tunes website.
> 
> Look- I clearly can't stop your bigotry- I am not responsible for whatever sad excuse of a life has caused you to hate Americans so much-  but I will continue to point out your bigotry- your homophobia and your hate.
Click to expand...


APA ? *Below is Just the tip of the iceberg* - The Rind Controversy.  And although the APA may be the largest association of psychiatrists in the United States it is run by a small handful of powerful leftists - the remainder squabble at times about the BS they have been putting out - but like society at large - the fire is still smoldering - the inferno is up the road a tad.

For the first time ever in U.S. history, Congress officially condemned a study published in a major scientific journal.The study was published in 1998 in _Psychological Bulletin_, the flagship journal of the prestigious American Psychological Association (APA), and it was condemned the next year.The APA apologized for printing the article, resulting in a three-year controversy that threatened to split the organization in half. *Some claimed the study was pseudo-scientific propaganda,* while others charged that Congress’s and the APA’s actions amounted to censorship and would have a chilling effect on scientific research.Numerous articles were published in the popular and professional press over the next two years.The controversy was rekindled in 2001 when a psychologist’s critique of the APA’s actions was accepted for publication in another APA journal, then rejected just before publication.This site details the events of this drama, and links to articles published in the professional journals.

The Rind Controversy


----------



## skye

omg what  a bore


----------



## GreenBean

The2ndAmendment said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you need a whore - not a wife my friend . My wife is my life partner - but to each his own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lose your house and job. See if she stays. Guaranteed she'll have another guy within the week (assuming she hasn't hit the wall)
Click to expand...


Been there done that - years ago . Picked up the pieces .  But then again not everyone can be married to Cinderella like I am - some prefer tinkerbell.


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup - and it's also wonderful that gayness can be enjoyed and shared this way - every kid has a right to experience inter generational intimacy - isn't that right skylar ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every kid has the right to be free of homophobic bullying and battery.
> 
> Homophobes are pissed off about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How often are homosexuals being bashed.....or is this another "back alley abortion" argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _Another survey of more than 7,000 seventh- and eighth-grade students from a large Midwestern county examined the effects of school [social] climate and homophobic bullying on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning (LGBQ) youth and found that
> LGBQ youth were more likely than heterosexual youth to report high levels of bullying and substance use;
> Students who were questioning their sexual orientation reported more bullying, homophobic victimization, unexcused absences from school, drug use, feelings of depression, and suicidal behaviors than either heterosexual or LGB students;
> 
> LGB students who did not experience homophobic teasing reported the lowest levels of depression and suicidal feelings of all student groups (heterosexual, LGB, and questioning students); and
> 
> All students, regardless of sexual orientation, reported the lowest levels of depression, suicidal feelings, alcohol and marijuana use, and unexcused absences from school when they were
> 
> In a positive school climate and
> Not experiencing homophobic teasing._
> 
> LGBT Youth Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Health CDC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullying Sucks, it always has and always will, but life sucks too and unfortunately bullying and learning to stand up to it are part of growing up - It;s a hardening process and  has been since the beginning of time .
> ]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullying doesn't just 'suck'- homophobic bigots like yourself have inflicted this on homosexuals for decades.
> 
> And yes- I am sure you rationalize it as just 'toughening the f*gs up'.
> 
> You are just pissed that it is no longer politically correct to go out with 3 of your friends and find some 120 lbs boy you think is queer and beat them up to 'bitch smack' them back into the closet.
Click to expand...


Trying to* frame *the argument are you ?  Sorry Pal - that shit don't fly .  The discussion is not about beating up Gays , [and incidentally - your stereotype of a 120 sissy boy doesn't fly either -I seen some fags that would put Schwarzenegger to shame ]

The argument is about Gay propagandists forcing their views on society and in particular Children.  They feel they have the right to over ride the family on issues of morality, they feel they have the right to falsify scientific data to suit their needs. They feel they have the right to inundate the AMerican Home with unabated deceitful and misleading brainwashing and propaganda on a daily basis .  This nonsense about bullying is simply just another tool. 



> You are just pissed that it is no longer politically correct to go out ....find some 120 lbs boy you think is queer and beat them up



It never was "Politically Correct"    and it rarely happened - 

You seem to be pissed off because the jig is just about up - America is starting to wake up and grow weary of the queer shenanigans - there will be a backlash .


----------



## GreenBean

skye said:


> omg what  a bore


Desensitized


----------



## Skylar

skye said:


> people give too much importance to sex.
> 
> meh



I tend to agree. In my opinion, one of the least interesting things about a person is how they get their nut.


----------



## skye

Skylar said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> people give too much importance to sex.
> 
> meh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to agree. In my opinion, one of the least interesting things about a person is how they get their nut.
Click to expand...


get a nut? what a silly way of talking

i don't know where you come from...your  background

I wasnt raised with that language

walnut  macadamias pistachios...that's what i know

you don't make sense in my family mind

I don't think I like you


----------



## Skylar

skye said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> people give too much importance to sex.
> 
> meh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to agree. In my opinion, one of the least interesting things about a person is how they get their nut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> get a nut? what a silly way of talking
> 
> i don't know where you come from...your  background
> 
> I wasnt raised with that language
> 
> walnut  macadamias pistachios...that's what i know
> 
> you don't make sense in my family mind
> 
> I don't think I like you
Click to expand...


Laughing....if you judge if you like a person on one turn of phrase, then you're probably not anyone I want to get to know. 

Its probably best if we don't ever talk again. Ever. 

Deal?


----------



## skye

what a fucking moron ^^^^^^^^

deal


----------



## Skylar

Then consider yourself ignored.

Good day!


----------



## skye

haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
LOl ''sure
good day LOL


----------



## Skylar

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> They did initially. But after decades of studies,* they could find no actual psychopathology associated with homosexuality. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong - you my friend are one sad slimy little buttfucker -you haven't got a shred of independent free thought in your minute little cranium .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except for the studies which disagree with your anal and feces obsessed brain.
> 
> Your hatred of homosexuals- and fear of being anally raped fuels your obsession.
Click to expand...


There's confirmation bias. There's the cherry picking fallacy. And then there's Green. Who twice now has cited and ignored the exact same sources.......citing them when they agree with him, and ignoring them when they don't. 

Where by any rational standard, either a source is credible or it isn't. For Green.......he'll ignore any source that doesn't say what he believes. Even his own sources.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

GreenBean said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you need a whore - not a wife my friend . My wife is my life partner - but to each his own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lose your house and job. See if she stays. Guaranteed she'll have another guy within the week (assuming she hasn't hit the wall)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been there done that - years ago . Picked up the pieces .  But then again not everyone can be married to Cinderella like I am - some prefer tinkerbell.
Click to expand...


When's the last time she bought you flowers? (or anything)?


----------



## ninja007

Syriusly said:


> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the libs in this thread keep talking about no need to procreate; not surprising since they defend millions of babies being slaughtered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that the same people who don't want equality for homosexuals also oppose a woman controlling her own body.
Click to expand...


I think you meant controlling her own body AND another (innocent) body- you know; murder.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> What speaks volumes is my last four relationships. In the end I was swindled and bled dry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the old saying?
> 
> Fool me once....shame on you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, never again. I hold all the cards. Even the pussy card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Way to make sure to be alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you've demonstrated yourself to be the typical spoiled American woman. There are plenty of manginas and white knights out there for you.
> 
> The Earth isn't enough for you, you want the moon and stars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm quite happily married without being a tyrant.
Click to expand...

You're not married.


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the old saying?
> 
> Fool me once....shame on you.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, never again. I hold all the cards. Even the pussy card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Way to make sure to be alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you've demonstrated yourself to be the typical spoiled American woman. There are plenty of manginas and white knights out there for you.
> 
> The Earth isn't enough for you, you want the moon and stars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm quite happily married without being a tyrant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not married.
Click to expand...


Your delusion does not change the fact that she is legally married to her life partner...and enjoying all the associated benefits. World ending yet?


----------



## Syriusly

ninja007 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the libs in this thread keep talking about no need to procreate; not surprising since they defend millions of babies being slaughtered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that the same people who don't want equality for homosexuals also oppose a woman controlling her own body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you meant controlling her own body AND another (innocent) body- you know; murder.
Click to expand...


No- I mean the same bigots who don't want equality for homosexuals also want to control women's bodies also.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every kid has the right to be free of homophobic bullying and battery.
> 
> Homophobes are pissed off about that.
> 
> 
> 
> How often are homosexuals being bashed.....or is this another "back alley abortion" argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _Another survey of more than 7,000 seventh- and eighth-grade students from a large Midwestern county examined the effects of school [social] climate and homophobic bullying on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning (LGBQ) youth and found that
> LGBQ youth were more likely than heterosexual youth to report high levels of bullying and substance use;
> Students who were questioning their sexual orientation reported more bullying, homophobic victimization, unexcused absences from school, drug use, feelings of depression, and suicidal behaviors than either heterosexual or LGB students;
> 
> LGB students who did not experience homophobic teasing reported the lowest levels of depression and suicidal feelings of all student groups (heterosexual, LGB, and questioning students); and
> 
> All students, regardless of sexual orientation, reported the lowest levels of depression, suicidal feelings, alcohol and marijuana use, and unexcused absences from school when they were
> 
> In a positive school climate and
> Not experiencing homophobic teasing._
> 
> LGBT Youth Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Health CDC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullying Sucks, it always has and always will, but life sucks too and unfortunately bullying and learning to stand up to it are part of growing up - It;s a hardening process and  has been since the beginning of time .
> ]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullying doesn't just 'suck'- homophobic bigots like yourself have inflicted this on homosexuals for decades.
> 
> And yes- I am sure you rationalize it as just 'toughening the f*gs up'.
> 
> You are just pissed that it is no longer politically correct to go out with 3 of your friends and find some 120 lbs boy you think is queer and beat them up to 'bitch smack' them back into the closet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to* frame *the argument are you ?  Sorry Pal - that shit don't fly .  The discussion is not about beating up Gays , .
Click to expand...


You were the one who said that Americans- meaning you- wanted to assault Gays until they returned to the closet.

That makes it part of the discussion.

Your kind of bigotry is dying- and you are pissed off about it.  You want to be able to bitch slap homosexuals until they stop being so uppity but you can't get away with that any more- and you are frustrated.

So progress is being made.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except for the studies which disagree with your anal and feces obsessed brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *CHALLENGE ....*
> 
> Name a single objective study  - I know - yo can't - because you haven't gotten a clue as to what you're talking about .
> 
> And not studies from propaganda machines such as UC Davis or the Mattachine Society - ROFL - a single study not produced by a gay activist - you can't - there are none that will prove your point .  Go for it Faggot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well what I can guarantee is that you will not find any study 'objective' that agrees with your pre-determined bias.
> 
> But sure.
> Homosexuality and Mental Health
> 
> _In a review of published studies comparing homosexual and heterosexual samples on psychological tests, Gonsiorek (1982) found that, although some differences have been observed in test results between homosexuals and heterosexuals, both groups consistently score within the normal range. Gonsiorek concluded that "Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality" (Gonsiorek, 1982, p. 74; see also reviews by Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston & McKee, 1978; Riess, 1980).
> 
> Hooker's findings have since been replicated by many other investigators using a variety of research methods. Freedman (1971), for example, used Hooker's basic design to study lesbian and heterosexual women. Instead of projective tests, he administered objectively-scored personality tests to the women. His conclusions were similar to those of Hooker._
> 
> http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/wasson.pdf
> Gonsiorek- The Empirical Basis for the Demise of the Illness Model of Homosexuality
> Gonsiorek- Results of Psychological Testing on Homosexual Populations
> Reiss- Psychologocial Tests in Homosexuality
> Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walseon & McKee- Pschological Adjustment of Nonpatient homosexuals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.] Homosexuality and Mental Health .....
> "...And not studies from propaganda machines such as* UC Davis *or the Mattachine Society "
> 
> 2.]  John Gonsiorek !  Seriously ? - why would you quote him when you don't know the first thing about his work ... read up on what you posted and then get back to me - there are some elements of some of his studies that would seem to aid your argument - and also other elements that would work against you - Tread carefully of this one little fella - or I'll blow it up in your face.
> 
> 3.] Reiss- Psychologocial Tests in Homosexuality
> 
> I'm not familiar with this one -care to post a link ?
> 
> 4.] Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walseon & McKee- Pschological Adjustment of Nonpatient homosexuals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This paper critically reviews research studies comparing adjustment levels of nonpatient homosexuals and heterosexuals, and concludes that findings to date have not demonstrated that the homosexual individual is any less psychologically adjusted than his heterosexual counterpart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Produced by the APA - a political tool of the Gay Agenda - I am not familiar with its content - and it is not available online so obviously neither are you - other than the fact that it has a title which suited your needs .  When you manage to get beyond the title perhaps then we can chat . Facts such as how the study subjects were chosen, from what sector of the population were they chosen, were they random or like most other studies produced by Gay activists were they chosen with the objective of arriving at a predetermined findings.
> 
> 
> You know nothing about this study , other than its title - and it is highly unlikely that the  authors would divulge information about how they chose their subjects seeing what happenned to previous propagandists who attempted this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'produced by the APA'- the largest association of psychiatrists in the United States.
> 
> Yeah- meanwhile you cite your own looney tunes website.
> 
> Look- I clearly can't stop your bigotry- I am not responsible for whatever sad excuse of a life has caused you to hate Americans so much-  but I will continue to point out your bigotry- your homophobia and your hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> APA ? *Below is Just the tip of the iceberg* - The Rind Controversy.  And although the APA may be the largest association of psychiatrists in the United States it is run by a small handful of powerful leftists
Click to expand...


The APA is a professional psychiatric association run by its members- its leadership is elected by its members. If it is run by a small handful of 'powerful leftists'- then they reflect the opinions of the majority of members. 

And then there is you- running a looney website.


----------



## Syriusly

The2ndAmendment said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> She doesn't have a husband. The term equal partners is foreign to you isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is foreign, because in the United States, women wield all the legal power once married. Never mind how much power they wield before marriage.
> 
> In order to have an "equal partner" I had to forgaging in the forests of El Salvador.
> 
> I don't ask her of her anything. She already does the only things I require without asking: ****, cook and clean.
> 
> If she has a "headache" I simply don't bring her anywhere until she no longer has a headache. Seems to be the best cure. After several applications of my medical discovery, she became immune to headaches.
Click to expand...


Frankly you pretty much outline all the red flags of an abusive relationship.
*1. He pushes for quick involvement. * He comes on strong, claiming, "I've never felt loved like this before by anyone." You get pressured for an exclusive *commitment* almost immediately. (Like going to El Salvador to find a GF quickly...)

*3. He is controlling. *He interrogates you intensely about who you talked to and where you were; checks mileage on the car; keeps all the money or asks for receipts; insists you ask for permission to go anywhere or do anything.("I simply don't bring her anywhere until she no longer has a headach")

*4. He has very unrealistic expectations. *He expects you to be the perfect person and meet their every need.

*5. There is isolation. *He tries to cut you off from *family* and friends; deprives you of a phone or car, or tries to prevent you from holding a job. (like bringing her to a country where she has no family or friends and then controlling her ability to leave the home)

*6. He blames others for his own mistakes.* The boss, family, you - it's always someone else's fault if anything goes wrong. (4 failed marriages- all the wife's fault- not wanting sex- the girl friends fault)


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> *CHALLENGE ....*
> 
> Name a single objective study  - I know - yo can't - because you haven't gotten a clue as to what you're talking about .
> 
> And not studies from propaganda machines such as UC Davis or the Mattachine Society - ROFL - a single study not produced by a gay activist - you can't - there are none that will prove your point .  Go for it Faggot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well what I can guarantee is that you will not find any study 'objective' that agrees with your pre-determined bias.
> 
> But sure.
> Homosexuality and Mental Health
> 
> _In a review of published studies comparing homosexual and heterosexual samples on psychological tests, Gonsiorek (1982) found that, although some differences have been observed in test results between homosexuals and heterosexuals, both groups consistently score within the normal range. Gonsiorek concluded that "Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality" (Gonsiorek, 1982, p. 74; see also reviews by Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston & McKee, 1978; Riess, 1980).
> 
> Hooker's findings have since been replicated by many other investigators using a variety of research methods. Freedman (1971), for example, used Hooker's basic design to study lesbian and heterosexual women. Instead of projective tests, he administered objectively-scored personality tests to the women. His conclusions were similar to those of Hooker._
> 
> http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/wasson.pdf
> Gonsiorek- The Empirical Basis for the Demise of the Illness Model of Homosexuality
> Gonsiorek- Results of Psychological Testing on Homosexual Populations
> Reiss- Psychologocial Tests in Homosexuality
> Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walseon & McKee- Pschological Adjustment of Nonpatient homosexuals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.] Homosexuality and Mental Health .....
> "...And not studies from propaganda machines such as* UC Davis *or the Mattachine Society "
> 
> 2.]  John Gonsiorek !  Seriously ? - why would you quote him when you don't know the first thing about his work ... read up on what you posted and then get back to me - there are some elements of some of his studies that would seem to aid your argument - and also other elements that would work against you - Tread carefully of this one little fella - or I'll blow it up in your face.
> 
> 3.] Reiss- Psychologocial Tests in Homosexuality
> 
> I'm not familiar with this one -care to post a link ?
> 
> 4.] Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walseon & McKee- Pschological Adjustment of Nonpatient homosexuals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This paper critically reviews research studies comparing adjustment levels of nonpatient homosexuals and heterosexuals, and concludes that findings to date have not demonstrated that the homosexual individual is any less psychologically adjusted than his heterosexual counterpart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Produced by the APA - a political tool of the Gay Agenda - I am not familiar with its content - and it is not available online so obviously neither are you - other than the fact that it has a title which suited your needs .  When you manage to get beyond the title perhaps then we can chat . Facts such as how the study subjects were chosen, from what sector of the population were they chosen, were they random or like most other studies produced by Gay activists were they chosen with the objective of arriving at a predetermined findings.
> 
> 
> You know nothing about this study , other than its title - and it is highly unlikely that the  authors would divulge information about how they chose their subjects seeing what happenned to previous propagandists who attempted this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'produced by the APA'- the largest association of psychiatrists in the United States.
> 
> Yeah- meanwhile you cite your own looney tunes website.
> 
> Look- I clearly can't stop your bigotry- I am not responsible for whatever sad excuse of a life has caused you to hate Americans so much-  but I will continue to point out your bigotry- your homophobia and your hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> APA ? *Below is Just the tip of the iceberg* - The Rind Controversy.  And although the APA may be the largest association of psychiatrists in the United States it is run by a small handful of powerful leftists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The APA is a professional psychiatric association run by its members- its leadership is elected by its members. If it is run by a small handful of 'powerful leftists'- then they reflect the opinions of the majority of members.
> 
> And then there is you- running a looney website.
Click to expand...




Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> *CHALLENGE ....*
> 
> Name a single objective study  - I know - yo can't - because you haven't gotten a clue as to what you're talking about .
> 
> And not studies from propaganda machines such as UC Davis or the Mattachine Society - ROFL - a single study not produced by a gay activist - you can't - there are none that will prove your point .  Go for it Faggot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well what I can guarantee is that you will not find any study 'objective' that agrees with your pre-determined bias.
> 
> But sure.
> Homosexuality and Mental Health
> 
> _In a review of published studies comparing homosexual and heterosexual samples on psychological tests, Gonsiorek (1982) found that, although some differences have been observed in test results between homosexuals and heterosexuals, both groups consistently score within the normal range. Gonsiorek concluded that "Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality" (Gonsiorek, 1982, p. 74; see also reviews by Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston & McKee, 1978; Riess, 1980).
> 
> Hooker's findings have since been replicated by many other investigators using a variety of research methods. Freedman (1971), for example, used Hooker's basic design to study lesbian and heterosexual women. Instead of projective tests, he administered objectively-scored personality tests to the women. His conclusions were similar to those of Hooker._
> 
> http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/wasson.pdf
> Gonsiorek- The Empirical Basis for the Demise of the Illness Model of Homosexuality
> Gonsiorek- Results of Psychological Testing on Homosexual Populations
> Reiss- Psychologocial Tests in Homosexuality
> Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walseon & McKee- Pschological Adjustment of Nonpatient homosexuals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.] Homosexuality and Mental Health .....
> "...And not studies from propaganda machines such as* UC Davis *or the Mattachine Society "
> 
> 2.]  John Gonsiorek !  Seriously ? - why would you quote him when you don't know the first thing about his work ... read up on what you posted and then get back to me - there are some elements of some of his studies that would seem to aid your argument - and also other elements that would work against you - Tread carefully of this one little fella - or I'll blow it up in your face.
> 
> 3.] Reiss- Psychologocial Tests in Homosexuality
> 
> I'm not familiar with this one -care to post a link ?
> 
> 4.] Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walseon & McKee- Pschological Adjustment of Nonpatient homosexuals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This paper critically reviews research studies comparing adjustment levels of nonpatient homosexuals and heterosexuals, and concludes that findings to date have not demonstrated that the homosexual individual is any less psychologically adjusted than his heterosexual counterpart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Produced by the APA - a political tool of the Gay Agenda - I am not familiar with its content - and it is not available online so obviously neither are you - other than the fact that it has a title which suited your needs .  When you manage to get beyond the title perhaps then we can chat . Facts such as how the study subjects were chosen, from what sector of the population were they chosen, were they random or like most other studies produced by Gay activists were they chosen with the objective of arriving at a predetermined findings.
> 
> 
> You know nothing about this study , other than its title - and it is highly unlikely that the  authors would divulge information about how they chose their subjects seeing what happenned to previous propagandists who attempted this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'produced by the APA'- the largest association of psychiatrists in the United States.
> 
> Yeah- meanwhile you cite your own looney tunes website.
> 
> Look- I clearly can't stop your bigotry- I am not responsible for whatever sad excuse of a life has caused you to hate Americans so much-  but I will continue to point out your bigotry- your homophobia and your hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> APA ? *Below is Just the tip of the iceberg* - The Rind Controversy.  And although the APA may be the largest association of psychiatrists in the United States it is run by a small handful of powerful leftists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The APA is a professional psychiatric association run by its members- its leadership is elected by its members. If it is run by a small handful of 'powerful leftists'- then they reflect the opinions of the majority of members.
> 
> And then there is you- running a looney website.
Click to expand...

And the US Congress - and the hundreds of dissenting psychiatrists, psychologists and so on and so on .....


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> She doesn't have a husband. The term equal partners is foreign to you isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is foreign, because in the United States, women wield all the legal power once married. Never mind how much power they wield before marriage.
> 
> In order to have an "equal partner" I had to forgaging in the forests of El Salvador.
> 
> I don't ask her of her anything. She already does the only things I require without asking: ****, cook and clean.
> 
> If she has a "headache" I simply don't bring her anywhere until she no longer has a headache. Seems to be the best cure. After several applications of my medical discovery, she became immune to headaches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frankly you pretty much outline all the red flags of an abusive relationship.
> *1. He pushes for quick involvement. * He comes on strong, claiming, "I've never felt loved like this before by anyone." You get pressured for an exclusive *commitment* almost immediately. (Like going to El Salvador to find a GF quickly...)
> 
> *3. He is controlling. *He interrogates you intensely about who you talked to and where you were; checks mileage on the car; keeps all the money or asks for receipts; insists you ask for permission to go anywhere or do anything.("I simply don't bring her anywhere until she no longer has a headach")
> 
> *4. He has very unrealistic expectations. *He expects you to be the perfect person and meet their every need.
> 
> *5. There is isolation. *He tries to cut you off from *family* and friends; deprives you of a phone or car, or tries to prevent you from holding a job. (like bringing her to a country where she has no family or friends and then controlling her ability to leave the home)
> 
> *6. He blames others for his own mistakes.* The boss, family, you - it's always someone else's fault if anything goes wrong. (4 failed marriages- all the wife's fault- not wanting sex- the girl friends fault)
Click to expand...



I can't help but but notice it's all *HE*  never SHE - in this Utopian assylum you envision are SHEs always devoid of any guilt ?


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> You were the one who said that Americans- meaning you- wanted to assault Gays until they returned to the closet.



Horse Feathers ...lol


----------



## GreenBean

Skylar said:


> .he'll ignore any source that doesn't say what he believes. Even his own sources.




SUch as ..lets see an example .... still living in that little fantasy world are you ? - okay penis breath - put your money where your mouth is ..... no! no! no! ...you little pervert - I didn't say put something in your mouth ... holyshit pal that's just an expression --- now get his pec........ well get that thing outta your mouth you dunno where its been.    NOw lets have an example you lying sack of shit.


----------



## GreenBean

The2ndAmendment said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you need a whore - not a wife my friend . My wife is my life partner - but to each his own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lose your house and job. See if she stays. Guaranteed she'll have another guy within the week (assuming she hasn't hit the wall)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been there done that - years ago . Picked up the pieces .  But then again not everyone can be married to Cinderella like I am - some prefer tinkerbell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When's the last time she bought you flowers? (or anything)?
Click to expand...

December 25


----------



## GreenBean

Skylar said:


> There's confirmation bias. There's the cherry picking fallacy. And then there's Green. Who twice now has cited and ignored the exact same sources..



I gave you a challenge - you were unable to meet - cite some viable studies that do not come from the primary propaganda LGBT propaganda sources UC Davis and the Mattachine society - *you were unable to meet the challenge *. You instead cited studies that you had no idea whatsoever of their content - you simply liked the titles  - somewhat what one of my
5th graders would do - just curious how old are you ?


----------



## The2ndAmendment

GreenBean said:


> When's the last time she bought you flowers? (or anything)?
> 
> 
> 
> December 25
Click to expand...


Oh wow, she used the money you earned to buy a lot of Christmas gifts for everyone in the extended family. Sounds like the IRS giving you a refund.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Lilah said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> None. To the contrary, gay marriage actually strengthens society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not just false, it is hysterically false.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Marriage is such, because that is how nature designed the human species, with two distinct, but complimenting genders.
> 
> Marriage provides for the traits respective to each gender to nurture and train children though the distinct perspectives common to each.  By lowering the standards of marriage, the Ideological Left has long since injured the institution of marriage... resulting in exponentially more children being born into single parent homes, encouraging divorce, rendering two gender families into one gender families...
> 
> The evidence is conclusive that children living in homes where one gender is represented children tend to grow up absent sufficient training, thus lacking the discipline to provide for them the means to focus cognitively, thus producing the epidemic of drug addles youths through the ill-advised treatment of the psychological alphabet soup maladies; ADD, ADHD, ODD and so on and so forth of fictitious 'disorders' which has lead generations of children who have failed to develop into sound, well balanced adults.
> 
> Adding further devolution of the marriage standard is only going to promote more perverse iterations of poorly founded children with little means to function independently and exponential growth in children who develop disorders wherein they identify themselves as homosexual or some other form of sexual and maturation abnormality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ronan Farrow's father left when Ronan was only 6 years leaving Ronan to be raised by his mother.  He's proven to be highly intelligent and very successful despite his father's incestuous affair with his adopted sister and his father's sexual abuse of another adopted sister, which I think you would agree certainly lowered the standards of marriage.
> 
> Below is a picture of Neil Patrick Harris' twins, born of his and his partner's DNA.  They are privileged to be ensconced in a loving and safe environment where they will be afforded the opportunity  to grow and thrive.  If they learn of sexual biases it will be from fear mongers such as you.
> Living in harmony would be ideal, but we are a culture of many different people, and some of us are not open to the concept of equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> None. To the contrary, gay marriage actually strengthens society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not just false, it is hysterically false.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Marriage is such, because that is how nature designed the human species, with two distinct, but complimenting genders.
> 
> Marriage provides for the traits respective to each gender to nurture and train children though the distinct perspectives common to each.  By lowering the standards of marriage, the Ideological Left has long since injured the institution of marriage... resulting in exponentially more children being born into single parent homes, encouraging divorce, rendering two gender families into one gender families...
> 
> The evidence is conclusive that children living in homes where one gender is represented children tend to grow up absent sufficient training, thus lacking the discipline to provide for them the means to focus cognitively, thus producing the epidemic of drug addles youths through the ill-advised treatment of the psychological alphabet soup maladies; ADD, ADHD, ODD and so on and so forth of fictitious 'disorders' which has lead generations of children who have failed to develop into sound, well balanced adults.
> 
> Adding further devolution of the marriage standard is only going to promote more perverse iterations of poorly founded children with little means to function independently and exponential growth in children who develop disorders wherein they identify themselves as homosexual or some other form of sexual and maturation abnormality.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


If you're able; and I will understand when you're not... please explain what that is suppose to mean?


When a suitable period has passed and you're unable to explain your point, I'll simply note your concession.   

So don't sweat it... .


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> She doesn't have a husband. The term equal partners is foreign to you isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is foreign, because in the United States, women wield all the legal power once married. Never mind how much power they wield before marriage.
> 
> In order to have an "equal partner" I had to forgaging in the forests of El Salvador.
> 
> I don't ask her of her anything. She already does the only things I require without asking: ****, cook and clean.
> 
> If she has a "headache" I simply don't bring her anywhere until she no longer has a headache. Seems to be the best cure. After several applications of my medical discovery, she became immune to headaches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frankly you pretty much outline all the red flags of an abusive relationship.
> *1. He pushes for quick involvement. * He comes on strong, claiming, "I've never felt loved like this before by anyone." You get pressured for an exclusive *commitment* almost immediately. (Like going to El Salvador to find a GF quickly...)
> 
> *3. He is controlling. *He interrogates you intensely about who you talked to and where you were; checks mileage on the car; keeps all the money or asks for receipts; insists you ask for permission to go anywhere or do anything.("I simply don't bring her anywhere until she no longer has a headach")
> 
> *4. He has very unrealistic expectations. *He expects you to be the perfect person and meet their every need.
> 
> *5. There is isolation. *He tries to cut you off from *family* and friends; deprives you of a phone or car, or tries to prevent you from holding a job. (like bringing her to a country where she has no family or friends and then controlling her ability to leave the home)
> 
> *6. He blames others for his own mistakes.* The boss, family, you - it's always someone else's fault if anything goes wrong. (4 failed marriages- all the wife's fault- not wanting sex- the girl friends fault)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help but but notice it's all *HE*  never SHE - in this Utopian assylum you envision are SHEs always devoid of any guilt ?
Click to expand...


Well since in this case- the poster claims that he is a he.....as I said to 'he'
Frankly you pretty much outline all the red flags of an abusive relationship.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were the one who said that Americans- meaning you- wanted to assault Gays until they returned to the closet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horse Feathers ...lol
Click to expand...


Is that bigot speak for 'sure I said Americans[which would be you] want to bitch slap f*ggots until they return to the closet'?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were the one who said that Americans- meaning you- wanted to assault Gays until they returned to the closet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horse Feathers ...lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that bigot speak for 'sure I said Americans[which would be you] want to bitch slap f*ggots until they return to the closet'?
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO!

I never get tired of bigots projecting bigotry.

It is _HYSTERICAL..._


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> *CHALLENGE ....*
> 
> Name a single objective study  - I know - yo can't - because you haven't gotten a clue as to what you're talking about .
> 
> And not studies from propaganda machines such as UC Davis or the Mattachine Society - ROFL - a single study not produced by a gay activist - you can't - there are none that will prove your point .  Go for it Faggot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well what I can guarantee is that you will not find any study 'objective' that agrees with your pre-determined bias.
> 
> But sure.
> Homosexuality and Mental Health
> 
> _In a review of published studies comparing homosexual and heterosexual samples on psychological tests, Gonsiorek (1982) found that, although some differences have been observed in test results between homosexuals and heterosexuals, both groups consistently score within the normal range. Gonsiorek concluded that "Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality" (Gonsiorek, 1982, p. 74; see also reviews by Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston & McKee, 1978; Riess, 1980).
> 
> Hooker's findings have since been replicated by many other investigators using a variety of research methods. Freedman (1971), for example, used Hooker's basic design to study lesbian and heterosexual women. Instead of projective tests, he administered objectively-scored personality tests to the women. His conclusions were similar to those of Hooker._
> 
> http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/wasson.pdf
> Gonsiorek- The Empirical Basis for the Demise of the Illness Model of Homosexuality
> Gonsiorek- Results of Psychological Testing on Homosexual Populations
> Reiss- Psychologocial Tests in Homosexuality
> Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walseon & McKee- Pschological Adjustment of Nonpatient homosexuals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.] Homosexuality and Mental Health .....
> "...And not studies from propaganda machines such as* UC Davis *or the Mattachine Society "
> 
> 2.]  John Gonsiorek !  Seriously ? - why would you quote him when you don't know the first thing about his work ... read up on what you posted and then get back to me - there are some elements of some of his studies that would seem to aid your argument - and also other elements that would work against you - Tread carefully of this one little fella - or I'll blow it up in your face.
> 
> 3.] Reiss- Psychologocial Tests in Homosexuality
> 
> I'm not familiar with this one -care to post a link ?
> 
> 4.] Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walseon & McKee- Pschological Adjustment of Nonpatient homosexuals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This paper critically reviews research studies comparing adjustment levels of nonpatient homosexuals and heterosexuals, and concludes that findings to date have not demonstrated that the homosexual individual is any less psychologically adjusted than his heterosexual counterpart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Produced by the APA - a political tool of the Gay Agenda - I am not familiar with its content - and it is not available online so obviously neither are you - other than the fact that it has a title which suited your needs .  When you manage to get beyond the title perhaps then we can chat . Facts such as how the study subjects were chosen, from what sector of the population were they chosen, were they random or like most other studies produced by Gay activists were they chosen with the objective of arriving at a predetermined findings.
> 
> 
> You know nothing about this study , other than its title - and it is highly unlikely that the  authors would divulge information about how they chose their subjects seeing what happenned to previous propagandists who attempted this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'produced by the APA'- the largest association of psychiatrists in the United States.
> 
> Yeah- meanwhile you cite your own looney tunes website.
> 
> Look- I clearly can't stop your bigotry- I am not responsible for whatever sad excuse of a life has caused you to hate Americans so much-  but I will continue to point out your bigotry- your homophobia and your hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> APA ? *Below is Just the tip of the iceberg* - The Rind Controversy.  And although the APA may be the largest association of psychiatrists in the United States it is run by a small handful of powerful leftists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The APA is a professional psychiatric association run by its members- its leadership is elected by its members. If it is run by a small handful of 'powerful leftists'- then they reflect the opinions of the majority of members.
> 
> And then there is you- running a looney website.
Click to expand...


The APA didn't drop its reference to homosexuality being a mental disorder due to new science refuting the old. They dropped it because of the homosexual lobby bringing pressure on them to do so.  Leftists like you are stupid enough to believe that silencing the truth is the same as refuting it, but it isn't.  The FACT that homosexuality is a mental disorder remains to this day UNREFUTED.  

And you can thank your faggot friends for that.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

The2ndAmendment said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you need a whore - not a wife my friend . My wife is my life partner - but to each his own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lose your house and job. See if she stays. Guaranteed she'll have another guy within the week (assuming she hasn't hit the wall)
Click to expand...


I wish you had a wife like mine.  She's a partner in everything, good times or hard times.  It's sad that you haven't met the right woman yet, but they're out there.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, never again. I hold all the cards. Even the pussy card.
> 
> 
> 
> Way to make sure to be alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you've demonstrated yourself to be the typical spoiled American woman. There are plenty of manginas and white knights out there for you.
> 
> The Earth isn't enough for you, you want the moon and stars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm quite happily married without being a tyrant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your delusion does not change the fact that she is legally married to her life partner...and enjoying all the associated benefits. World ending yet?
Click to expand...


It's an exercise in make believe.  Same genders are biologically, mentally, and spiritually incompatible.  Please refer to the blocks for a visual depiction of this principle:


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Way to make sure to be alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you've demonstrated yourself to be the typical spoiled American woman. There are plenty of manginas and white knights out there for you.
> 
> The Earth isn't enough for you, you want the moon and stars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm quite happily married without being a tyrant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your delusion does not change the fact that she is legally married to her life partner...and enjoying all the associated benefits. World ending yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an exercise in make believe.  Same genders are biologically, mentally, and spiritually incompatible.  Please refer to the blocks for a visual depiction of this principle:
Click to expand...


LOL!  Oh GOD!  That is brilliant.


----------



## Silhouette

St. Mike is back at the old role-playing again I see.  Drum up any sympathy for the LGBT crowd yet St. Mike?


----------



## hazlnut

GreenBean said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's confirmation bias. There's the cherry picking fallacy. And then there's Green. Who twice now has cited and ignored the exact same sources..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you a challenge - you were unable to meet - cite some viable studies that do not come from the primary propaganda LGBT propaganda sources UC Davis and the Mattachine society - *you were unable to meet the challenge *. You instead cited studies that you had no idea whatsoever of their content - you simply liked the titles  - somewhat what one of my
> 5th graders would do - just curious how old are you ?
Click to expand...



When Green finally comes out of the closet, I predict it will look like this…


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

hazlnut said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's confirmation bias. There's the cherry picking fallacy. And then there's Green. Who twice now has cited and ignored the exact same sources..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you a challenge - you were unable to meet - cite some viable studies that do not come from the primary propaganda LGBT propaganda sources UC Davis and the Mattachine society - *you were unable to meet the challenge *. You instead cited studies that you had no idea whatsoever of their content - you simply liked the titles  - somewhat what one of my
> 5th graders would do - just curious how old are you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When Green finally comes out of the closet, I predict it will look like this…
Click to expand...


_Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted... _


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The common denominator in your last 4 relationships....was you. Do you think you may have had something to do with it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, it was. I was a mangina. I even gave the moons and the stars.
Click to expand...

Bitterness is your life now, it appears.[/QUOTE]

It might be yours too, once your shack up carpet muncher gets a prescription for Trydikagan and dumps you.  That's the problem with immorality, you can't complain when it's taken to the next level.


----------



## ninja007

Syriusly said:


> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the libs in this thread keep talking about no need to procreate; not surprising since they defend millions of babies being slaughtered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that the same people who don't want equality for homosexuals also oppose a woman controlling her own body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you meant controlling her own body AND another (innocent) body- you know; murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- I mean the same bigots who don't want equality for homosexuals also want to control women's bodies also.
Click to expand...


ah, typical accusations. People who dislike homosexual actions and the agenda are not bigots; hate the sin, love the sinner.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The common denominator in your last 4 relationships....was you. Do you think you may have had something to do with it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, it was. I was a mangina. I even gave the moons and the stars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bitterness is your life now, it appears.
Click to expand...


It might be yours too, once your shack up carpet muncher gets a prescription for Trydikagan and dumps you.  That's the problem with immorality, you can't complain when it's taken to the next level.[/QUOTE]
You referring to my wife that way?  Really?


----------



## Silhouette

ninja007 said:


> ah, typical accusations. People who dislike homosexual actions and the agenda are not bigots; hate the sin, love the sinner.


 That's exactly what it says in Jude 1: 22-23


----------



## Silhouette

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> It might be yours too, once your shack up carpet muncher gets a prescription for Trydikagan and dumps you.  That's the problem with immorality, you can't complain when it's taken to the next level.
> 
> 
> 
> You referring to my wife that way?  Really?
Click to expand...

 
No, s/he's not referring to your wife that way.  He's only fullfilling the role of "typical bigot against gays".  You guys attended the same gay pride parade last year, don't you remember? 

StMike needs to refine his acting skills.  He's a bit too obvious.  And then there's his posts promoting the LGBT agenda that he slips in, hoping readers aren't keeping track of his position from thread to thread.  Read his posts, reader, when you get a minute.  These guys are not above subterfuge when it suits "smoke and mirrors"...


----------



## Votto

The government should have NOHTING to do with marriage, nothing.

Anyone who suggests otherwise wants government in the bedroom.  That way they can give a thumbs down to the polygamist and thumbs up to the gay or straight couple.

Government is now everywhere with their hands in everything.  Pretty soon they will want us to take video of our activities in the bedroom so they can regulate it and make sure we are using safe sex etc.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Yea I never understood why or how The became involved in they marriage industry... I thought separation of church and state?


----------



## Seawytch

bear513 said:


> Yea I never understood why or how The became involved in they marriage industry... I thought separation of church and state?



It is separate. Civil marriage and religious marriage have nothing to do with each other. Good luck getting rid of civil marriage. Gays will continue to marry by the thousands while ya'll work on that, okay?


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Way to make sure to be alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you've demonstrated yourself to be the typical spoiled American woman. There are plenty of manginas and white knights out there for you.
> 
> The Earth isn't enough for you, you want the moon and stars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm quite happily married without being a tyrant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your delusion does not change the fact that she is legally married to her life partner...and enjoying all the associated benefits. World ending yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an exercise in make believe.  Same genders are biologically, mentally, and spiritually incompatible.  Please refer to the blocks for a visual depiction of this principle:
Click to expand...


Hang on...Yup, I was right. Your opinion did not make my marriage license disappear nor did it change the benefits we get for being legally married. Sucks to be you!


----------



## bodecea

bear513 said:


> Yea I never understood why or how The became involved in they marriage industry... I thought separation of church and state?


Not everyone gets married in a church, you know.


----------



## Wyatt earp

bodecea said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea I never understood why or how The became involved in they marriage industry... I thought separation of church and state?
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone gets married in a church, you know.
Click to expand...

 The only other place is justice of the peace right? did that twice, is there another?

Oh crap forgot about my 1st wedding, I took 3 girls to Vegas in the 80s and on a dare, a one of the girls dragged me to one of those quicky weddings  fun times


----------



## Seawytch

bear513 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea I never understood why or how The became involved in they marriage industry... I thought separation of church and state?
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone gets married in a church, you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only other place is justice of the peace right? did that twice, is there another?
> 
> Oh crap forgot about my 1st wedding, I took 3 girls to Vegas in the 80s and on a dare, a one of the girls dragged me to one of those quicky weddings  fun times
Click to expand...


Why are we trying to deny consenting adult gays equal access to civil marriage again? The "sanctity"?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Shut up it was fun


----------



## Wyatt earp

Btw thank you, I was never against gay marriage one of my best friends is a lesbian, well I forgot the girl at work also cool people, love those two


----------



## GreenBean

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's confirmation bias. There's the cherry picking fallacy. And then there's Green. Who twice now has cited and ignored the exact same sources..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you a challenge - you were unable to meet - cite some viable studies that do not come from the primary propaganda LGBT propaganda sources UC Davis and the Mattachine society - *you were unable to meet the challenge *. You instead cited studies that you had no idea whatsoever of their content - you simply liked the titles  - somewhat what one of my
> 5th graders would do - just curious how old are you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When Green finally comes out of the closet, I predict it will look like this…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted... _
Click to expand...



I gave you a challenge - you were unable to meet - cite some viable studies that do not come from the primary propaganda LGBT propaganda sources UC Davis and the Mattachine society - you were unable to meet the challenge . You instead cited studies that you had no idea whatsoever of their content - you simply liked the titles - somewhat what one of my 5th graders would do -* just curious how old are you ?*


----------



## GreenBean

ninja007 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the libs in this thread keep talking about no need to procreate; not surprising since they defend millions of babies being slaughtered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that the same people who don't want equality for homosexuals also oppose a woman controlling her own body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you meant controlling her own body AND another (innocent) body- you know; murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- I mean the same bigots who don't want equality for homosexuals also want to control women's bodies also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ah, typical accusations. People who dislike homosexual actions and the agenda are not bigots; hate the sin, love the sinner.
Click to expand...





> No- I mean the same bigots who don't want equality for homosexuals also want to control women's bodies also.



You can't win for loosing can you ?

You desperately try to enlist the Blacks and civil rights as your allies - when that doesn't work you try to enlist women in general and because a handful of demented lesbians jump on your bandwagon - you try and paint it as a womens issue

- you can't win on a level playing field - which is why you HAVE TO use deceit and slander - YOU CAN"T WIN .


----------



## JakeStarkey

Marriage Equality is here to stay.

SCOTUS will rule for it later in the year.

Best advice for haters on both sides?  Don't marry some you don't like.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the libs in this thread keep talking about no need to procreate; not surprising since they defend millions of babies being slaughtered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that the same people who don't want equality for homosexuals also oppose a woman controlling her own body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you meant controlling her own body AND another (innocent) body- you know; murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- I mean the same bigots who don't want equality for homosexuals also want to control women's bodies also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ah, typical accusations. People who dislike homosexual actions and the agenda are not bigots; hate the sin, love the sinner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No- I mean the same bigots who don't want equality for homosexuals also want to control women's bodies also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't win for loosing can you ?
> 
> You desperately try to enlist the Blacks and civil rights as your allies - when that doesn't work you try to enlist women in general and because a handful of demented lesbians jump on your bandwagon - you try and paint it as a womens issue
> 
> - you can't win on a level playing field - which is why you HAVE TO use deceit and slander - YOU CAN"T WIN .
Click to expand...


Essentially he is correct though- bigots are bigots.

Whether you also hate blacks and Jews and women and Italians and Mexicans and Chinese is irrelevant.

You are no different from the person who hates other Americans just because they are black or just because they are Jewish or just because they are a woman.

You are no different from someone who calls an African American a 'n*gger' or a woman a 'c*nt'.

Just a different chapter in the book of bigotry.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's confirmation bias. There's the cherry picking fallacy. And then there's Green. Who twice now has cited and ignored the exact same sources..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you a challenge - you were unable to meet - cite some viable studies that do not come from the primary propaganda LGBT propaganda sources UC Davis and the Mattachine society - *you were unable to meet the challenge *. You instead cited studies that you had no idea whatsoever of their content - you simply liked the titles  - somewhat what one of my
> 5th graders would do - just curious how old are you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When Green finally comes out of the closet, I predict it will look like this…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted... _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you a challenge - you were unable to meet - cite some viable studies that do not come from the primary propaganda LGBT propaganda sources UC Davis and the Mattachine society - you were unable to meet the challenge . You instead cited studies that you had no idea whatsoever of their content - you simply liked the titles - somewhat what one of my 5th graders would do -* just curious how old are you ?*
Click to expand...


Like I predicted from the beginning- you would always find reasons why any studies which disagree with you cannot be accepted.

Such is the way of the Goggles of Bigotry.


----------



## Syriusly

Votto said:


> The government should have NOHTING to do with marriage, nothing.
> 
> Anyone who suggests otherwise wants government in the bedroom.  That way they can give a thumbs down to the polygamist and thumbs up to the gay or straight couple.
> 
> Government is now everywhere with their hands in everything.  Pretty soon they will want us to take video of our activities in the bedroom so they can regulate it and make sure we are using safe sex etc.



Well Conservatives wanted the government in our bedrooms- hence the laws which told all of us what kind of sex we were legally allowed to have- even with our wives. Now those laws have been found to be unconstitutional.

If you want to eliminate legal marriage entirely- well that would be equal- but it just is not going to happen.

But as long as legal marriages do exist- a same gender couple should be treated under the law the same as my wife and I are.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Confirmation bias and lack of critical thinking defines Greenbean's thinking and reactive processes.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> It might be yours too, once your shack up carpet muncher gets a prescription for Trydikagan and dumps you.  That's the problem with immorality, you can't complain when it's taken to the next level.
> 
> 
> 
> You referring to my wife that way?  Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, s/he's not referring to your wife that way.  He's only fullfilling the role of "typical bigot against gays".  You guys attended the same gay pride parade last year, don't you remember?
> 
> StMike needs to refine his acting skills.  He's a bit too obvious.  And then there's his posts promoting the LGBT agenda that he slips in, hoping readers aren't keeping track of his position from thread to thread.  Read his posts, reader, when you get a minute.  These guys are not above subterfuge when it suits "smoke and mirrors"...
Click to expand...


You are delusional.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that the same people who don't want equality for homosexuals also oppose a woman controlling her own body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you meant controlling her own body AND another (innocent) body- you know; murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- I mean the same bigots who don't want equality for homosexuals also want to control women's bodies also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ah, typical accusations. People who dislike homosexual actions and the agenda are not bigots; hate the sin, love the sinner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No- I mean the same bigots who don't want equality for homosexuals also want to control women's bodies also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't win for loosing can you ?
> 
> You desperately try to enlist the Blacks and civil rights as your allies - when that doesn't work you try to enlist women in general and because a handful of demented lesbians jump on your bandwagon - you try and paint it as a womens issue
> 
> - you can't win on a level playing field - which is why you HAVE TO use deceit and slander - YOU CAN"T WIN .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Essentially he is correct though- bigots are bigots.
> 
> Whether you also hate blacks and Jews and women and Italians and Mexicans and Chinese is irrelevant.
> 
> You are no different from the person who hates other Americans just because they are black or just because they are Jewish or just because they are a woman.
> 
> You are no different from someone who calls an African American a 'n*gger' or a woman a 'c*nt'.
> 
> Just a different chapter in the book of bigotry.
Click to expand...

Criticizing people based on lifestyle choice is not bigotry.


----------



## Syriusly

ninja007 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the libs in this thread keep talking about no need to procreate; not surprising since they defend millions of babies being slaughtered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that the same people who don't want equality for homosexuals also oppose a woman controlling her own body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you meant controlling her own body AND another (innocent) body- you know; murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- I mean the same bigots who don't want equality for homosexuals also want to control women's bodies also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ah, typical accusations. People who dislike homosexual actions and the agenda are not bigots; hate the sin, love the sinner.
Click to expand...


Bigots are bigots- it doesn't matter whether their rational is religion or not-  People who belong to cultures whose religion says women should be treated as less than men and do so are bigots also. 

You were the one who brought the strawman of 'babies being slaughtered' into this thread- I am pointing out that the same bigots who dont' want equality for homosexuals, want to control women's bodies and reproduction also.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you meant controlling her own body AND another (innocent) body- you know; murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No- I mean the same bigots who don't want equality for homosexuals also want to control women's bodies also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ah, typical accusations. People who dislike homosexual actions and the agenda are not bigots; hate the sin, love the sinner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No- I mean the same bigots who don't want equality for homosexuals also want to control women's bodies also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't win for loosing can you ?
> 
> You desperately try to enlist the Blacks and civil rights as your allies - when that doesn't work you try to enlist women in general and because a handful of demented lesbians jump on your bandwagon - you try and paint it as a womens issue
> 
> - you can't win on a level playing field - which is why you HAVE TO use deceit and slander - YOU CAN"T WIN .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Essentially he is correct though- bigots are bigots.
> 
> Whether you also hate blacks and Jews and women and Italians and Mexicans and Chinese is irrelevant.
> 
> You are no different from the person who hates other Americans just because they are black or just because they are Jewish or just because they are a woman.
> 
> You are no different from someone who calls an African American a 'n*gger' or a woman a 'c*nt'.
> 
> Just a different chapter in the book of bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criticizing people based on lifestyle choice is not bigotry.
Click to expand...


Criticizing people for being homosexual is no different than criticizing people for being Jewish or for just being black (or as the bigots like to call it nowadays 'thug culture')

Whether you also hate blacks and Jews and women and Italians and Mexicans and Chinese is irrelevant.

You are no different from the person who hates other Americans just because they are black or just because they are Jewish or just because they are a woman.

You are no different from someone who calls an African American a 'n*gger' or a woman a 'c*nt'.

Just a different chapter in the book of bigotry


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you've demonstrated yourself to be the typical spoiled American woman. There are plenty of manginas and white knights out there for you.
> 
> The Earth isn't enough for you, you want the moon and stars.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite happily married without being a tyrant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your delusion does not change the fact that she is legally married to her life partner...and enjoying all the associated benefits. World ending yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an exercise in make believe.  Same genders are biologically, mentally, and spiritually incompatible.  Please refer to the blocks for a visual depiction of this principle:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hang on...Yup, I was right. Your opinion did not make my marriage license disappear nor did it change the benefits we get for being legally married. Sucks to be you!
Click to expand...

You live in a world of self delusion. A piece of paper can't make you married.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No- I mean the same bigots who don't want equality for homosexuals also want to control women's bodies also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ah, typical accusations. People who dislike homosexual actions and the agenda are not bigots; hate the sin, love the sinner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No- I mean the same bigots who don't want equality for homosexuals also want to control women's bodies also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't win for loosing can you ?
> 
> You desperately try to enlist the Blacks and civil rights as your allies - when that doesn't work you try to enlist women in general and because a handful of demented lesbians jump on your bandwagon - you try and paint it as a womens issue
> 
> - you can't win on a level playing field - which is why you HAVE TO use deceit and slander - YOU CAN"T WIN .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Essentially he is correct though- bigots are bigots.
> 
> Whether you also hate blacks and Jews and women and Italians and Mexicans and Chinese is irrelevant.
> 
> You are no different from the person who hates other Americans just because they are black or just because they are Jewish or just because they are a woman.
> 
> You are no different from someone who calls an African American a 'n*gger' or a woman a 'c*nt'.
> 
> Just a different chapter in the book of bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criticizing people based on lifestyle choice is not bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Criticizing people for being homosexual is no different than criticizing people for being Jewish or for just being black (or as the bigots like to call it nowadays 'thug culture')
> 
> Whether you also hate blacks and Jews and women and Italians and Mexicans and Chinese is irrelevant.
> 
> You are no different from the person who hates other Americans just because they are black or just because they are Jewish or just because they are a woman.
> 
> You are no different from someone who calls an African American a 'n*gger' or a woman a 'c*nt'.
> 
> Just a different chapter in the book of bigotry
Click to expand...

Criticizing people based on lifestyle choice is not bigotry.


----------



## JakeStarkey

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you meant controlling her own body AND another (innocent) body- you know; murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No- I mean the same bigots who don't want equality for homosexuals also want to control women's bodies also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ah, typical accusations. People who dislike homosexual actions and the agenda are not bigots; hate the sin, love the sinner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No- I mean the same bigots who don't want equality for homosexuals also want to control women's bodies also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't win for loosing can you ?
> 
> You desperately try to enlist the Blacks and civil rights as your allies - when that doesn't work you try to enlist women in general and because a handful of demented lesbians jump on your bandwagon - you try and paint it as a womens issue
> 
> - you can't win on a level playing field - which is why you HAVE TO use deceit and slander - YOU CAN"T WIN .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Essentially he is correct though- bigots are bigots.
> 
> Whether you also hate blacks and Jews and women and Italians and Mexicans and Chinese is irrelevant.
> 
> You are no different from the person who hates other Americans just because they are black or just because they are Jewish or just because they are a woman.
> 
> You are no different from someone who calls an African American a 'n*gger' or a woman a 'c*nt'.
> 
> Just a different chapter in the book of bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criticizing people based on lifestyle choice is not bigotry.
Click to expand...


Of course it can be bigotry, and is in your case.


----------



## JakeStarkey

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The common denominator in your last 4 relationships....was you. Do you think you may have had something to do with it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, it was. I was a mangina. I even gave the moons and the stars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bitterness is your life now, it appears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It might be yours too, once your shack up carpet muncher gets a prescription for Trydikagan and dumps you.  That's the problem with immorality, you can't complain when it's taken to the next level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You referring to my wife that way?  Really?
Click to expand...

You're not married. Shack up carpet muncher is more accurate.[/QUOTE]

Reported as a violation of the rules.


----------



## JakeStarkey

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite happily married without being a tyrant.
> 
> 
> 
> You're not married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your delusion does not change the fact that she is legally married to her life partner...and enjoying all the associated benefits. World ending yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an exercise in make believe.  Same genders are biologically, mentally, and spiritually incompatible.  Please refer to the blocks for a visual depiction of this principle:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hang on...Yup, I was right. Your opinion did not make my marriage license disappear nor did it change the benefits we get for being legally married. Sucks to be you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You live in a world of self delusion. A piece of paper can't make you married.
Click to expand...

You are delusional.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

JakeStarkey said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, it was. I was a mangina. I even gave the moons and the stars.
> 
> 
> 
> Bitterness is your life now, it appears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It might be yours too, once your shack up carpet muncher gets a prescription for Trydikagan and dumps you.  That's the problem with immorality, you can't complain when it's taken to the next level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You referring to my wife that way?  Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not married. Shack up carpet muncher is more accurate.
Click to expand...


Reported as a violation of the rules.[/QUOTE]
Good for you! In case you didn't notice, we're not in the clean debate zone. And while I haven't violated any rules, you have by saying you're reporting my post instead of just doing it. You should read the rules and familiarize yourself with them before you warrant an infraction.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> [  The FACT that homosexuality is a mental disorder remains to this day UNREFUTED.



Now you are the one who is delusional- or maybe just lying because of your intense bigotry towards homosexuals. 

Virtually every professional psychological and psychiatric association in the Western World disagrees with you- aside from a few fringe anti-homosexual fringe associations with memberships in the dozens or hundreds. 

Answers to Your Questions For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality *(American Psychological Association)*
No, lesbian, gay and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder

LGBT-Sexual Orientation psychiatry.org* (American Psychiatric Association)*
No. All major professional mental health organizations have gone on record to affirm that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association’s Board of Trustees removed homosexuality from its official diagnostic manual, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Second Edition (DSM II). The action was taken following a review of the scientific literature and consultation with experts in the field. The experts found that homosexuality does not meet the criteria to be considered a mental illness.


http://www.ukcp.org.uk/UKCP_Documents/policy/Conversion therapy.pdf
*The British Psychological Society h*as published guidance
which says:
‘As same-sex sexual orientations… are not diagnosable
illnesses, they do not require any therapeutic
interventions to change them.’

http://www.bpc.org.uk/sites/psychoa...s/6.2 Position statement on homosexuality.pdf
*British Psychoanalytic Council*
The British Psychoanalytic Council opposes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
It does not accept that a homosexual orientation is evidence of disturbance of the mind or in
development. In psychoanalytic psychotherapy, it is the quality of people’s relationships
which are explored, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.

*Royal College of Psychiatrists:*

The College wishes to clarify that homosexuality is not a psychiatric
disorder.

*The American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors, and Therapists* (AASECT) takes the position that same sex orientation is not a mental disorder 


What you consider to be a 'fact' is contrary to the consensus opinion by virtually every psychological association in the Western World.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you need a whore - not a wife my friend . My wife is my life partner - but to each his own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lose your house and job. See if she stays. Guaranteed she'll have another guy within the week (assuming she hasn't hit the wall)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wish you had a wife like mine.  She's a partner in everything, good times or hard times.  It's sad that you haven't met the right woman yet, but they're out there.
Click to expand...


I agree- same with mine- over 20 years- couldn't ask for a better partner- good times and bad- great mother, my best friend- wise and beautiful.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Way to make sure to be alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you've demonstrated yourself to be the typical spoiled American woman. There are plenty of manginas and white knights out there for you.
> 
> The Earth isn't enough for you, you want the moon and stars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm quite happily married without being a tyrant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your delusion does not change the fact that she is legally married to her life partner...and enjoying all the associated benefits. World ending yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an exercise in make believe.  Same genders are biologically, mentally, and spiritually incompatible.
> 
> Your bigotry makes you ignorant.
Click to expand...


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ah, typical accusations. People who dislike homosexual actions and the agenda are not bigots; hate the sin, love the sinner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No- I mean the same bigots who don't want equality for homosexuals also want to control women's bodies also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't win for loosing can you ?
> 
> You desperately try to enlist the Blacks and civil rights as your allies - when that doesn't work you try to enlist women in general and because a handful of demented lesbians jump on your bandwagon - you try and paint it as a womens issue
> 
> - you can't win on a level playing field - which is why you HAVE TO use deceit and slander - YOU CAN"T WIN .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Essentially he is correct though- bigots are bigots.
> 
> Whether you also hate blacks and Jews and women and Italians and Mexicans and Chinese is irrelevant.
> 
> You are no different from the person who hates other Americans just because they are black or just because they are Jewish or just because they are a woman.
> 
> You are no different from someone who calls an African American a 'n*gger' or a woman a 'c*nt'.
> 
> Just a different chapter in the book of bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criticizing people based on lifestyle choice is not bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Criticizing people for being homosexual is no different than criticizing people for being Jewish or for just being black (or as the bigots like to call it nowadays 'thug culture')
> 
> Whether you also hate blacks and Jews and women and Italians and Mexicans and Chinese is irrelevant.
> 
> You are no different from the person who hates other Americans just because they are black or just because they are Jewish or just because they are a woman.
> 
> You are no different from someone who calls an African American a 'n*gger' or a woman a 'c*nt'.
> 
> Just a different chapter in the book of bigotry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criticizing people based on lifestyle choice is not bigotry.
Click to expand...

That depends.  Regardless, it's not their "lifestyle", it's your "fears".


----------



## timslash

Homosexual dilemma - Being gay is wrong or not? 
Answer is pretty obvious - WRONG
01) Being gay is not natural.
02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay,
03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior.
04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all;
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed;
06) Gay marriage is not supported by religion.
07) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home.
08) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

timslash said:


> Homosexual dilemma - Being gay is wrong or not?
> Answer is pretty obvious - WRONG
> 01) Being gay is not natural.


DOA, since it is if you're gay.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

timslash said:


> 07) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home.


Ben Carson, raised by a single-mother, on Welfare no less.  Care to try again?


----------



## Redfish

gay marriage will lead to all forms of group marriage and multiple partners of all kinds.

The arguments for multiple marriage will be exactly the same as for gay marriage----discrimination, equal treatment, being allowed to marry who they love, etc


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Redfish said:


> gay marriage will lead to all forms of group marriage and multiple partners of all kinds.
> 
> The arguments for multiple marriage will be exactly the same as for gay marriage----discrimination, equal treatment, being allowed to marry who they love, etc


You fear Biblical Marriage?


----------



## Lilah

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you meant controlling her own body AND another (innocent) body- you know; murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No- I mean the same bigots who don't want equality for homosexuals also want to control women's bodies also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ah, typical accusations. People who dislike homosexual actions and the agenda are not bigots; hate the sin, love the sinner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No- I mean the same bigots who don't want equality for homosexuals also want to control women's bodies also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't win for loosing can you ?
> 
> You desperately try to enlist the Blacks and civil rights as your allies - when that doesn't work you try to enlist women in general and because a handful of demented lesbians jump on your bandwagon - you try and paint it as a womens issue
> 
> - you can't win on a level playing field - which is why you HAVE TO use deceit and slander - YOU CAN"T WIN .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Essentially he is correct though- bigots are bigots.
> 
> Whether you also hate blacks and Jews and women and Italians and Mexicans and Chinese is irrelevant.
> 
> You are no different from the person who hates other Americans just because they are black or just because they are Jewish or just because they are a woman.
> 
> You are no different from someone who calls an African American a 'n*gger' or a woman a 'c*nt'.
> 
> Just a different chapter in the book of bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criticizing people based on lifestyle choice is not bigotry.
Click to expand...


Bigotry is intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself. Read your statement, "Criticizing people based on lifestyle choice is not bigotry."  Are you able to comprehend your lack of understanding?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Lilah said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No- I mean the same bigots who don't want equality for homosexuals also want to control women's bodies also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ah, typical accusations. People who dislike homosexual actions and the agenda are not bigots; hate the sin, love the sinner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No- I mean the same bigots who don't want equality for homosexuals also want to control women's bodies also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't win for loosing can you ?
> 
> You desperately try to enlist the Blacks and civil rights as your allies - when that doesn't work you try to enlist women in general and because a handful of demented lesbians jump on your bandwagon - you try and paint it as a womens issue
> 
> - you can't win on a level playing field - which is why you HAVE TO use deceit and slander - YOU CAN"T WIN .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Essentially he is correct though- bigots are bigots.
> 
> Whether you also hate blacks and Jews and women and Italians and Mexicans and Chinese is irrelevant.
> 
> You are no different from the person who hates other Americans just because they are black or just because they are Jewish or just because they are a woman.
> 
> You are no different from someone who calls an African American a 'n*gger' or a woman a 'c*nt'.
> 
> Just a different chapter in the book of bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criticizing people based on lifestyle choice is not bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bigotry is intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself. Read your statement, "Criticizing people based on lifestyle choice is not bigotry."  Are you able to comprehend your lack of understanding?
Click to expand...

Oh......

Then you people are bigots by your own definition. Thank you kindly.


----------



## Syriusly

Redfish said:


> gay marriage will lead to all forms of group marriage and multiple partners of all kinds.
> 
> The arguments for multiple marriage will be exactly the same as for gay marriage----discrimination, equal treatment, being allowed to marry who they love, etc



Yeah that whole slippery slope argument- I can do it too.

Legalizing slavery will lead to letting blacks vote, which lead to women getting the vote, which will lead to women being allowed to use contraceptives, which will lead telling the government that they can't tell Americans how they have sex, which will lead to gay marriage.

What we do know gay marriage will lead to?

Couples in love getting married. 

Just like my wife and I did. 

And the haters hate that.


----------



## Lilah

Redfish said:


> gay marriage will lead to all forms of group marriage and multiple partners of all kinds.
> 
> The arguments for multiple marriage will be exactly the same as for gay marriage----discrimination, equal treatment, being allowed to marry who they love, etc



Do yourself a favor and read Jill Ann Spaulding's book.  I don't for one minute believe Hugh Hefner is gay.


----------



## Syriusly

timslash said:


> Homosexual dilemma - Being gay is wrong or not?
> Answer is pretty obvious - WRONG
> 01) Being gay is not natural.
> 02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay,
> 03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior.
> 04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all;
> 05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed;
> 06) Gay marriage is not supported by religion.
> 07) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home.
> 08) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms.



I almost feel like this is a spoof. 

If not- it should be.

LOL.....if anyone's marriage is less meaningful because two gay guys get married, then the problem isn't with the gay guys marriage.


----------



## Lilah

timslash said:


> Homosexual dilemma - Being gay is wrong or not?
> Answer is pretty obvious - WRONG
> 01) Being gay is not natural.
> 02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay,
> 03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior.
> 04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all;
> 05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed;
> 06) Gay marriage is not supported by religion.
> 07) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home.
> 08) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms.



Do yourself a favor and listen to Zach Wahls' speech about his two loving lesbian mothers.  He is the epitome of healthy and intelligent success.
Apparently you are unable to adapt to new and improved ways of life, but others are not. 
How in the world does one encourage others to be gay?  Didn't Jerry Sandusky's victims try and kill themselves?
"Gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior."  Do you think the murderers in Paris were gay?
Pope Francis said 'God is not afraid of new things'. 
"Being gay is not natural."  How natural is it for teenagers to kill themselves because they feel they don't belong in our society because people such as
you spew your hatred and ignorance on a daily basis.  Are you natural?
"Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all."  Seems to me that people like the Kardashians are instigating all kinds of changes.
Your moral character is lacking as evidenced by the way *you choose* to marginalize people.


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite happily married without being a tyrant.
> 
> 
> 
> You're not married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your delusion does not change the fact that she is legally married to her life partner...and enjoying all the associated benefits. World ending yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an exercise in make believe.  Same genders are biologically, mentally, and spiritually incompatible.  Please refer to the blocks for a visual depiction of this principle:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hang on...Yup, I was right. Your opinion did not make my marriage license disappear nor did it change the benefits we get for being legally married. Sucks to be you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You live in a world of self delusion. A piece of paper can't make you married.
Click to expand...


The piece of paper makes us civilly married. Our enduring love makes us spiritually married.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not married.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your delusion does not change the fact that she is legally married to her life partner...and enjoying all the associated benefits. World ending yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an exercise in make believe.  Same genders are biologically, mentally, and spiritually incompatible.  Please refer to the blocks for a visual depiction of this principle:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hang on...Yup, I was right. Your opinion did not make my marriage license disappear nor did it change the benefits we get for being legally married. Sucks to be you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You live in a world of self delusion. A piece of paper can't make you married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The piece of paper makes us civilly married. Our enduring love makes us spiritually married.
Click to expand...



Speaking of unlikely unions, you're only seeing one side of my marriage. My wife is a left leaning independent and her parents are hard core Leftists. Two very good friends of mine are a lesbian couple, one of them being my favorite teacher in school. My kids adore them and love having them babysit. Now that GM is legal in Idaho, their wedding is set for this June. We'll all be attending. 
The asshole rabid anti-gay me is all you've seen so far.

I just thought you deserved a peek past the curtain.


----------



## Redfish

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> gay marriage will lead to all forms of group marriage and multiple partners of all kinds.
> 
> The arguments for multiple marriage will be exactly the same as for gay marriage----discrimination, equal treatment, being allowed to marry who they love, etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah that whole slippery slope argument- I can do it too.
> 
> Legalizing slavery will lead to letting blacks vote, which lead to women getting the vote, which will lead to women being allowed to use contraceptives, which will lead telling the government that they can't tell Americans how they have sex, which will lead to gay marriage.
> 
> What we do know gay marriage will lead to?
> 
> Couples in love getting married.
> 
> Just like my wife and I did.
> 
> And the haters hate that.
Click to expand...

 

slavery and marriage are not analogous, although some may consider them to be.

the legal arguments for gay marriage are EXACTLY the same arguments that will be made for bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of "marriage".   Those making the arguments will use gay marriage as a valid precedent.

Its coming,  is that really where you want civilization to go?


----------



## Redfish

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not married.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your delusion does not change the fact that she is legally married to her life partner...and enjoying all the associated benefits. World ending yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an exercise in make believe.  Same genders are biologically, mentally, and spiritually incompatible.  Please refer to the blocks for a visual depiction of this principle:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hang on...Yup, I was right. Your opinion did not make my marriage license disappear nor did it change the benefits we get for being legally married. Sucks to be you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You live in a world of self delusion. A piece of paper can't make you married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The piece of paper makes us civilly married. Our enduring love makes us spiritually married.
Click to expand...

 

I'm glad that you are happy,  but you are not married.   you both have female genitalia ( I assume).


----------



## bodecea

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your delusion does not change the fact that she is legally married to her life partner...and enjoying all the associated benefits. World ending yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's an exercise in make believe.  Same genders are biologically, mentally, and spiritually incompatible.  Please refer to the blocks for a visual depiction of this principle:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hang on...Yup, I was right. Your opinion did not make my marriage license disappear nor did it change the benefits we get for being legally married. Sucks to be you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You live in a world of self delusion. A piece of paper can't make you married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The piece of paper makes us civilly married. Our enduring love makes us spiritually married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad that you are happy,  but you are not married.   you both have female genitalia ( I assume).
Click to expand...


You're not married either.   No, you really aren't.  Because I say so.


----------



## Redfish

bodecea said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's an exercise in make believe.  Same genders are biologically, mentally, and spiritually incompatible.  Please refer to the blocks for a visual depiction of this principle:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hang on...Yup, I was right. Your opinion did not make my marriage license disappear nor did it change the benefits we get for being legally married. Sucks to be you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You live in a world of self delusion. A piece of paper can't make you married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The piece of paper makes us civilly married. Our enduring love makes us spiritually married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad that you are happy,  but you are not married.   you both have female genitalia ( I assume).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not married either.   No, you really aren't.  Because I say so.
Click to expand...

 

wrong,   but you knew that.


----------



## bodecea

Redfish said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hang on...Yup, I was right. Your opinion did not make my marriage license disappear nor did it change the benefits we get for being legally married. Sucks to be you!
> 
> 
> 
> You live in a world of self delusion. A piece of paper can't make you married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The piece of paper makes us civilly married. Our enduring love makes us spiritually married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad that you are happy,  but you are not married.   you both have female genitalia ( I assume).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not married either.   No, you really aren't.  Because I say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> wrong,   but you knew that.
Click to expand...

No...you really aren't married.   I said so, so it must be.


----------



## Redfish

Lilah said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> gay marriage will lead to all forms of group marriage and multiple partners of all kinds.
> 
> The arguments for multiple marriage will be exactly the same as for gay marriage----discrimination, equal treatment, being allowed to marry who they love, etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do yourself a favor and read Jill Ann Spaulding's book.  I don't for one minute believe Hugh Hefner is gay.
Click to expand...

 

does having multiple partners make one gay?


----------



## Redfish

bodecea said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You live in a world of self delusion. A piece of paper can't make you married.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The piece of paper makes us civilly married. Our enduring love makes us spiritually married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad that you are happy,  but you are not married.   you both have female genitalia ( I assume).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not married either.   No, you really aren't.  Because I say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> wrong,   but you knew that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No...you really aren't married.   I said so, so it must be.
Click to expand...


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> gay marriage will lead to all forms of group marriage and multiple partners of all kinds.
> 
> The arguments for multiple marriage will be exactly the same as for gay marriage----discrimination, equal treatment, being allowed to marry who they love, etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah that whole slippery slope argument- I can do it too.
> 
> Legalizing slavery will lead to letting blacks vote, which lead to women getting the vote, which will lead to women being allowed to use contraceptives, which will lead telling the government that they can't tell Americans how they have sex, which will lead to gay marriage.
> 
> What we do know gay marriage will lead to?
> 
> Couples in love getting married.
> 
> Just like my wife and I did.
> 
> And the haters hate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> slavery and marriage are not analogous, although some may consider them to be.
> 
> the legal arguments for gay marriage are EXACTLY the same arguments that will be made for bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of "marriage".   Those making the arguments will use gay marriage as a valid precedent.
> 
> Its coming,  is that really where you want civilization to go?
Click to expand...


And NAMBLA will walk through all those doors opened for them by their friends in the gay movement. A winning playbook.


----------



## Redfish

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> gay marriage will lead to all forms of group marriage and multiple partners of all kinds.
> 
> The arguments for multiple marriage will be exactly the same as for gay marriage----discrimination, equal treatment, being allowed to marry who they love, etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah that whole slippery slope argument- I can do it too.
> 
> Legalizing slavery will lead to letting blacks vote, which lead to women getting the vote, which will lead to women being allowed to use contraceptives, which will lead telling the government that they can't tell Americans how they have sex, which will lead to gay marriage.
> 
> What we do know gay marriage will lead to?
> 
> Couples in love getting married.
> 
> Just like my wife and I did.
> 
> And the haters hate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> slavery and marriage are not analogous, although some may consider them to be.
> 
> the legal arguments for gay marriage are EXACTLY the same arguments that will be made for bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of "marriage".   Those making the arguments will use gay marriage as a valid precedent.
> 
> Its coming,  is that really where you want civilization to go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And NAMBLA will walk through all those doors opened for them by their friends in the gay movement. A winning playbook.
Click to expand...

 

yep,  the ACLU is already gearing up to fight for multiple marriage.

If SCOTUS approves gay marriage, what legal doctrine do they use to limit it to two persons?


----------



## bodecea

Redfish said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> gay marriage will lead to all forms of group marriage and multiple partners of all kinds.
> 
> The arguments for multiple marriage will be exactly the same as for gay marriage----discrimination, equal treatment, being allowed to marry who they love, etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do yourself a favor and read Jill Ann Spaulding's book.  I don't for one minute believe Hugh Hefner is gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> does having multiple partners make one gay?
Click to expand...

Probably makes one male.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> gay marriage will lead to all forms of group marriage and multiple partners of all kinds.
> 
> The arguments for multiple marriage will be exactly the same as for gay marriage----discrimination, equal treatment, being allowed to marry who they love, etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah that whole slippery slope argument- I can do it too.
> 
> Legalizing slavery will lead to letting blacks vote, which lead to women getting the vote, which will lead to women being allowed to use contraceptives, which will lead telling the government that they can't tell Americans how they have sex, which will lead to gay marriage.
> 
> What we do know gay marriage will lead to?
> 
> Couples in love getting married.
> 
> Just like my wife and I did.
> 
> And the haters hate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> slavery and marriage are not analogous, although some may consider them to be.
> 
> the legal arguments for gay marriage are EXACTLY the same arguments that will be made for bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of "marriage".   Those making the arguments will use gay marriage as a valid precedent.
> 
> Its coming,  is that really where you want civilization to go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And NAMBLA will walk through all those doors opened for them by their friends in the gay movement. A winning playbook.
Click to expand...

And again, you school us about NAMBLA.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> gay marriage will lead to all forms of group marriage and multiple partners of all kinds.
> 
> The arguments for multiple marriage will be exactly the same as for gay marriage----discrimination, equal treatment, being allowed to marry who they love, etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah that whole slippery slope argument- I can do it too.
> 
> Legalizing slavery will lead to letting blacks vote, which lead to women getting the vote, which will lead to women being allowed to use contraceptives, which will lead telling the government that they can't tell Americans how they have sex, which will lead to gay marriage.
> 
> What we do know gay marriage will lead to?
> 
> Couples in love getting married.
> 
> Just like my wife and I did.
> 
> And the haters hate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> slavery and marriage are not analogous, although some may consider them to be.
> 
> the legal arguments for gay marriage are EXACTLY the same arguments that will be made for bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of "marriage".   Those making the arguments will use gay marriage as a valid precedent.
> 
> Its coming,  is that really where you want civilization to go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And NAMBLA will walk through all those doors opened for them by their friends in the gay movement. A winning playbook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again, you school us about NAMBLA.
Click to expand...

Or I utilize logic and assume they will go with proven legal strategies. 

BTW, would love a response to my previous post to you.


----------



## Seawytch

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your delusion does not change the fact that she is legally married to her life partner...and enjoying all the associated benefits. World ending yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's an exercise in make believe.  Same genders are biologically, mentally, and spiritually incompatible.  Please refer to the blocks for a visual depiction of this principle:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hang on...Yup, I was right. Your opinion did not make my marriage license disappear nor did it change the benefits we get for being legally married. Sucks to be you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You live in a world of self delusion. A piece of paper can't make you married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The piece of paper makes us civilly married. Our enduring love makes us spiritually married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad that you are happy,  but you are not married.   you both have female genitalia ( I assume).
Click to expand...


Which matters not in 36 out of 50 states. Regardless of your bigoted opinion, we ARE legally married....with all the benefits.


----------



## Syriusly

Redfish said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> gay marriage will lead to all forms of group marriage and multiple partners of all kinds.
> 
> The arguments for multiple marriage will be exactly the same as for gay marriage----discrimination, equal treatment, being allowed to marry who they love, etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah that whole slippery slope argument- I can do it too.
> 
> Legalizing slavery will lead to letting blacks vote, which lead to women getting the vote, which will lead to women being allowed to use contraceptives, which will lead telling the government that they can't tell Americans how they have sex, which will lead to gay marriage.
> 
> What we do know gay marriage will lead to?
> 
> Couples in love getting married.
> 
> Just like my wife and I did.
> 
> And the haters hate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> slavery and marriage are not analogous, although some may consider them to be.
> 
> the legal arguments for gay marriage are EXACTLY the same arguments that will be made for bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of "marriage".   Those making the arguments will use gay marriage as a valid precedent.
> 
> Its coming,  is that really where you want civilization to go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And NAMBLA will walk through all those doors opened for them by their friends in the gay movement. A winning playbook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yep,  the ACLU is already gearing up to fight for multiple marriage.
> 
> If SCOTUS approves gay marriage, what legal doctrine do they use to limit it to two persons?
Click to expand...


IF SCOTUS agrees with the courts that the bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional, they will not even be considering any other question.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> gay marriage will lead to all forms of group marriage and multiple partners of all kinds.
> 
> The arguments for multiple marriage will be exactly the same as for gay marriage----discrimination, equal treatment, being allowed to marry who they love, etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah that whole slippery slope argument- I can do it too.
> 
> Legalizing slavery will lead to letting blacks vote, which lead to women getting the vote, which will lead to women being allowed to use contraceptives, which will lead telling the government that they can't tell Americans how they have sex, which will lead to gay marriage.
> 
> What we do know gay marriage will lead to?
> 
> Couples in love getting married.
> 
> Just like my wife and I did.
> 
> And the haters hate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> slavery and marriage are not analogous, although some may consider them to be.
> 
> the legal arguments for gay marriage are EXACTLY the same arguments that will be made for bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of "marriage".   Those making the arguments will use gay marriage as a valid precedent.
> 
> Its coming,  is that really where you want civilization to go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And NAMBLA will walk through all those doors opened for them by their friends in the gay movement. A winning playbook.
Click to expand...


Yeah- and once again the homophobes attempt to equate homosexuals to pedophilia.

Didn't happen when the Supreme Court recognized that bans on mixed race marriages were illegal, won't happen when the Supreme Court recognizes that bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional.

And bigots in both cases were very, very sad.


----------



## Syriusly

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> gay marriage will lead to all forms of group marriage and multiple partners of all kinds.
> 
> The arguments for multiple marriage will be exactly the same as for gay marriage----discrimination, equal treatment, being allowed to marry who they love, etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah that whole slippery slope argument- I can do it too.
> 
> Legalizing slavery will lead to letting blacks vote, which lead to women getting the vote, which will lead to women being allowed to use contraceptives, which will lead telling the government that they can't tell Americans how they have sex, which will lead to gay marriage.
> 
> What we do know gay marriage will lead to?
> 
> Couples in love getting married.
> 
> Just like my wife and I did.
> 
> And the haters hate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> slavery and marriage are not analogous, although some may consider them to be.
> 
> the legal arguments for gay marriage are EXACTLY the same arguments that will be made for bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of "marriage".   Those making the arguments will use gay marriage as a valid precedent.
Click to expand...


Really- please make those arguments then.

I am really curious to see how you will.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your delusion does not change the fact that she is legally married to her life partner...and enjoying all the associated benefits. World ending yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's an exercise in make believe.  Same genders are biologically, mentally, and spiritually incompatible.  Please refer to the blocks for a visual depiction of this principle:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hang on...Yup, I was right. Your opinion did not make my marriage license disappear nor did it change the benefits we get for being legally married. Sucks to be you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You live in a world of self delusion. A piece of paper can't make you married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The piece of paper makes us civilly married. Our enduring love makes us spiritually married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of unlikely unions, you're only seeing one side of my marriage. My wife is a left leaning independent and her parents are hard core Leftists. Two very good friends of mine are a lesbian couple, one of them being my favorite teacher in school. My kids adore them and love having them babysit. Now that GM is legal in Idaho, their wedding is set for this June. We'll all be attending.
> The asshole rabid anti-gay me is all you've seen so far.
> 
> I just thought you deserved a peek past the curtain.
Click to expand...


I do get that- I have known some rabid racists that other than that topic were really cool people.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> gay marriage will lead to all forms of group marriage and multiple partners of all kinds.
> 
> The arguments for multiple marriage will be exactly the same as for gay marriage----discrimination, equal treatment, being allowed to marry who they love, etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah that whole slippery slope argument- I can do it too.
> 
> Legalizing slavery will lead to letting blacks vote, which lead to women getting the vote, which will lead to women being allowed to use contraceptives, which will lead telling the government that they can't tell Americans how they have sex, which will lead to gay marriage.
> 
> What we do know gay marriage will lead to?
> 
> Couples in love getting married.
> 
> Just like my wife and I did.
> 
> And the haters hate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> slavery and marriage are not analogous, although some may consider them to be.
> 
> the legal arguments for gay marriage are EXACTLY the same arguments that will be made for bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of "marriage".   Those making the arguments will use gay marriage as a valid precedent.
> 
> Its coming,  is that really where you want civilization to go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And NAMBLA will walk through all those doors opened for them by their friends in the gay movement. A winning playbook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again, you school us about NAMBLA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or I utilize logic and assume they will go with proven legal strategies.
> 
> BTW, would love a response to my previous post to you.
Click to expand...

The one about bigamy, et al?  What is it about gay marriage that makes such things valid that we don't see in straight marriage?


----------



## Votto

bear513 said:


> Yea I never understood why or how The became involved in they marriage industry... I thought separation of church and state?



It has to do with entitlements.

Essentially the government is giving you special legal perks for having sex with only one person.

Crazy, huh?


----------



## JakeStarkey

And the antis sputter and splutter along.

No homoesexual dilemma exists.

Let's close the thread.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah that whole slippery slope argument- I can do it too.
> 
> Legalizing slavery will lead to letting blacks vote, which lead to women getting the vote, which will lead to women being allowed to use contraceptives, which will lead telling the government that they can't tell Americans how they have sex, which will lead to gay marriage.
> 
> What we do know gay marriage will lead to?
> 
> Couples in love getting married.
> 
> Just like my wife and I did.
> 
> And the haters hate that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slavery and marriage are not analogous, although some may consider them to be.
> 
> the legal arguments for gay marriage are EXACTLY the same arguments that will be made for bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of "marriage".   Those making the arguments will use gay marriage as a valid precedent.
> 
> Its coming,  is that really where you want civilization to go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And NAMBLA will walk through all those doors opened for them by their friends in the gay movement. A winning playbook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again, you school us about NAMBLA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or I utilize logic and assume they will go with proven legal strategies.
> 
> BTW, would love a response to my previous post to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one about bigamy, et al?  What is it about gay marriage that makes such things valid that we don't see in straight marriage?
Click to expand...

No, the one where I told you a little about me. After you read it, you'll never take me seriously again.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [  The FACT that homosexuality is a mental disorder remains to this day UNREFUTED.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are the one who is delusional- or maybe just lying because of your intense bigotry towards homosexuals.
> 
> Virtually every professional psychological and psychiatric association in the Western World disagrees with you- aside from a few fringe anti-homosexual fringe associations with memberships in the dozens or hundreds.
> 
> Answers to Your Questions For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality *(American Psychological Association)*
> No, lesbian, gay and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder
> 
> LGBT-Sexual Orientation psychiatry.org* (American Psychiatric Association)*
> No. All major professional mental health organizations have gone on record to affirm that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association’s Board of Trustees removed homosexuality from its official diagnostic manual, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Second Edition (DSM II). The action was taken following a review of the scientific literature and consultation with experts in the field. The experts found that homosexuality does not meet the criteria to be considered a mental illness.
> 
> 
> http://www.ukcp.org.uk/UKCP_Documents/policy/Conversion therapy.pdf
> *The British Psychological Society h*as published guidance
> which says:
> ‘As same-sex sexual orientations… are not diagnosable
> illnesses, they do not require any therapeutic
> interventions to change them.’
> 
> http://www.bpc.org.uk/sites/psychoanalytic-council.org/files/6.2 Position statement on homosexuality.pdf
> *British Psychoanalytic Council*
> The British Psychoanalytic Council opposes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
> It does not accept that a homosexual orientation is evidence of disturbance of the mind or in
> development. In psychoanalytic psychotherapy, it is the quality of people’s relationships
> which are explored, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.
> 
> *Royal College of Psychiatrists:*
> 
> The College wishes to clarify that homosexuality is not a psychiatric
> disorder.
> 
> *The American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors, and Therapists* (AASECT) takes the position that same sex orientation is not a mental disorder
> 
> 
> What you consider to be a 'fact' is contrary to the consensus opinion by virtually every psychological association in the Western World.
Click to expand...


Any chance that you could highlight any _actual *'science'*_ from that list of popular held opinions?  

I ask, because having read it, entirely... including the linked references, there's not a medical fact stemming from any science.  All there is, is opinion of people who just decided that sexual abnormality is 'normal'.

Which means that it's Deceit, FRAUDULENTLY advanced as a means to influence the Ignorant.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

I see the _*Flaming Socialist*_ "Jake" is advocating to have yet ANOTHER thread closed.

No doubt because 'their _Winning_', again.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [  The FACT that homosexuality is a mental disorder remains to this day UNREFUTED.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are the one who is delusional- or maybe just lying because of your intense bigotry towards homosexuals.
> 
> Virtually every professional psychological and psychiatric association in the Western World disagrees with you- aside from a few fringe anti-homosexual fringe associations with memberships in the dozens or hundreds.
> 
> Answers to Your Questions For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality *(American Psychological Association)*
> No, lesbian, gay and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder
> 
> LGBT-Sexual Orientation psychiatry.org* (American Psychiatric Association)*
> No. All major professional mental health organizations have gone on record to affirm that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association’s Board of Trustees removed homosexuality from its official diagnostic manual, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Second Edition (DSM II). The action was taken following a review of the scientific literature and consultation with experts in the field. The experts found that homosexuality does not meet the criteria to be considered a mental illness.
> 
> 
> http://www.ukcp.org.uk/UKCP_Documents/policy/Conversion therapy.pdf
> *The British Psychological Society h*as published guidance
> which says:
> ‘As same-sex sexual orientations… are not diagnosable
> illnesses, they do not require any therapeutic
> interventions to change them.’
> 
> http://www.bpc.org.uk/sites/psychoanalytic-council.org/files/6.2 Position statement on homosexuality.pdf
> *British Psychoanalytic Council*
> The British Psychoanalytic Council opposes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
> It does not accept that a homosexual orientation is evidence of disturbance of the mind or in
> development. In psychoanalytic psychotherapy, it is the quality of people’s relationships
> which are explored, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.
> 
> *Royal College of Psychiatrists:*
> 
> The College wishes to clarify that homosexuality is not a psychiatric
> disorder.
> 
> *The American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors, and Therapists* (AASECT) takes the position that same sex orientation is not a mental disorder
> 
> 
> What you consider to be a 'fact' is contrary to the consensus opinion by virtually every psychological association in the Western World.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any chance that you could highlight any _actual *'science'*_ from that list of popular held opinions?
> 
> I ask, because having read it, entirely... including the linked references, there's not a medical fact stemming from any science.  All there is, is opinion of people who just decided that sexual abnormality is 'normal'..
Click to expand...


Considering that there is not a medical fact stemming from science that homosexuality is a mental illness- and considering that the concensus opinion of those who are actually trained and experienced in treating mental health is that homosexuality is not a mental illness- why should I care what a bigot like you thinks?


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> slavery and marriage are not analogous, although some may consider them to be.
> 
> the legal arguments for gay marriage are EXACTLY the same arguments that will be made for bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of "marriage".   Those making the arguments will use gay marriage as a valid precedent.
> 
> Its coming,  is that really where you want civilization to go?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And NAMBLA will walk through all those doors opened for them by their friends in the gay movement. A winning playbook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again, you school us about NAMBLA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or I utilize logic and assume they will go with proven legal strategies.
> 
> BTW, would love a response to my previous post to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one about bigamy, et al?  What is it about gay marriage that makes such things valid that we don't see in straight marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the one where I told you a little about me. After you read it, you'll never take me seriously again.
Click to expand...


You're making an assumption that we took you seriously in the first place.


----------



## GreenBean

Lilah said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No- I mean the same bigots who don't want equality for homosexuals also want to control women's bodies also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ah, typical accusations. People who dislike homosexual actions and the agenda are not bigots; hate the sin, love the sinner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No- I mean the same bigots who don't want equality for homosexuals also want to control women's bodies also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't win for loosing can you ?
> 
> You desperately try to enlist the Blacks and civil rights as your allies - when that doesn't work you try to enlist women in general and because a handful of demented lesbians jump on your bandwagon - you try and paint it as a womens issue
> 
> - you can't win on a level playing field - which is why you HAVE TO use deceit and slander - YOU CAN"T WIN .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Essentially he is correct though- bigots are bigots.
> 
> Whether you also hate blacks and Jews and women and Italians and Mexicans and Chinese is irrelevant.
> 
> You are no different from the person who hates other Americans just because they are black or just because they are Jewish or just because they are a woman.
> 
> You are no different from someone who calls an African American a 'n*gger' or a woman a 'c*nt'.
> 
> Just a different chapter in the book of bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criticizing people based on lifestyle choice is not bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bigotry is intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself. Read your statement, "Criticizing people based on lifestyle choice is not bigotry."  Are you able to comprehend your lack of understanding?
Click to expand...


----------



## GreenBean

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> gay marriage will lead to all forms of group marriage and multiple partners of all kinds.
> 
> The arguments for multiple marriage will be exactly the same as for gay marriage----discrimination, equal treatment, being allowed to marry who they love, etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah that whole slippery slope argument- I can do it too.
> 
> Legalizing slavery will lead to letting blacks vote, which lead to women getting the vote, which will lead to women being allowed to use contraceptives, which will lead telling the government that they can't tell Americans how they have sex, which will lead to gay marriage.
> 
> What we do know gay marriage will lead to?
> 
> Couples in love getting married.
> 
> Just like my wife and I did.
> 
> And the haters hate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> slavery and marriage are not analogous, although some may consider them to be.
> 
> the legal arguments for gay marriage are EXACTLY the same arguments that will be made for bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of "marriage".   Those making the arguments will use gay marriage as a valid precedent.
> 
> Its coming,  is that really where you want civilization to go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And NAMBLA will walk through all those doors opened for them by their friends in the gay movement. A winning playbook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again, you school us about NAMBLA.
Click to expand...



 In 2003, a group of "mental health professionals" formed a group called B4U-ACT [founded by a convicted sex offender] to redefine pedophilia as a sexual orientation, ‘minor attracted people’ or MAP. Their goal is to get MAPS protected under the same laws as LGBT. There is an underlying progression* to sexualize children at younger and younger ages by promoting the idea that normal friendships are actually sexual attraction*. Once that idea is accepted, pedophilia will be accepted. 

Pedophilia advocacy groups, including the tax-exempt B4U-ACT, are trying to “groom the public” into accepting "Inter generational Intimacy" , as per child trauma expert Dr. Joyanna Silberg 

Former APA president Dr. Paul Fink agreed. “Pedophilia is very, very hurtful to children,” he told CNSNews.com. But because pro-pedophilia advocates keep “hammering away with their point of view,” they could still “have a very strong effect on the people who are holding back…because they know it’s a crime and it’s sick.”


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> gay marriage will lead to all forms of group marriage and multiple partners of all kinds.
> 
> The arguments for multiple marriage will be exactly the same as for gay marriage----discrimination, equal treatment, being allowed to marry who they love, etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah that whole slippery slope argument- I can do it too.
> 
> Legalizing slavery will lead to letting blacks vote, which lead to women getting the vote, which will lead to women being allowed to use contraceptives, which will lead telling the government that they can't tell Americans how they have sex, which will lead to gay marriage.
> 
> What we do know gay marriage will lead to?
> 
> Couples in love getting married.
> 
> Just like my wife and I did.
> 
> And the haters hate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> slavery and marriage are not analogous, although some may consider them to be.
> 
> the legal arguments for gay marriage are EXACTLY the same arguments that will be made for bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of "marriage".   Those making the arguments will use gay marriage as a valid precedent.
> 
> Its coming,  is that really where you want civilization to go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And NAMBLA will walk through all those doors opened for them by their friends in the gay movement. A winning playbook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah- and once again the homophobes attempt to equate homosexuals to pedophilia.
> 
> Didn't happen when the Supreme Court recognized that bans on mixed race marriages were illegal, won't happen when the Supreme Court recognizes that bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional.
> 
> And bigots in both cases were very, very sad.
Click to expand...


I hate Fascists, Murderers, Serial killers,  child molesters, and homosexuals - not much of a difference between the last 2 - not much at all - some types of bigotry are actually healthy and justified.


----------



## JakeStarkey

GreenBean and Where R My Keys talking about science?  Hilarious.


----------



## GreenBean

JakeStarkey said:


> GreenBean and Where R My Keys talking about science?  Hilarious.


Gotta admire people like Jake Malarkey - managed to complete grade school after 16 years with a miniscule IQ and he's still able to get online and try to debate people with 3X his IQ and 10X his educational level  - takes a lot of courage  ...  or possibly just plain ignorance  ... hmmmmm


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yup, got nothing at all.  SCOTUS will rule this year in favor of marriage equality and not even consider your arguments.  Tough to be you, little buddy.


----------



## GreenBean

JakeStarkey said:


> Yup, got nothing at all.  SCOTUS will rule this year in favor of marriage equality and not even consider your arguments.  Tough to be you, little buddy.






> SCOTUS will rule this year in favor of marriage equality



*I should care ?  * When have you EVER seen me post against Gay Marriage - I have always said that if 2 degenerates want to cohabitate , play house and so forth - being consenting adults they have the same rights as sane people -  Gay Marriage degrades the institution of marriage, but excluding adult Americans from their equal rights degrades the constitution

Gay Marriage - SCOTUS - So What ?


----------



## JakeStarkey

We are talking legal marriage equality, not private gay marriage.

This will be legal nationally, and all you will do is yell as you always have without effect.  Your opinion matters not in the scheme of things.


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> We are talking legal marriage equality, not private gay marriage.
> 
> This will be legal nationally, and all you will do is yell as you always have without effect.  Your opinion matters not in the scheme of things.


 

are you gay, Jake?    Is Rightwinger your "partner"?


----------



## Seawytch

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking legal marriage equality, not private gay marriage.
> 
> This will be legal nationally, and all you will do is yell as you always have without effect.  Your opinion matters not in the scheme of things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you gay, Jake?    Is Rightwinger your "partner"?
Click to expand...


Uh oh...somebody sounds jealous. Intellectual curiosity, right?


----------



## Redfish

Seawytch said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking legal marriage equality, not private gay marriage.
> 
> This will be legal nationally, and all you will do is yell as you always have without effect.  Your opinion matters not in the scheme of things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you gay, Jake?    Is Rightwinger your "partner"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh oh...somebody sounds jealous. Intellectual curiosity, right?
Click to expand...

 

Nope, but its funny that 98% of the supporters of gay marriage are gay.   Jealous????   not hardly.   sympathetic to sick people?  yes.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking legal marriage equality, not private gay marriage.
> 
> This will be legal nationally, and all you will do is yell as you always have without effect.  Your opinion matters not in the scheme of things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you gay, Jake?    Is Rightwinger your "partner"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh oh...somebody sounds jealous. Intellectual curiosity, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, but its funny that 98% of the supporters of gay marriage are gay.   Jealous????   not hardly.   sympathetic to sick people?  yes.
Click to expand...


Redfish is stupidity redux.

About 1% of the population is gay, yet the majority supports marriage equality.

I don't know if Redfish is gay but he is certainly latent.  He is ready for the right guy to make his own.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

GreenBean said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ah, typical accusations. People who dislike homosexual actions and the agenda are not bigots; hate the sin, love the sinner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No- I mean the same bigots who don't want equality for homosexuals also want to control women's bodies also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't win for loosing can you ?
> 
> You desperately try to enlist the Blacks and civil rights as your allies - when that doesn't work you try to enlist women in general and because a handful of demented lesbians jump on your bandwagon - you try and paint it as a womens issue
> 
> - you can't win on a level playing field - which is why you HAVE TO use deceit and slander - YOU CAN"T WIN .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Essentially he is correct though- bigots are bigots.
> 
> Whether you also hate blacks and Jews and women and Italians and Mexicans and Chinese is irrelevant.
> 
> You are no different from the person who hates other Americans just because they are black or just because they are Jewish or just because they are a woman.
> 
> You are no different from someone who calls an African American a 'n*gger' or a woman a 'c*nt'.
> 
> Just a different chapter in the book of bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criticizing people based on lifestyle choice is not bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bigotry is intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself. Read your statement, "Criticizing people based on lifestyle choice is not bigotry."  Are you able to comprehend your lack of understanding?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

*
ROFLMNAO!*​


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> gay marriage will lead to all forms of group marriage and multiple partners of all kinds.
> 
> The arguments for multiple marriage will be exactly the same as for gay marriage----discrimination, equal treatment, being allowed to marry who they love, etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah that whole slippery slope argument- I can do it too.
> 
> Legalizing slavery will lead to letting blacks vote, which lead to women getting the vote, which will lead to women being allowed to use contraceptives, which will lead telling the government that they can't tell Americans how they have sex, which will lead to gay marriage.
> 
> What we do know gay marriage will lead to?
> 
> Couples in love getting married.
> 
> Just like my wife and I did.
> 
> And the haters hate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> slavery and marriage are not analogous, although some may consider them to be.
> 
> the legal arguments for gay marriage are EXACTLY the same arguments that will be made for bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of "marriage".   Those making the arguments will use gay marriage as a valid precedent.
> 
> Its coming,  is that really where you want civilization to go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And NAMBLA will walk through all those doors opened for them by their friends in the gay movement. A winning playbook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah- and once again the homophobes attempt to equate homosexuals to pedophilia.
> 
> Didn't happen when the Supreme Court recognized that bans on mixed race marriages were illegal, won't happen when the Supreme Court recognizes that bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional.
> 
> And bigots in both cases were very, very sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate Fascists, Murderers, Serial killers,  child molesters, and homosexuals - not much of a difference between the last 2 - not much at all - some types of bigotry are actually healthy and justified.
Click to expand...


"Discrimination" ... is actually healthy and justified... .

Bigotry implies an irrational component.  Otherwise, _*without* the irrational component_, the word is simply meaningless.

The same holds true for "Hate" and "Racism"...

If it helps... the 'best' good sign of bigotry, is found in the use of the word.  Axiomatically, the projection of the concept _"intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself"_, is, a profound demonstration of intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

Pretty cool, huh?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking legal marriage equality, not private gay marriage.
> 
> This will be legal nationally, and all you will do is yell as you always have without effect.  Your opinion matters not in the scheme of things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you gay, Jake?    Is Rightwinger your "partner"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh oh...somebody sounds jealous. Intellectual curiosity, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, but its funny that 98% of the supporters of gay marriage are gay.   Jealous????   not hardly.   sympathetic to sick people?  yes.
Click to expand...

Hardly.  More than 50% of the nation supports it, and they are leaving you and your kind where you belong, in the past.


----------



## Seawytch

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking legal marriage equality, not private gay marriage.
> 
> This will be legal nationally, and all you will do is yell as you always have without effect.  Your opinion matters not in the scheme of things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you gay, Jake?    Is Rightwinger your "partner"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh oh...somebody sounds jealous. Intellectual curiosity, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, but its funny that 98% of the supporters of gay marriage are gay.   Jealous????   not hardly.   sympathetic to sick people?  yes.
Click to expand...



You've made some ridiculous statements, but that's gotta be in the top 5. 

Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Seawytch said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking legal marriage equality, not private gay marriage.
> 
> This will be legal nationally, and all you will do is yell as you always have without effect.  Your opinion matters not in the scheme of things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you gay, Jake?    Is Rightwinger your "partner"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh oh...somebody sounds jealous. Intellectual curiosity, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, but its funny that 98% of the supporters of gay marriage are gay.   Jealous????   not hardly.   sympathetic to sick people?  yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've made some ridiculous statements, but that's gotta be in the top 5.
> 
> Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55
Click to expand...

5% and that's about as good as it will ever be.  The other 40% are still waiting for Jesus to arrive, even though he's 2.000 years overdue.


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't win for loosing can you ?
> 
> You desperately try to enlist the Blacks and civil rights as your allies - when that doesn't work you try to enlist women in general and because a handful of demented lesbians jump on your bandwagon - you try and paint it as a womens issue
> 
> - you can't win on a level playing field - which is why you HAVE TO use deceit and slander - YOU CAN"T WIN .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Essentially he is correct though- bigots are bigots.
> 
> Whether you also hate blacks and Jews and women and Italians and Mexicans and Chinese is irrelevant.
> 
> You are no different from the person who hates other Americans just because they are black or just because they are Jewish or just because they are a woman.
> 
> You are no different from someone who calls an African American a 'n*gger' or a woman a 'c*nt'.
> 
> Just a different chapter in the book of bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criticizing people based on lifestyle choice is not bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bigotry is intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself. Read your statement, "Criticizing people based on lifestyle choice is not bigotry."  Are you able to comprehend your lack of understanding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> ROFLMNAO!*​
Click to expand...


Are you laughing because you can almost taste being a one-trick pony?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Lilah said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Essentially he is correct though- bigots are bigots.
> 
> Whether you also hate blacks and Jews and women and Italians and Mexicans and Chinese is irrelevant.
> 
> You are no different from the person who hates other Americans just because they are black or just because they are Jewish or just because they are a woman.
> 
> You are no different from someone who calls an African American a 'n*gger' or a woman a 'c*nt'.
> 
> Just a different chapter in the book of bigotry.
> 
> 
> 
> Criticizing people based on lifestyle choice is not bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bigotry is intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself. Read your statement, "Criticizing people based on lifestyle choice is not bigotry."  Are you able to comprehend your lack of understanding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> ROFLMNAO!*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you laughing because you can almost taste being a one-trick pony?
Click to expand...


I'm laughing because Left-think is the perspective of the irrationally subjective female, thus as with all comedy, it's funny, because it's true.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

GreenBean said:


>


Nice tits, no brains.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> You've made some ridiculous statements, but that's gotta be in the top 5.
> 
> Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55



These polls are absurd.

The Majority of People in the Majority of the States, elected the majority Legislatures which established in law, legal protections which recognized marriage as the joining of one man and one woman.

THAT is the POLL WHERE ADULTS, CONSIDERED THE ISSUE, DEBATED THE ISSUE, VOTED THEIR CONSCIENCE AND PASSED LAW WHICH PROTECTED THEIR BELIEFS. 

This is where you run to note that 36 of 50 states have made pretend marriage legal.  Then I point out that except for a tiny minority of states, the REST of THEM have VOTED TO PROHIBIT THE LOWERING OF THE MARRIAGE STANDARD, and that a TINY MINORITY within the judiciary OVER TURNED THAT MAJORITY'S LAW.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've made some ridiculous statements, but that's gotta be in the top 5.
> 
> Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These polls are absurd.
> 
> The Majority of People in the Majority of the States, elected the majority Legislatures which established in law, legal protections which recognized marriage as the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> THAT is the POLL WHERE ADULTS, CONSIDERED THE ISSUE, DEBATED THE ISSUE, VOTED THEIR CONSCIENCE AND PASSED LAW WHICH PROTECTED THEIR BELIEFS.
> 
> This is where you run to note that 36 of 50 states have made pretend marriage legal.  Then I point out that except for a tiny minority of states, the REST of THEM have VOTED TO PROHIBIT THE LOWERING OF THE MARRIAGE STANDARD, and that a TINY MINORITY within the judiciary OVER TURNED THAT MAJORITY'S LAW.
Click to expand...

What part of the minority being protected from the whims of the majority did they not teach you in school?


----------



## Redfish

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've made some ridiculous statements, but that's gotta be in the top 5.
> 
> Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These polls are absurd.
> 
> The Majority of People in the Majority of the States, elected the majority Legislatures which established in law, legal protections which recognized marriage as the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> THAT is the POLL WHERE ADULTS, CONSIDERED THE ISSUE, DEBATED THE ISSUE, VOTED THEIR CONSCIENCE AND PASSED LAW WHICH PROTECTED THEIR BELIEFS.
> 
> This is where you run to note that 36 of 50 states have made pretend marriage legal.  Then I point out that except for a tiny minority of states, the REST of THEM have VOTED TO PROHIBIT THE LOWERING OF THE MARRIAGE STANDARD, and that a TINY MINORITY within the judiciary OVER TURNED THAT MAJORITY'S LAW.
Click to expand...

 

yeah, yeah, yeah,   but the will of the people just ain't fair------------------------


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Redfish said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've made some ridiculous statements, but that's gotta be in the top 5.
> 
> Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These polls are absurd.
> 
> The Majority of People in the Majority of the States, elected the majority Legislatures which established in law, legal protections which recognized marriage as the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> THAT is the POLL WHERE ADULTS, CONSIDERED THE ISSUE, DEBATED THE ISSUE, VOTED THEIR CONSCIENCE AND PASSED LAW WHICH PROTECTED THEIR BELIEFS.
> 
> This is where you run to note that 36 of 50 states have made pretend marriage legal.  Then I point out that except for a tiny minority of states, the REST of THEM have VOTED TO PROHIBIT THE LOWERING OF THE MARRIAGE STANDARD, and that a TINY MINORITY within the judiciary OVER TURNED THAT MAJORITY'S LAW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, yeah, yeah,   but the will of the people just ain't fair------------------------
Click to expand...

Hey, you got one right.  How did that happen?


----------



## GreenBean

Seawytch said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking legal marriage equality, not private gay marriage.
> 
> This will be legal nationally, and all you will do is yell as you always have without effect.  Your opinion matters not in the scheme of things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you gay, Jake?    Is Rightwinger your "partner"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh oh...somebody sounds jealous. Intellectual curiosity, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, but its funny that 98% of the supporters of gay marriage are gay.   Jealous????   not hardly.   sympathetic to sick people?  yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've made some ridiculous statements, but that's gotta be in the top 5.
> 
> Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55
Click to expand...



The key to that poll lies in its opening statement ...



> support for the law recognizing *same-sex marriages as legally valid*



Which simply means they recognize the validity - had I myself been polled I would have polled in favor of its legal validity  - that doesn't mean they recognize its sanity - in addition the article title ....

*Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%*

cites a two year climb from 53 - 55%  - anybody who knows anything about statistics and polling is well aware that 2% is statistically insignificant

In addition , even f it were significant - which it is not  - any experiment or observation that involves drawing a sample from a population, there is always the possibility that an observed effect would have occurred due to sampling error alone


----------



## PaintMyHouse

GreenBean said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking legal marriage equality, not private gay marriage.
> 
> This will be legal nationally, and all you will do is yell as you always have without effect.  Your opinion matters not in the scheme of things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you gay, Jake?    Is Rightwinger your "partner"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh oh...somebody sounds jealous. Intellectual curiosity, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, but its funny that 98% of the supporters of gay marriage are gay.   Jealous????   not hardly.   sympathetic to sick people?  yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've made some ridiculous statements, but that's gotta be in the top 5.
> 
> Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The key to that poll lies in its opening statement ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> support for the law recognizing *same-sex marriages as legally valid*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which simply means they recognize the validity - had I myself been polled I would have polled in favor of its legal validity  - that doesn't mean they recognize its sanity - in addition the article title ....
> 
> *Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%*
> 
> cites a two year climb from 53 - 55%  - anybody who knows anything about statistics and polling is well aware that 2% is statistically insignificant
> 
> In addition , even f it were significant - which it is not  - any experiment or observation that involves drawing a sample from a population, there is always the possibility that an observed effect would have occurred due to sampling error alone
Click to expand...

The polling can't be true because you hate faggots.  Got it.

Had the support gone down 2% you would be jumping for joy instead of spinning.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

GreenBean said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking legal marriage equality, not private gay marriage.
> 
> This will be legal nationally, and all you will do is yell as you always have without effect.  Your opinion matters not in the scheme of things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you gay, Jake?    Is Rightwinger your "partner"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh oh...somebody sounds jealous. Intellectual curiosity, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, but its funny that 98% of the supporters of gay marriage are gay.   Jealous????   not hardly.   sympathetic to sick people?  yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've made some ridiculous statements, but that's gotta be in the top 5.
> 
> Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The key to that poll lies in its opening statement ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> support for the law recognizing *same-sex marriages as legally valid*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which simply means they recognize the validity - had I myself been polled I would have polled in favor of its legal validity  - that doesn't mean they recognize its sanity - in addition the article title ....
> 
> *Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%*
> 
> cites a two year climb from 53 - 55%  - anybody who knows anything about statistics and polling is well aware that 2% is statistically insignificant
> 
> In addition , even f it were significant - which it is not  - any experiment or observation that involves drawing a sample from a population, there is always the possibility that an observed effect would have occurred due to sampling error alone
Click to expand...


I disagree that Pretend Marriage is legally valid, in that it is a law, which forces other states to accept associations which those states have established as unacceptable.

There's nothing valid about that.  Unless sociopathy is valid...


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you gay, Jake?    Is Rightwinger your "partner"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh oh...somebody sounds jealous. Intellectual curiosity, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, but its funny that 98% of the supporters of gay marriage are gay.   Jealous????   not hardly.   sympathetic to sick people?  yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've made some ridiculous statements, but that's gotta be in the top 5.
> 
> Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The key to that poll lies in its opening statement ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> support for the law recognizing *same-sex marriages as legally valid*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which simply means they recognize the validity - had I myself been polled I would have polled in favor of its legal validity  - that doesn't mean they recognize its sanity - in addition the article title ....
> 
> *Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%*
> 
> cites a two year climb from 53 - 55%  - anybody who knows anything about statistics and polling is well aware that 2% is statistically insignificant
> 
> In addition , even f it were significant - which it is not  - any experiment or observation that involves drawing a sample from a population, there is always the possibility that an observed effect would have occurred due to sampling error alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree that Pretend Marriage is legally valid, in that it is a law, which forces other states to accept associations which those states have established as unacceptable.
> 
> There's nothing valid about that.  Unless sociopathy is valid...
Click to expand...


So in other words- you are delusional.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking legal marriage equality, not private gay marriage.
> 
> This will be legal nationally, and all you will do is yell as you always have without effect.  Your opinion matters not in the scheme of things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you gay, Jake?    Is Rightwinger your "partner"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh oh...somebody sounds jealous. Intellectual curiosity, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, but its funny that 98% of the supporters of gay marriage are gay.   Jealous????   not hardly.   sympathetic to sick people?  yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've made some ridiculous statements, but that's gotta be in the top 5.
> 
> Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The key to that poll lies in its opening statement ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> support for the law recognizing *same-sex marriages as legally valid*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which simply means they recognize the validity - had I myself been polled I would have polled in favor of its legal validity  - that doesn't mean they recognize its sanity - in addition the article title ....
> 
> *Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%*
> 
> cites a two year climb from 53 - 55%  - anybody who knows anything about statistics and polling is well aware that 2% is statistically insignificant
> 
> In addition , even f it were significant - which it is not  - any experiment or observation that involves drawing a sample from a population, there is always the possibility that an observed effect would have occurred due to sampling error alone
Click to expand...


Actually- anyone who knows statistics knows that you can't claim that that 2% is insignificant without looking at the statistics involved. 

Gallup tells us the statistical margin of erro
For results based on this sample of national
adults, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.

So roughly speaking that range would be between 51% and 59% approval.

People like yourself tend to ignore statistics they don't like, claim statistics say something that they don't and then crow about statistics that they do like. 

Right now support for 'gay marriage' is roughly where support was for mixed race marriages in about 1996. 

And we know how that trend has continued.


----------



## JakeStarkey

"Bigotry implies an irrational component.  Otherwise, _*without* the irrational component_, the word is simply meaningless."

The perfect definition of the hetero-fascist far right.  Their fear is irrational; there is no proof at all that shows same-sex and hetero parents are more dangerous than the other group.

Their is plenty of evidence that Where' ignores that shows just how much damage the overwhelming hetero population causes among kids.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> gay marriage will lead to all forms of group marriage and multiple partners of all kinds.
> 
> The arguments for multiple marriage will be exactly the same as for gay marriage----discrimination, equal treatment, being allowed to marry who they love, etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah that whole slippery slope argument- I can do it too.
> 
> Legalizing slavery will lead to letting blacks vote, which lead to women getting the vote, which will lead to women being allowed to use contraceptives, which will lead telling the government that they can't tell Americans how they have sex, which will lead to gay marriage.
> 
> What we do know gay marriage will lead to?
> 
> Couples in love getting married.
> 
> Just like my wife and I did.
> 
> And the haters hate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> slavery and marriage are not analogous, although some may consider them to be.
> 
> the legal arguments for gay marriage are EXACTLY the same arguments that will be made for bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of "marriage".   Those making the arguments will use gay marriage as a valid precedent.
> 
> Its coming,  is that really where you want civilization to go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And NAMBLA will walk through all those doors opened for them by their friends in the gay movement. A winning playbook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah- and once again the homophobes attempt to equate homosexuals to pedophilia.
> 
> Didn't happen when the Supreme Court recognized that bans on mixed race marriages were illegal, won't happen when the Supreme Court recognizes that bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional.
> 
> And bigots in both cases were very, very sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate Fascists, Murderers, Serial killers,  child molesters, and homosexuals - not much of a difference between the last 2 - not much at all - some types of bigotry are actually healthy and justified.
Click to expand...


yep- like I said- you are just a bigot. 

Bigots like yourself see no difference between a serial killer and a person who attracted to the same gender.

No different than the racists how hate blacks for being black or Jews for being Jewish.

Bigots all.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Hatred of marriage equality and the "irrationally subjective female" are strong here.


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criticizing people based on lifestyle choice is not bigotry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bigotry is intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself. Read your statement, "Criticizing people based on lifestyle choice is not bigotry."  Are you able to comprehend your lack of understanding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> ROFLMNAO!*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you laughing because you can almost taste being a one-trick pony?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm laughing because Left-think is the perspective of the irrationally subjective female, thus as with all comedy, it's funny, because it's true.
Click to expand...


So you are highly concerned with subjective females.  Says a lot about you.


----------



## Dr Grump

GreenBean said:


> I hate Fascists, Murderers, Serial killers,  child molesters, and homosexuals - not much of a difference between the last 2 - not much at all - some types of bigotry are actually healthy and justified.



The fact you don't know the difference between the last two says a lot about you. None of it good.


----------



## MaryL

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.


I repost the original posters's thread here. And I totally agree with it. Homosexuals, or anyone else that are so overassertive and hostile, let alone as well moneyed and lawyered up like gays are, are just antagonizing  folks. And all this does is re enforce stereotypes of gays a spoilt self indulgent and childish, let alone perverts. Really?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Lilah said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bigotry is intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself. Read your statement, "Criticizing people based on lifestyle choice is not bigotry."  Are you able to comprehend your lack of understanding?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> ROFLMNAO!*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you laughing because you can almost taste being a one-trick pony?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm laughing because Left-think is the perspective of the irrationally subjective female, thus as with all comedy, it's funny, because it's true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are highly concerned with subjective females.  Says a lot about you.
Click to expand...


Does it?  

LOL!  OK...

Pray tell, what does it say?


----------



## Kondor3

The homosexual dilemma...

Sterilization?

Lobotomy?

Chemical castration?

Spay and neuter?

Shock treatments?

Psychiatric commitment?

Exile to Queer Island?

Disinfectant by the 55-gallon drum -full?

So many choices... so little time.

What a dilemma !!!


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> ROFLMNAO!*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you laughing because you can almost taste being a one-trick pony?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm laughing because Left-think is the perspective of the irrationally subjective female, thus as with all comedy, it's funny, because it's true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are highly concerned with subjective females.  Says a lot about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it?
> 
> LOL!  OK...
> 
> Pray tell, what does it say?
Click to expand...


You couldn't take it.


----------



## MaryL

I am sorry, I just don't  see homosexuals as a discreet group that NEEDS any more protections than are already guaranteed by the constitution to all of us, anyway. And YES,  given that, people should be given leeway to accept or reject people on  sexual preference, because choice transcends petty sexual matters, and THAT should be the capitol issue. In my humble opinion, anyway...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Lilah said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> *ROFLMNAO!*​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you laughing because you can almost taste being a one-trick pony?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm laughing because Left-think is the perspective of the irrationally subjective female, thus as with all comedy, it's funny, because it's true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are highly concerned with subjective females.  Says a lot about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it?
> 
> LOL!  OK...
> 
> Pray tell, what does it say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You couldn't take it.
Click to expand...


So...  Ya got nuttin'?  

Color me *SHOCKED!*


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> And NAMBLA will walk through all those doors opened for them by their friends in the gay movement. A winning playbook.
> 
> 
> 
> And again, you school us about NAMBLA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or I utilize logic and assume they will go with proven legal strategies.
> 
> BTW, would love a response to my previous post to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one about bigamy, et al?  What is it about gay marriage that makes such things valid that we don't see in straight marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the one where I told you a little about me. After you read it, you'll never take me seriously again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making an assumption that we took you seriously in the first place.
Click to expand...


So you didn't read it. That's disappointing.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you gay, Jake?    Is Rightwinger your "partner"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh oh...somebody sounds jealous. Intellectual curiosity, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, but its funny that 98% of the supporters of gay marriage are gay.   Jealous????   not hardly.   sympathetic to sick people?  yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've made some ridiculous statements, but that's gotta be in the top 5.
> 
> Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The key to that poll lies in its opening statement ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> support for the law recognizing *same-sex marriages as legally valid*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which simply means they recognize the validity - had I myself been polled I would have polled in favor of its legal validity  - that doesn't mean they recognize its sanity - in addition the article title ....
> 
> *Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%*
> 
> cites a two year climb from 53 - 55%  - anybody who knows anything about statistics and polling is well aware that 2% is statistically insignificant
> 
> In addition , even f it were significant - which it is not  - any experiment or observation that involves drawing a sample from a population, there is always the possibility that an observed effect would have occurred due to sampling error alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually- anyone who knows statistics knows that you can't claim that that 2% is insignificant without looking at the statistics involved.
> 
> Gallup tells us the statistical margin of erro
> For results based on this sample of national
> adults, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.
> 
> So roughly speaking that range would be between 51% and 59% approval.
> 
> People like yourself tend to ignore statistics they don't like, claim statistics say something that they don't and then crow about statistics that they do like.
> 
> Right now support for 'gay marriage' is roughly where support was for mixed race marriages in about 1996.
> 
> And we know how that trend has continued.
Click to expand...


It's hard to believe those numbers when California voters approved of a ban on gay marriage by popular referendum. When it was struck down in court, they passed another referendum adding a ban to gay marriage to the California constitution.  Yeah, Blue State California.  Compare this to New York who pulled some shady tricks to pass gay marriage in the middle of the night before any opposition could be mounted to it.  And that was the legislature, not a popular movement, so they can hardly be seen as representing the people in doing that.  When it comes to the laws that are backed by popular support, gay marriage is trumped by those who want to preserve what real marriage is.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

JakeStarkey said:


> Yup, got nothing at all.  SCOTUS will rule this year in favor of marriage equality and not even consider your arguments.  Tough to be you, little buddy.



I'm guessing that your idea of SCOTUS ruling for "marriage equality" means striking down any law by which a state defines what marriage is.  I'm also guessing that the SC saying that states should decide this issue, which is the constitutional stance, would be "anti marriage equality" even though the SC didn't actually rule AGAINST gay marriage but instead FOR democracy.....which you people hate.

So the truth is, you crouching bigots and hidden morons don't want your ideas to prevail in the political arena, winning hearts and minds, you want to get your way through judicial fiat. 

That's just.....unamerican. 

But we already knew that about Leftists.


----------



## JakeStarkey

But even if the marriage equality crowd were not winning the popular opinion as it is, Jacksonian democratic majority does not govern civil rights.

The rest of America will not be governed by a hateful narrow-minded small minority from the far right.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

JakeStarkey said:


> But even if the marriage equality crowd were not winning the popular opinion as it is, Jacksonian democratic majority does not govern civil rights.
> 
> The rest of America will not be governed by a hateful narrow-minded small minority from the far right.



Sorry. You don't get to make up rights because people aren't voting for your agenda.  The fact you have to push your agenda on everyone through black robed tyrants says that you admit you're imposing your morality on Americans under the guise of "civil rights".

And isn't it you Leftwats who are always telling us not to impose our beliefs on others?

So like I said on the OP, on behalf of the American People, the U.S. Constitution, and all decency.....

Fuck you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Quit being a twit, twit.  No one is making you marry someone of your own sex.  No one is making your churches marry folks they don't want to.

You are trying to limit everyone us, and that has come to AN END.

The popularity opinion, which is in our corner, does not make it legal.  SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution does.

A small minority like you will not make us live your form of Christian heresy.


----------



## GreenBean

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh oh...somebody sounds jealous. Intellectual curiosity, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, but its funny that 98% of the supporters of gay marriage are gay.   Jealous????   not hardly.   sympathetic to sick people?  yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've made some ridiculous statements, but that's gotta be in the top 5.
> 
> Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The key to that poll lies in its opening statement ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> support for the law recognizing *same-sex marriages as legally valid*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which simply means they recognize the validity - had I myself been polled I would have polled in favor of its legal validity  - that doesn't mean they recognize its sanity - in addition the article title ....
> 
> *Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%*
> 
> cites a two year climb from 53 - 55%  - anybody who knows anything about statistics and polling is well aware that 2% is statistically insignificant
> 
> In addition , even f it were significant - which it is not  - any experiment or observation that involves drawing a sample from a population, there is always the possibility that an observed effect would have occurred due to sampling error alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually- anyone who knows statistics knows that you can't claim that that 2% is insignificant without looking at the statistics involved.
> 
> Gallup tells us the statistical margin of erro
> For results based on this sample of national
> adults, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.
> 
> So roughly speaking that range would be between 51% and 59% approval.
> 
> People like yourself tend to ignore statistics they don't like, claim statistics say something that they don't and then crow about statistics that they do like.
> 
> Right now support for 'gay marriage' is roughly where support was for mixed race marriages in about 1996.
> 
> And we know how that trend has continued.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hard to believe those numbers when California voters approved of a ban on gay marriage by popular referendum. When it was struck down in court, they passed another referendum adding a ban to gay marriage to the California constitution.  Yeah, Blue State California.  Compare this to New York who pulled some shady tricks to pass gay marriage in the middle of the night before any opposition could be mounted to it.  And that was the legislature, not a popular movement, so they can hardly be seen as representing the people in doing that.  When it comes to the laws that are backed by popular support, gay marriage is trumped by those who want to preserve what real marriage is.
Click to expand...





> It's hard to believe those numbers when California voters approved of a ban on gay marriage by popular referendum. When it was struck down in court, they passed another referendum adding a ban to gay marriage to the California constitution.



*Proposition 8*

As an example how low down, devious and isgusting these LGBT dirt bags are in reality - one need look mo further than Prop. 8 in California.

Following it's passage of the proposition by the California electorate, the gay mafia obtained donation lists of all who had supported it by contributing to the "Yes on 8" campaign, they published the list, organized an activism group, and began organizing boycotts of the supporters and their employers.

The harassment continues to this day, one its most recent victims was Brendan Eich former CEO of Mozilla who made a small donation to a group that supported banning Gay Marriage in California. The Gay Mafia and its foot soldiers latched onto this fact and attacked his company forcing him to resign in 2014. An earlier victim of this vicious and malicious harassment was aimed at *Scott Eckern. *

Eckern was the artistic director of the nonprofit California Musical Theatre, he too like Eich, was forced to resign after the Yes vote on Proposition 8 donation list revealed a $1,000 contribution he had made.


Nowhere was the wrath of the gods of gaydom felt more than in the entertainment Industry. Anybody from that pitiful sector who became associated with opposition to the Gay Community was targeted.

One such victim was *Richard Raddon *who was the director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, he was forced to resign in November 2008 after it was disclosed that he donated $1,500 towards Proposition 8. 

Alan Stock, CEO of Cinemark Theaters contributed $9,999 to the Yes on Prop. 8 campaign. The Sundance Film Festival, based in Utah became the target of calls for boycotts because they used theaters owned and operated by Stocks company.

Even employees of HOme Depot and ACe hardware working for peanuts found themselves harassed to no end by these vicious queers the "Ducky Boys"


Hollywood Gay Mafia


----------



## GreenBean

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But even if the marriage equality crowd were not winning the popular opinion as it is, Jacksonian democratic majority does not govern civil rights.
> 
> The rest of America will not be governed by a hateful narrow-minded small minority from the far right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry. You don't get to make up rights because people aren't voting for your agenda.  The fact you have to push your agenda on everyone through black robed tyrants says that you admit you're imposing your morality on Americans under the guise of "civil rights".
> 
> And isn't it you Leftwats who are always telling us not to impose our beliefs on others?
> 
> So like I said on the OP, on behalf of the American People, the U.S. Constitution, and all decency.....
> 
> Fuck you.
Click to expand...



St.Mike - I dunno if you're role playing or not ... if U R ... I like your style - good schtick - if not I still like your style


----------



## GreenBean

Kondor3 said:


> The homosexual dilemma...
> 
> Sterilization?
> 
> Lobotomy?
> 
> Chemical castration?
> 
> Spay and neuter?
> 
> Shock treatments?
> 
> Psychiatric commitment?
> 
> Exile to Queer Island?
> 
> Disinfectant by the 55-gallon drum -full?
> 
> So many choices... so little time.
> 
> What a dilemma !!!




AS MUCH AS i WOULD LIKE TO BE THE ONE ADMINISTERING THE SHOCK TREATMENT - ALAS -It doesn't work ...lmao... but  Conversion therapy aka reparative therapy is the choice of a kinder gentler nation.


----------



## JakeStarkey

stmike is being complimented by a guy I ran into ignore becau I caught him out lying.  Careful, stmike, GreenBeanSnow knows nothing.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh oh...somebody sounds jealous. Intellectual curiosity, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, but its funny that 98% of the supporters of gay marriage are gay.   Jealous????   not hardly.   sympathetic to sick people?  yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've made some ridiculous statements, but that's gotta be in the top 5.
> 
> Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The key to that poll lies in its opening statement ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> support for the law recognizing *same-sex marriages as legally valid*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which simply means they recognize the validity - had I myself been polled I would have polled in favor of its legal validity  - that doesn't mean they recognize its sanity - in addition the article title ....
> 
> *Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%*
> 
> cites a two year climb from 53 - 55%  - anybody who knows anything about statistics and polling is well aware that 2% is statistically insignificant
> 
> In addition , even f it were significant - which it is not  - any experiment or observation that involves drawing a sample from a population, there is always the possibility that an observed effect would have occurred due to sampling error alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually- anyone who knows statistics knows that you can't claim that that 2% is insignificant without looking at the statistics involved.
> 
> Gallup tells us the statistical margin of erro
> For results based on this sample of national
> adults, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.
> 
> So roughly speaking that range would be between 51% and 59% approval.
> 
> People like yourself tend to ignore statistics they don't like, claim statistics say something that they don't and then crow about statistics that they do like.
> 
> Right now support for 'gay marriage' is roughly where support was for mixed race marriages in about 1996.
> 
> And we know how that trend has continued.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hard to believe those numbers when California voters approved of a ban on gay marriage by popular referendum. When it was struck down in court, they passed another referendum adding a ban to gay marriage to the California constitution.  Yeah, Blue State California.  Compare this to New York who pulled some shady tricks to pass gay marriage in the middle of the night before any opposition could be mounted to it.  And that was the legislature, not a popular movement, so they can hardly be seen as representing the people in doing that.  When it comes to the laws that are backed by popular support, gay marriage is trumped by those who want to preserve what real marriage is.
Click to expand...


When did Alabama voters decide it was time to eliminate Alabama law against mixed race marriages? 2002- and it won by a whopping 59% of the vote.....meaning 41% of Alabama voters didn't think the law should be repealed.

What you are upset about is that there is a sea change in attitudes towards homosexuals and marriage in the United States- and you are more and more in the position of the Alabama voters who still reject mixed race marriages.

In 2012, Washington voters voted 54% to 46% to legalize same gender marriage. 
Also in 2012, Maine voters voted 52% to 46% to legalize same gender marriage.
Also in 2012, Maryland voters voted  52% to 48% to legalize same gender marriage.

What were the others results in 2012?
Minnsesota voters voted down  a ban on gay marriages- 53% to 47%

North Carolina was the only state that was able to get a majority of voters to vote against gay marriage in 2012.

No one believes that Prop 8 would pass in California today, no matter how much money the LDS poured into the State.

The times they are a changing. 

And those who oppose marriage equality for homosexual couples are being left behind like the couples that opposed marriage equality for mixed race couples.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The homosexual dilemma...
> 
> Sterilization?
> 
> Lobotomy?
> 
> Chemical castration?
> 
> Spay and neuter?
> 
> Shock treatments?
> 
> Psychiatric commitment?
> 
> Exile to Queer Island?
> 
> Disinfectant by the 55-gallon drum -full?
> 
> So many choices... so little time.
> 
> What a dilemma !!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AS MUCH AS i WOULD LIKE TO BE THE ONE ADMINISTERING THE SHOCK TREATMENT - ALAS -It doesn't work ...lmao... but  Conversion therapy aka reparative therapy is the choice of a kinder gentler nation.
Click to expand...


I still continue to be surprised that there are bigots who want to torture and 'bitch smack' Americans- simply because they can't tell the difference between serial killers and homosexuals.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, but its funny that 98% of the supporters of gay marriage are gay.   Jealous????   not hardly.   sympathetic to sick people?  yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've made some ridiculous statements, but that's gotta be in the top 5.
> 
> Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The key to that poll lies in its opening statement ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> support for the law recognizing *same-sex marriages as legally valid*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which simply means they recognize the validity - had I myself been polled I would have polled in favor of its legal validity  - that doesn't mean they recognize its sanity - in addition the article title ....
> 
> *Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%*
> 
> cites a two year climb from 53 - 55%  - anybody who knows anything about statistics and polling is well aware that 2% is statistically insignificant
> 
> In addition , even f it were significant - which it is not  - any experiment or observation that involves drawing a sample from a population, there is always the possibility that an observed effect would have occurred due to sampling error alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually- anyone who knows statistics knows that you can't claim that that 2% is insignificant without looking at the statistics involved.
> 
> Gallup tells us the statistical margin of erro
> For results based on this sample of national
> adults, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.
> 
> So roughly speaking that range would be between 51% and 59% approval.
> 
> People like yourself tend to ignore statistics they don't like, claim statistics say something that they don't and then crow about statistics that they do like.
> 
> Right now support for 'gay marriage' is roughly where support was for mixed race marriages in about 1996.
> 
> And we know how that trend has continued.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hard to believe those numbers when California voters approved of a ban on gay marriage by popular referendum. When it was struck down in court, they passed another referendum adding a ban to gay marriage to the California constitution.  Yeah, Blue State California.  Compare this to New York who pulled some shady tricks to pass gay marriage in the middle of the night before any opposition could be mounted to it.  And that was the legislature, not a popular movement, so they can hardly be seen as representing the people in doing that.  When it comes to the laws that are backed by popular support, gay marriage is trumped by those who want to preserve what real marriage is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to believe those numbers when California voters approved of a ban on gay marriage by popular referendum. When it was struck down in court, they passed another referendum adding a ban to gay marriage to the California constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Proposition 8*
> 
> As an example how low down, devious and isgusting these LGBT dirt bags are in reality - one need look mo further than Prop. 8 in California.
> 
> Following it's passage of the proposition by the California electorate, the gay mafia obtained donation lists
Click to expand...


Gay mafia.....lol......driving around in their pink cadillacs and their rainbow tommy guns.

Bigots are scared of the silliest things.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But even if the marriage equality crowd were not winning the popular opinion as it is, Jacksonian democratic majority does not govern civil rights.
> 
> The rest of America will not be governed by a hateful narrow-minded small minority from the far right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry. You don't get to make up rights because people aren't voting for your agenda.  The fact you have to push your agenda on everyone through black robed tyrants says that you.
Click to expand...


The fact that you consider judges to be 'black robed tyrants' just is one more example of how much you despise our Constitution.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, got nothing at all.  SCOTUS will rule this year in favor of marriage equality and not even consider your arguments.  Tough to be you, little buddy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing that your idea of SCOTUS ruling for "marriage equality" means striking down any law by which a state defines what marriage is.  .
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court has struck down State marriage laws as unconstitutional at least 3 times previously- were your panties in a wad then too?

Americans have the right to marriage- States can impose restrictions on rights- and just like prohibiting ex-felons from owning guns, states can restrict marriage, but just like restricting gun ownership- states must be able to demonstrate a compelling state interest that is achieved by denying those rights.

Simply saying that the States want to discriminate against homosexuals because it would make bigots happy is not a compelling state interest.


----------



## Seawytch

MaryL said:


> I am sorry, I just don't  see homosexuals as a discreet group that NEEDS any more protections than are already guaranteed by the constitution to all of us, anyway. And YES,  given that, people should be given leeway to accept or reject people on  sexual preference, because choice transcends petty sexual matters, and THAT should be the capitol issue. In my humble opinion, anyway...




And I'm not sorry that gays and lesbians fighting for and attaining rights and protections equal to heterosexuals causes consternation to bigots and homophobes.


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again, you school us about NAMBLA.
> 
> 
> 
> Or I utilize logic and assume they will go with proven legal strategies.
> 
> BTW, would love a response to my previous post to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one about bigamy, et al?  What is it about gay marriage that makes such things valid that we don't see in straight marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the one where I told you a little about me. After you read it, you'll never take me seriously again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making an assumption that we took you seriously in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you didn't read it. That's disappointing.
Click to expand...


I read it. It was meaningless. Racists always claim to have a black best friend. If you wish to deny gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage, you're an anti gay bigot regardless of your motivation.


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> It's hard to believe those numbers when California voters approved of a ban on gay marriage by popular referendum. When it was struck down in court, they passed another referendum adding a ban to gay marriage to the California constitution.  Yeah, Blue State California.  Compare this to New York who pulled some shady tricks to pass gay marriage in the middle of the night before any opposition could be mounted to it.  And that was the legislature, not a popular movement, so they can hardly be seen as representing the people in doing that.  When it comes to the laws that are backed by popular support, gay marriage is trumped by those who want to preserve what real marriage is.



You're just providing an excellent example of why we don't vote on people's civil rights. Loving v Virginia was in 1967.


----------



## Redfish

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to believe those numbers when California voters approved of a ban on gay marriage by popular referendum. When it was struck down in court, they passed another referendum adding a ban to gay marriage to the California constitution.  Yeah, Blue State California.  Compare this to New York who pulled some shady tricks to pass gay marriage in the middle of the night before any opposition could be mounted to it.  And that was the legislature, not a popular movement, so they can hardly be seen as representing the people in doing that.  When it comes to the laws that are backed by popular support, gay marriage is trumped by those who want to preserve what real marriage is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're just providing an excellent example of why we don't vote on people's civil rights. Loving v Virginia was in 1967.
Click to expand...

 

no matter how many times you say it,   race and sexual orientation are not the same.  

but since you brought up race,   are the following races:  hispanic, asian, arab, latino ?    Answer:   No.

second question:   would you support an affirmative action law for gays?

just trying to see where you really are on this.


----------



## Redfish

Seawytch said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry, I just don't  see homosexuals as a discreet group that NEEDS any more protections than are already guaranteed by the constitution to all of us, anyway. And YES,  given that, people should be given leeway to accept or reject people on  sexual preference, because choice transcends petty sexual matters, and THAT should be the capitol issue. In my humble opinion, anyway...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm not sorry that gays and lesbians fighting for and attaining rights and protections equal to heterosexuals causes consternation to bigots and homophobes.
Click to expand...

 

my wife had an aunt who was a lesbian, she outgrew it.   what will happen to your "marriage" when you or you partner outgrow it?


----------



## Kondor3

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry, I just don't  see homosexuals as a discreet group that NEEDS any more protections than are already guaranteed by the constitution to all of us, anyway. And YES,  given that, people should be given leeway to accept or reject people on  sexual preference, because choice transcends petty sexual matters, and THAT should be the capitol issue. In my humble opinion, anyway...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm not sorry that gays and lesbians fighting for and attaining rights and protections equal to heterosexuals causes consternation to bigots and homophobes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> my wife had an aunt who was a lesbian, she outgrew it.   what will happen to your "marriage" when you or you partner outgrow it?
Click to expand...

True.

Rather like a foolish cow thinking she is a bull, and trying to hump another cow.

Eventually, even a dumb cow figures it out.


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, but its funny that 98% of the supporters of gay marriage are gay.   Jealous????   not hardly.   sympathetic to sick people?  yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've made some ridiculous statements, but that's gotta be in the top 5.
> 
> Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The key to that poll lies in its opening statement ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> support for the law recognizing *same-sex marriages as legally valid*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which simply means they recognize the validity - had I myself been polled I would have polled in favor of its legal validity  - that doesn't mean they recognize its sanity - in addition the article title ....
> 
> *Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%*
> 
> cites a two year climb from 53 - 55%  - anybody who knows anything about statistics and polling is well aware that 2% is statistically insignificant
> 
> In addition , even f it were significant - which it is not  - any experiment or observation that involves drawing a sample from a population, there is always the possibility that an observed effect would have occurred due to sampling error alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually- anyone who knows statistics knows that you can't claim that that 2% is insignificant without looking at the statistics involved.
> 
> Gallup tells us the statistical margin of erro
> For results based on this sample of national
> adults, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.
> 
> So roughly speaking that range would be between 51% and 59% approval.
> 
> People like yourself tend to ignore statistics they don't like, claim statistics say something that they don't and then crow about statistics that they do like.
> 
> Right now support for 'gay marriage' is roughly where support was for mixed race marriages in about 1996.
> 
> And we know how that trend has continued.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hard to believe those numbers when California voters approved of a ban on gay marriage by popular referendum. When it was struck down in court, they passed another referendum adding a ban to gay marriage to the California constitution.  Yeah, Blue State California.  Compare this to New York who pulled some shady tricks to pass gay marriage in the middle of the night before any opposition could be mounted to it.  And that was the legislature, not a popular movement, so they canhardly be seen as representing the people in doing that.  When it comes to the laws that are backed by popular support, gay marriage is trumped by those who want to preserve what real marriage is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did Alabama voters decide it was time to eliminate Alabama law against mixed race marriages? 2002- and it won by a whopping 59% of the vote.....meaning 41% of Alabama voters didn't think the law should be repealed.
> 
> What you are upset about is that there is a sea change in attitudes towards homosexuals and marriage in the United States- and you are more and more in the position of the Alabama voters who still reject mixed race marriages.
> 
> In 2012, Washington voters voted 54% to 46% to legalize same gender marriage.
> Also in 2012, Maine voters voted 52% to 46% to legalize same gender marriage.
> Also in 2012, Maryland voters voted  52% to 48% to legalize same gender marriage.
> 
> What were the others results in 2012?
> Minnsesota voters voted down  a ban on gay marriages- 53% to 47%
> 
> North Carolina was the only state that was able to get a majority of voters to vote against gay marriage in 2012.
> 
> No one believes that Prop 8 would pass in California today, no matter how much money the LDS poured into the State.
> 
> The times they are a changing.
> 
> And those who oppose marriage equality for homosexual couples are being left behind like the couples that opposed marriage equality for mixed race couples.
Click to expand...


Pathetic queer Imbeciles trying to steal the wind from the sails of Civil Rights - Hey faggot - Sexual Dementia and societal perversion are not a Civil Right - douche bag.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or I utilize logic and assume they will go with proven legal strategies.
> 
> BTW, would love a response to my previous post to you.
> 
> 
> 
> The one about bigamy, et al?  What is it about gay marriage that makes such things valid that we don't see in straight marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the one where I told you a little about me. After you read it, you'll never take me seriously again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making an assumption that we took you seriously in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you didn't read it. That's disappointing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read it. It was meaningless. Racists always claim to have a black best friend. If you wish to deny gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage, you're an anti gay bigot regardless of your motivation.
Click to expand...



Got it.  Then what you say about your personal life will be as meaningless to me too, and as mendacious too.  Perhaps you made up the kids you have, perhaps your whole world is just a fantasy.  I truly threw pearls before swine with you.

My personal policy is to believe everything people say about themselves on the net unless there's strong evidence to reject it.  Because this is the internet, people can tell the truth or they can lie and there's really no way to confirm either way, so out of virtue, I presume the best about people; a virtue you clearly lack.

I'm sorry I shared all that with you, you clearly proved yourself to be a troll.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to believe those numbers when California voters approved of a ban on gay marriage by popular referendum. When it was struck down in court, they passed another referendum adding a ban to gay marriage to the California constitution.  Yeah, Blue State California.  Compare this to New York who pulled some shady tricks to pass gay marriage in the middle of the night before any opposition could be mounted to it.  And that was the legislature, not a popular movement, so they can hardly be seen as representing the people in doing that.  When it comes to the laws that are backed by popular support, gay marriage is trumped by those who want to preserve what real marriage is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're just providing an excellent example of why we don't vote on people's civil rights. Loving v Virginia was in 1967.
Click to expand...


Calling it a "civil right" over and over again doesn't make it so...unless you're silly enough to believe that repetition has the power to turn a lie into truth.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But even if the marriage equality crowd were not winning the popular opinion as it is, Jacksonian democratic majority does not govern civil rights.
> 
> The rest of America will not be governed by a hateful narrow-minded small minority from the far right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry. You don't get to make up rights because people aren't voting for your agenda.  The fact you have to push your agenda on everyone through black robed tyrants says that you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you consider judges to be 'black robed tyrants' just is one more example of how much you despise our Constitution.
Click to expand...


You're an idiot if you think that my contempt for judges that pervert the Constitution is despising the Constitution.  In fact, it would indicate quite the opposite to anyone with even a trace of intelligence.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

GreenBean said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But even if the marriage equality crowd were not winning the popular opinion as it is, Jacksonian democratic majority does not govern civil rights.
> 
> The rest of America will not be governed by a hateful narrow-minded small minority from the far right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry. You don't get to make up rights because people aren't voting for your agenda.  The fact you have to push your agenda on everyone through black robed tyrants says that you admit you're imposing your morality on Americans under the guise of "civil rights".
> 
> And isn't it you Leftwats who are always telling us not to impose our beliefs on others?
> 
> So like I said on the OP, on behalf of the American People, the U.S. Constitution, and all decency.....
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> St.Mike - I dunno if you're role playing or not ... if U R ... I like your style - good schtick - if not I still like your style
Click to expand...


Saintmichaeldefendthem has been around on a lot of forums for several years.  With a little research, you'll find I've been consistently conservative.  I don't know what game Silhouette is playing or for what reason, but I'm the real deal. I don't know what I did to deserve the friendly fire from him.


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you laughing because you can almost taste being a one-trick pony?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm laughing because Left-think is the perspective of the irrationally subjective female, thus as with all comedy, it's funny, because it's true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are highly concerned with subjective females.  Says a lot about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it?
> 
> LOL!  OK...
> 
> Pray tell, what does it say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You couldn't take it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So...  Ya got nuttin'?
> 
> Color me *SHOCKED!*
Click to expand...


I would most definitely color you yellow to match the streak down your back.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Lilah said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm laughing because Left-think is the perspective of the irrationally subjective female, thus as with all comedy, it's funny, because it's true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are highly concerned with subjective females.  Says a lot about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it?
> 
> LOL!  OK...
> 
> Pray tell, what does it say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You couldn't take it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So...  Ya got nuttin'?
> 
> Color me *SHOCKED!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would most definitely color you yellow.
Click to expand...


Ooh...kinky!

Color-paint sexual foreplay is something my wife and I haven't done for years, but you got my imagination firing on all cylinders. Thank you so much.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to believe those numbers when California voters approved of a ban on gay marriage by popular referendum. When it was struck down in court, they passed another referendum adding a ban to gay marriage to the California constitution.  Yeah, Blue State California.  Compare this to New York who pulled some shady tricks to pass gay marriage in the middle of the night before any opposition could be mounted to it.  And that was the legislature, not a popular movement, so they can hardly be seen as representing the people in doing that.  When it comes to the laws that are backed by popular support, gay marriage is trumped by those who want to preserve what real marriage is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're just providing an excellent example of why we don't vote on people's civil rights. Loving v Virginia was in 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no matter how many times you say it,   race and sexual orientation are not the same.
> 
> but since you brought up race,   are the following races:  hispanic, asian, arab, latino ?    Answer:   No.
> 
> second question:   would you support an affirmative action law for gays?
> 
> just trying to see where you really are on this.
Click to expand...

Redfish's meaningless babble.  Marriage Equality is almost here.  There is no homosexual dilemma at all.


----------



## JakeStarkey

stmike's been this, done that on the net, he is the real deal.  So he says.  No, he is not, and obviously no one can trust him.  He is out only for himself.

Once again, stmike, you suffer no harm from marriage equality, none.


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to believe those numbers when California voters approved of a ban on gay marriage by popular referendum. When it was struck down in court, they passed another referendum adding a ban to gay marriage to the California constitution.  Yeah, Blue State California.  Compare this to New York who pulled some shady tricks to pass gay marriage in the middle of the night before any opposition could be mounted to it.  And that was the legislature, not a popular movement, so they can hardly be seen as representing the people in doing that.  When it comes to the laws that are backed by popular support, gay marriage is trumped by those who want to preserve what real marriage is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're just providing an excellent example of why we don't vote on people's civil rights. Loving v Virginia was in 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no matter how many times you say it,   race and sexual orientation are not the same.
> 
> but since you brought up race,   are the following races:  hispanic, asian, arab, latino ?    Answer:   No.
> 
> second question:   would you support an affirmative action law for gays?
> 
> just trying to see where you really are on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Redfish's meaningless babble.  Marriage Equality is almost here.  There is no homosexual dilemma at all.
Click to expand...

 

marriage equality has always been here.   if you are a man you can marry any woman who will say yes.

homosexuality is an aberation of the human condition, it is a mental unbalance, it is an illness.  It is not normal. 

Gays should be treated equally and fairly, just as people with bipolar disorders should be treated equally and fairly.


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> stmike's been this, done that on the net, he is the real deal.  So he says.  No, he is not, and obviously no one can trust him.  He is out only for himself.
> 
> Once again, stmike, you suffer no harm from marriage equality, none.


 

society suffers, so every member of society suffers.   legalizing perversion will destroy a society.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Nope, butt nugget, that is not marriage equality, and, no, society suffers not at all.

Your definitions of homosexuality are meaningless.

You are the one who needs treatment.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

JakeStarkey said:


> stmike's been this, done that on the net, he is the real deal.  So he says.  No, he is not, and obviously no one can trust him.  He is out only for himself.
> 
> Once again, stmike, you suffer no harm from marriage equality, none.



Oh, good. For a moment there I thought you forgot what we were discussing.

Senior moment.

Marriage equality existed before gay marriage.  You can't prove discrimination where none existed.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Your misdefinition of marriage equality is meaningless to the growing majority of Americans, the same as racial discrimination and segregation fifty and sixty years ago.


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> Your misdefinition of marriage equality is meaningless to the growing majority of Americans, the same as racial discrimination and segregation fifty and sixty years ago.


 

being black is a normal human condition.   being homosexual is not.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

JakeStarkey said:


> Your misdefinition of marriage equality is meaningless to the growing majority of Americans, the same as racial discrimination and segregation fifty and sixty years ago.



race has nothing to do with lifestyle choice.  Screaming that it does over and over doesn't change that fact. People can be judged by how they choose to live and should.  Often.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your misdefinition of marriage equality is meaningless to the growing majority of Americans, the same as racial discrimination and segregation fifty and sixty years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> being black is a normal human condition.   being homosexual is not.
Click to expand...

You are entirely wrong.  They are gay like you are not, in nearly all cases.  Only a few make a conscious choice.  The science, and human history, is clear but your ideology is junk.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Discrimination against race in law remains pertinent as does exclusion of marriage equality.

That the far right social cons do not accept such is risible.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your misdefinition of marriage equality is meaningless to the growing majority of Americans, the same as racial discrimination and segregation fifty and sixty years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> race has nothing to do with lifestyle choice.  Screaming that it does over and over doesn't change that fact. People can be judged by how they choose to live and should.  Often.
Click to expand...

Sorry to have to be the one to tell you this Chief Sellout, but people are born black, and white, and gay, and straight, and smart and stupid.  That's just life on this rock.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

JakeStarkey said:


> Discrimination against race in law remains pertinent as does exclusion of marriage equality.
> 
> That the far right social cons do not accept such is risible.


Reality is not to their liking, and never has been.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The sillies think shouting the nonsense and Benghazi and Ebola means something in this discussion.

Nope.

Marriage Equality is here to stay.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

JakeStarkey said:


> Marriage Equality is here to stay.


Yes it is.  They need to move to Jesusland since this nation is not for them.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jesusland is able to co-exist with the militant atheist nutters, so I imagine it will handle the social con far right nutters without any difficulty.  America is for everyone but mad dogs, as I am afraid some of our blood thirsty religious and atheist folks are going to find out to their eternal distress.


----------



## GreenBean

Lilah said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm laughing because Left-think is the perspective of the irrationally subjective female, thus as with all comedy, it's funny, because it's true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are highly concerned with subjective females.  Says a lot about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it?
> 
> LOL!  OK...
> 
> Pray tell, what does it say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You couldn't take it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So...  Ya got nuttin'?
> 
> Color me *SHOCKED!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would most definitely color you yellow to match the streak down your back.
Click to expand...

It takes a lot of courage to stand up to the Fag Militia -it doesn't take much to run with the perverted pack - which is basically all you're doing -


----------



## GreenBean

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> stmike's been this, done that on the net, he is the real deal.  So he says.  No, he is not, and obviously no one can trust him.  He is out only for himself.
> 
> Once again, stmike, you suffer no harm from marriage equality, none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, good. For a moment there I thought you forgot what we were discussing.
> 
> Senior moment.
> 
> Marriage equality existed before gay marriage.  You can't prove discrimination where none existed.
Click to expand...

I only have 2 people on ignore Jake Malarkey and Paintmyhouse my guess is you're replying to one of them - Paintmyhouse you've prob. got on ignore already - Jake is only a half step ahead of him so far as intelligence goes - May I suggest don't waste your time ?


----------



## JakeStarkey

GreenBean said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are highly concerned with subjective females.  Says a lot about you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it?
> 
> LOL!  OK...
> 
> Pray tell, what does it say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You couldn't take it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So...  Ya got nuttin'?
> 
> Color me *SHOCKED!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would most definitely color you yellow to match the streak down your back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It takes a lot of courage to stand up to the Fag Militia -it doesn't take much to run with the perverted pack - which is basically all you're doing -
Click to expand...


Greenbean is one of the curs in the perverted pack quirted into snarling retreat.  We will do it every time they raise their collective head.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

GreenBean said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> stmike's been this, done that on the net, he is the real deal.  So he says.  No, he is not, and obviously no one can trust him.  He is out only for himself.
> 
> Once again, stmike, you suffer no harm from marriage equality, none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, good. For a moment there I thought you forgot what we were discussing.
> 
> Senior moment.
> 
> Marriage equality existed before gay marriage.  You can't prove discrimination where none existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I only have 2 people on ignore Jake Malarkey and Paintmyhouse my guess is you're replying to one of them - Paintmyhouse you've prob. got on ignore already - Jake is only a half step ahead of him so far as intelligence goes - May I suggest don't waste your time ?
Click to expand...


Sage advice. He's going on ignore now.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Good, two have been quirted down.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> stmike's been this, done that on the net, he is the real deal.  So he says.  No, he is not, and obviously no one can trust him.  He is out only for himself.
> 
> Once again, stmike, you suffer no harm from marriage equality, none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, good. For a moment there I thought you forgot what we were discussing.
> 
> Senior moment.
> 
> Marriage equality existed before gay marriage.  You can't prove discrimination where none existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I only have 2 people on ignore Jake Malarkey and Paintmyhouse my guess is you're replying to one of them - Paintmyhouse you've prob. got on ignore already - Jake is only a half step ahead of him so far as intelligence goes - May I suggest don't waste your time ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sage advice. He's going on ignore now.
Click to expand...

Real men don't use the ignore button you pussies, but then again, you aren't real men.  Give me your addresses and I'll send you both a free box of tampons.

Those two are both bigger faggots than the ones they fear.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

GreenBean said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> stmike's been this, done that on the net, he is the real deal.  So he says.  No, he is not, and obviously no one can trust him.  He is out only for himself.
> 
> Once again, stmike, you suffer no harm from marriage equality, none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, good. For a moment there I thought you forgot what we were discussing.
> 
> Senior moment.
> 
> Marriage equality existed before gay marriage.  You can't prove discrimination where none existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I only have 2 people on ignore Jake Malarkey and Paintmyhouse my guess is you're replying to one of them - Paintmyhouse you've prob. got on ignore already - Jake is only a half step ahead of him so far as intelligence goes - May I suggest don't waste your time ?
Click to expand...


LOL!  I've got close to 40 on ignore... life is simply too short.

Jake is just a waste of skin; she is literally dumber than a bag of sand.  Paintmyhouse is several notches up, with intelligence closer to that common to a dung beetle... rolling the same crap around, over and over.  By comparison PMH is an off the scale genius.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Lilah said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm laughing because Left-think is the perspective of the irrationally subjective female, thus as with all comedy, it's funny, because it's true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are highly concerned with subjective females.  Says a lot about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it?
> 
> LOL!  OK...
> 
> Pray tell, what does it say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You couldn't take it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So...  Ya got nuttin'?
> 
> Color me *SHOCKED!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would most definitely color you yellow to match the streak down your back.
Click to expand...


So, I've a yellow streak down my back?  

Really?

Now, specifically, you're basing that on what?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> stmike's been this, done that on the net, he is the real deal.  So he says.  No, he is not, and obviously no one can trust him.  He is out only for himself.
> 
> Once again, stmike, you suffer no harm from marriage equality, none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, good. For a moment there I thought you forgot what we were discussing.
> 
> Senior moment.
> 
> Marriage equality existed before gay marriage.  You can't prove discrimination where none existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I only have 2 people on ignore Jake Malarkey and Paintmyhouse my guess is you're replying to one of them - Paintmyhouse you've prob. got on ignore already - Jake is only a half step ahead of him so far as intelligence goes - May I suggest don't waste your time ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  I've got close to 40 on ignore... life is simply too short.
> 
> Jake is just a waste of skin; she is literally dumber than a bag of sand.  Paintmyhouse is several notches up, with intelligence closer to that common to a dung beetle... rolling the same crap around, over and over.  By comparison PMH is an off the scale genius.
Click to expand...


Which just goes to show you how useless grading on a curve is.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

PaintMyHouse said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> stmike's been this, done that on the net, he is the real deal.  So he says.  No, he is not, and obviously no one can trust him.  He is out only for himself.
> 
> Once again, stmike, you suffer no harm from marriage equality, none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, good. For a moment there I thought you forgot what we were discussing.
> 
> Senior moment.
> 
> Marriage equality existed before gay marriage.  You can't prove discrimination where none existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I only have 2 people on ignore Jake Malarkey and Paintmyhouse my guess is you're replying to one of them - Paintmyhouse you've prob. got on ignore already - Jake is only a half step ahead of him so far as intelligence goes - May I suggest don't waste your time ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sage advice. He's going on ignore now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Real men don't use the ignore button you pussies, but then again, you aren't real men.  Give me your addresses and I'll send you both a free box of tampons.
Click to expand...




Where_r_my_Keys said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> stmike's been this, done that on the net, he is the real deal.  So he says.  No, he is not, and obviously no one can trust him.  He is out only for himself.
> 
> Once again, stmike, you suffer no harm from marriage equality, none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, good. For a moment there I thought you forgot what we were discussing.
> 
> Senior moment.
> 
> Marriage equality existed before gay marriage.  You can't prove discrimination where none existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I only have 2 people on ignore Jake Malarkey and Paintmyhouse my guess is you're replying to one of them - Paintmyhouse you've prob. got on ignore already - Jake is only a half step ahead of him so far as intelligence goes - May I suggest don't waste your time ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  I've got close to 40 on ignore... life is simply too short.
Click to expand...

For you, a case of tampons.  What a pussy.


----------



## Seawytch

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry, I just don't  see homosexuals as a discreet group that NEEDS any more protections than are already guaranteed by the constitution to all of us, anyway. And YES,  given that, people should be given leeway to accept or reject people on  sexual preference, because choice transcends petty sexual matters, and THAT should be the capitol issue. In my humble opinion, anyway...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm not sorry that gays and lesbians fighting for and attaining rights and protections equal to heterosexuals causes consternation to bigots and homophobes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> my wife had an aunt who was a lesbian, she outgrew it.   what will happen to your "marriage" when you or you partner outgrow it?
Click to expand...


I've been a lesbian for over 40 years and with my spouse for 20. I think we'll be okay. Your concern is touching.


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to believe those numbers when California voters approved of a ban on gay marriage by popular referendum. When it was struck down in court, they passed another referendum adding a ban to gay marriage to the California constitution.  Yeah, Blue State California.  Compare this to New York who pulled some shady tricks to pass gay marriage in the middle of the night before any opposition could be mounted to it.  And that was the legislature, not a popular movement, so they can hardly be seen as representing the people in doing that.  When it comes to the laws that are backed by popular support, gay marriage is trumped by those who want to preserve what real marriage is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're just providing an excellent example of why we don't vote on people's civil rights. Loving v Virginia was in 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling it a "civil right" over and over again doesn't make it so...unless you're silly enough to believe that repetition has the power to turn a lie into truth.
Click to expand...



And yet, oddly, court after court is agreeing with me and not you, aren't they?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Now we know quirting down the snarling and cowardlysocial con pack simply makes them put their betters on Ignore because they can't handle the correc tion


----------



## Syriusly

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to believe those numbers when California voters approved of a ban on gay marriage by popular referendum. When it was struck down in court, they passed another referendum adding a ban to gay marriage to the California constitution.  Yeah, Blue State California.  Compare this to New York who pulled some shady tricks to pass gay marriage in the middle of the night before any opposition could be mounted to it.  And that was the legislature, not a popular movement, so they can hardly be seen as representing the people in doing that.  When it comes to the laws that are backed by popular support, gay marriage is trumped by those who want to preserve what real marriage is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're just providing an excellent example of why we don't vote on people's civil rights. Loving v Virginia was in 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no matter how many times you say it,   race and sexual orientation are not the same.
> .
Click to expand...


Of course not- neither are race and religion or religion and gender.

But bigotry is all the same. 

Whether it is bigotry based on race, or religion, or sexual orientation or on gender or on national origin.

All bigots- the only difference between them is the flavor of humans they want to stir up hatred towards.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to believe those numbers when California voters approved of a ban on gay marriage by popular referendum. When it was struck down in court, they passed another referendum adding a ban to gay marriage to the California constitution.  Yeah, Blue State California.  Compare this to New York who pulled some shady tricks to pass gay marriage in the middle of the night before any opposition could be mounted to it.  And that was the legislature, not a popular movement, so they can hardly be seen as representing the people in doing that.  When it comes to the laws that are backed by popular support, gay marriage is trumped by those who want to preserve what real marriage is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're just providing an excellent example of why we don't vote on people's civil rights. Loving v Virginia was in 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling it a "civil right" over and over again doesn't make it so...unless you're silly enough to believe that repetition has the power to turn a lie into truth.
Click to expand...



Marriage is absolutely a right. 

Claiming over and over again it is not- in the face of evidence that contradicts you is just idiotic.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've made some ridiculous statements, but that's gotta be in the top 5.
> 
> Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The key to that poll lies in its opening statement ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> support for the law recognizing *same-sex marriages as legally valid*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which simply means they recognize the validity - had I myself been polled I would have polled in favor of its legal validity  - that doesn't mean they recognize its sanity - in addition the article title ....
> 
> *Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%*
> 
> cites a two year climb from 53 - 55%  - anybody who knows anything about statistics and polling is well aware that 2% is statistically insignificant
> 
> In addition , even f it were significant - which it is not  - any experiment or observation that involves drawing a sample from a population, there is always the possibility that an observed effect would have occurred due to sampling error alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually- anyone who knows statistics knows that you can't claim that that 2% is insignificant without looking at the statistics involved.
> 
> Gallup tells us the statistical margin of erro
> For results based on this sample of national
> adults, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.
> 
> So roughly speaking that range would be between 51% and 59% approval.
> 
> People like yourself tend to ignore statistics they don't like, claim statistics say something that they don't and then crow about statistics that they do like.
> 
> Right now support for 'gay marriage' is roughly where support was for mixed race marriages in about 1996.
> 
> And we know how that trend has continued.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hard to believe those numbers when California voters approved of a ban on gay marriage by popular referendum. When it was struck down in court, they passed another referendum adding a ban to gay marriage to the California constitution.  Yeah, Blue State California.  Compare this to New York who pulled some shady tricks to pass gay marriage in the middle of the night before any opposition could be mounted to it.  And that was the legislature, not a popular movement, so they canhardly be seen as representing the people in doing that.  When it comes to the laws that are backed by popular support, gay marriage is trumped by those who want to preserve what real marriage is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did Alabama voters decide it was time to eliminate Alabama law against mixed race marriages? 2002- and it won by a whopping 59% of the vote.....meaning 41% of Alabama voters didn't think the law should be repealed.
> 
> What you are upset about is that there is a sea change in attitudes towards homosexuals and marriage in the United States- and you are more and more in the position of the Alabama voters who still reject mixed race marriages.
> 
> In 2012, Washington voters voted 54% to 46% to legalize same gender marriage.
> Also in 2012, Maine voters voted 52% to 46% to legalize same gender marriage.
> Also in 2012, Maryland voters voted  52% to 48% to legalize same gender marriage.
> 
> What were the others results in 2012?
> Minnsesota voters voted down  a ban on gay marriages- 53% to 47%
> 
> North Carolina was the only state that was able to get a majority of voters to vote against gay marriage in 2012.
> 
> No one believes that Prop 8 would pass in California today, no matter how much money the LDS poured into the State.
> 
> The times they are a changing.
> 
> And those who oppose marriage equality for homosexual couples are being left behind like the couples that opposed marriage equality for mixed race couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pathetic queer Imbeciles trying to steal the wind from the sails of Civil Rights - Hey faggot - Sexual Dementia and societal perversion are not a Civil Right - douche bag.
Click to expand...


Pathetic bigot haters- the only difference between you  and the guy waving a KKK sign is the flavor of human you choose to hate. I think I found a photo of you





Meanwhile

When did Alabama voters decide it was time to eliminate Alabama law against mixed race marriages? 2002- and it won by a whopping 59% of the vote.....meaning 41% of Alabama voters didn't think the law should be repealed.

What you are upset about is that there is a sea change in attitudes towards homosexuals and marriage in the United States- and you are more and more in the position of the Alabama voters who still reject mixed race marriages.

In 2012, Washington voters voted 54% to 46% to legalize same gender marriage.
Also in 2012, Maine voters voted 52% to 46% to legalize same gender marriage.
Also in 2012, Maryland voters voted 52% to 48% to legalize same gender marriage.

What were the others results in 2012?
Minnsesota voters voted down a ban on gay marriages- 53% to 47%

North Carolina was the only state that was able to get a majority of voters to vote against gay marriage in 2012.

No one believes that Prop 8 would pass in California today, no matter how much money the LDS poured into the State.

The times they are a changing.

And those who oppose marriage equality for homosexual couples are being left behind like the couples that opposed marriage equality for mixed race couples.


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The key to that poll lies in its opening statement ...
> 
> Which simply means they recognize the validity - had I myself been polled I would have polled in favor of its legal validity  - that doesn't mean they recognize its sanity - in addition the article title ....
> 
> *Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%*
> 
> cites a two year climb from 53 - 55%  - anybody who knows anything about statistics and polling is well aware that 2% is statistically insignificant
> 
> In addition , even f it were significant - which it is not  - any experiment or observation that involves drawing a sample from a population, there is always the possibility that an observed effect would have occurred due to sampling error alone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually- anyone who knows statistics knows that you can't claim that that 2% is insignificant without looking at the statistics involved.
> 
> Gallup tells us the statistical margin of erro
> For results based on this sample of national
> adults, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.
> 
> So roughly speaking that range would be between 51% and 59% approval.
> 
> People like yourself tend to ignore statistics they don't like, claim statistics say something that they don't and then crow about statistics that they do like.
> 
> Right now support for 'gay marriage' is roughly where support was for mixed race marriages in about 1996.
> 
> And we know how that trend has continued.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hard to believe those numbers when California voters approved of a ban on gay marriage by popular referendum. When it was struck down in court, they passed another referendum adding a ban to gay marriage to the California constitution.  Yeah, Blue State California.  Compare this to New York who pulled some shady tricks to pass gay marriage in the middle of the night before any opposition could be mounted to it.  And that was the legislature, not a popular movement, so they canhardly be seen as representing the people in doing that.  When it comes to the laws that are backed by popular support, gay marriage is trumped by those who want to preserve what real marriage is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did Alabama voters decide it was time to eliminate Alabama law against mixed race marriages? 2002- and it won by a whopping 59% of the vote.....meaning 41% of Alabama voters didn't think the law should be repealed.
> 
> What you are upset about is that there is a sea change in attitudes towards homosexuals and marriage in the United States- and you are more and more in the position of the Alabama voters who still reject mixed race marriages.
> 
> In 2012, Washington voters voted 54% to 46% to legalize same gender marriage.
> Also in 2012, Maine voters voted 52% to 46% to legalize same gender marriage.
> Also in 2012, Maryland voters voted  52% to 48% to legalize same gender marriage.
> 
> What were the others results in 2012?
> Minnsesota voters voted down  a ban on gay marriages- 53% to 47%
> 
> North Carolina was the only state that was able to get a majority of voters to vote against gay marriage in 2012.
> 
> No one believes that Prop 8 would pass in California today, no matter how much money the LDS poured into the State.
> 
> The times they are a changing.
> 
> And those who oppose marriage equality for homosexual couples are being left behind like the couples that opposed marriage equality for mixed race couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pathetic queer Imbeciles trying to steal the wind from the sails of Civil Rights - Hey faggot - Sexual Dementia and societal perversion are not a Civil Right - douche bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pathetic bigot haters- the only difference between you  and the guy waving a KKK sign is the flavor of human you choose to hate. I think I found a photo of you
> 
> View attachment 35815
> 
> Meanwhile
> 
> When did Alabama voters decide it was time to eliminate Alabama law against mixed race marriages? 2002- and it won by a whopping 59% of the vote.....meaning 41% of Alabama voters didn't think the law should be repealed.
> 
> What you are upset about is that there is a sea change in attitudes towards homosexuals and marriage in the United States- and you are more and more in the position of the Alabama voters who still reject mixed race marriages.
> 
> In 2012, Washington voters voted 54% to 46% to legalize same gender marriage.
> Also in 2012, Maine voters voted 52% to 46% to legalize same gender marriage.
> Also in 2012, Maryland voters voted 52% to 48% to legalize same gender marriage.
> 
> What were the others results in 2012?
> Minnsesota voters voted down a ban on gay marriages- 53% to 47%
> 
> North Carolina was the only state that was able to get a majority of voters to vote against gay marriage in 2012.
> 
> No one believes that Prop 8 would pass in California today, no matter how much money the LDS poured into the State.
> 
> The times they are a changing.
> 
> And those who oppose marriage equality for homosexual couples are being left behind like the couples that opposed marriage equality for mixed race couples.
Click to expand...


----------



## GreenBean

> The times they are a changing.



Just as predicted by the architects of the Gay Agenda
What they didn't account for was the backlash ... every wave starts with a ripple - can you feel the ripple ?  Best hold onto your seat bitch - the tidal wave isn't far off.....

As predicted by Kirk and Madsen ...

Homosexual propaganda has been around for many years, the spark that ignited their present day stranglehold however was a After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's





 **by Marshall Kirk, a researcher in neuropsychiatry and Hunter Madsen.

This powerfully persuasive, perverse and popular book within the gay community presents an impassioned plea, a call to arms if you will for homosexual activists to implement an aggressive, concerted and organized campaign to mold public perceptions. The  book further lays out a blueprint, a methodology that has been rigidly implemented and enforced over the past 2 decades .  Their rationalization for launching such a campaign is that people who do not agree with, or adhere to the Gay Agenda are "bigots, haters, or ignorants". The book further attempts to justify gay activists use of unscrupulous tactics , mass deceit, brainwashing, lying and malicious slander, blackmail, intimidation and violence. Kirk and Madsens book states the following ....


"All sexual morality should be abolished" (pages 64 to 67)


Homosexual agenda can succeed by "jamming" and "confusing" adversaries, so as to block or counteract the "rewarding of prejudice" (page 153);


All opposing disagreements to homosexual behavior is rooted in "Homophobia, Homohatred, and Prejudice" (page 112)


A media campaign should portray only the most favorable side of gays (page 170);


 Discourage anti-gay harassment by linking and calling all those that have opposing opinions to latent homosexuality (i.e., call people homophobic) (page 227)


It is acceptable to call people "Homophobic" or "Haters" if they do not agree 100% with the gay agenda views, opinions, or behavior. (page 23)

Gay and Lesbian Media influences


----------



## JakeStarkey

"... every wave starts with a ripple - can you feel the ripple ? Best hold onto your seat bitch - the tidal wave isn't far off....."

Threat of violence?  That's all you got.  We will deal with you as we dealt with the Klan.


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> Marriage is absolutely a right.


Marriage is a RITE not a right - its also a privilege to be Right - one you will never enjoy - RIGHT ?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is absolutely a right.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is a RITE not a right - its also a privilege to be Right - one you will never enjoy - RIGHT ?
Click to expand...

Tell us GB, now that you've lost what are you going to do?


----------



## bodecea

GreenBean said:


> The times they are a changing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as predicted by the architects of the Gay Agenda
> What they didn't account for was the backlash ... every wave starts with a ripple - can you feel the ripple ?  Best hold onto your seat bitch - the tidal wave isn't far off.....
> 
> As predicted by Kirk and Madsen ...
> 
> Homosexual propaganda has been around for many years, the spark that ignited their present day stranglehold however was a After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **by Marshall Kirk, a researcher in neuropsychiatry and Hunter Madsen.
> 
> This powerfully persuasive, perverse and popular book within the gay community presents an impassioned plea, a call to arms if you will for homosexual activists to implement an aggressive, concerted and organized campaign to mold public perceptions. The  book further lays out a blueprint, a methodology that has been rigidly implemented and enforced over the past 2 decades .  Their rationalization for launching such a campaign is that people who do not agree with, or adhere to the Gay Agenda are "bigots, haters, or ignorants". The book further attempts to justify gay activists use of unscrupulous tactics , mass deceit, brainwashing, lying and malicious slander, blackmail, intimidation and violence. Kirk and Madsens book states the following ....
> 
> 
> "All sexual morality should be abolished" (pages 64 to 67)
> 
> 
> Homosexual agenda can succeed by "jamming" and "confusing" adversaries, so as to block or counteract the "rewarding of prejudice" (page 153);
> 
> 
> All opposing disagreements to homosexual behavior is rooted in "Homophobia, Homohatred, and Prejudice" (page 112)
> 
> 
> A media campaign should portray only the most favorable side of gays (page 170);
> 
> 
> Discourage anti-gay harassment by linking and calling all those that have opposing opinions to latent homosexuality (i.e., call people homophobic) (page 227)
> 
> 
> It is acceptable to call people "Homophobic" or "Haters" if they do not agree 100% with the gay agenda views, opinions, or behavior. (page 23)
> Gay and Lesbian Media influences
Click to expand...

You're on the side of the Reactionary Islamic Terrorists, trying to kill off the 21st century.   You both deserve each other....but you're still going to lose.


----------



## bodecea

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is absolutely a right.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is a RITE not a right - its also a privilege to be Right - one you will never enjoy - RIGHT ?
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

PaintMyHouse said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is absolutely a right.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is a RITE not a right - its also a privilege to be Right - one you will never enjoy - RIGHT ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us GB, now that you've lost what are you going to do?
Click to expand...

GB acts as if he is a boss of everybody.


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are highly concerned with subjective females.  Says a lot about you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it?
> 
> LOL!  OK...
> 
> Pray tell, what does it say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You couldn't take it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So...  Ya got nuttin'?
> 
> Color me *SHOCKED!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would most definitely color you yellow to match the streak down your back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I've a yellow streak down my back?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Now, specifically, you're basing that on what?
Click to expand...


The pixel persona you've composed.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry, I just don't  see homosexuals as a discreet group that NEEDS any more protections than are already guaranteed by the constitution to all of us, anyway. And YES,  given that, people should be given leeway to accept or reject people on  sexual preference, because choice transcends petty sexual matters, and THAT should be the capitol issue. In my humble opinion, anyway...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm not sorry that gays and lesbians fighting for and attaining rights and protections equal to heterosexuals causes consternation to bigots and homophobes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> my wife had an aunt who was a lesbian, she outgrew it.   what will happen to your "marriage" when you or you partner outgrow it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been a lesbian for over 40 years and with my spouse for 20. I think we'll be okay. Your concern is touching.
Click to expand...




Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to believe those numbers when California voters approved of a ban on gay marriage by popular referendum. When it was struck down in court, they passed another referendum adding a ban to gay marriage to the California constitution.  Yeah, Blue State California.  Compare this to New York who pulled some shady tricks to pass gay marriage in the middle of the night before any opposition could be mounted to it.  And that was the legislature, not a popular movement, so they can hardly be seen as representing the people in doing that.  When it comes to the laws that are backed by popular support, gay marriage is trumped by those who want to preserve what real marriage is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're just providing an excellent example of why we don't vote on people's civil rights. Loving v Virginia was in 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling it a "civil right" over and over again doesn't make it so...unless you're silly enough to believe that repetition has the power to turn a lie into truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, oddly, court after court is agreeing with me and not you, aren't they?
Click to expand...


Not all of them.

Are they?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The times they are a changing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as predicted by the architects of the Gay Agenda
> What they didn't account for was the backlash ... every wave starts with a ripple - can you feel the ripple ?  Best hold onto your seat bitch - the tidal wave isn't far off.....
> 
> As predicted by Kirk and Madsen ...
> 
> Homosexual propaganda has been around for many years, the spark that ignited their present day stranglehold however was a After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **by Marshall Kirk, a researcher in neuropsychiatry and Hunter Madsen.
> 
> This powerfully persuasive, perverse and popular book within the gay community presents an impassioned plea, a call to arms if you will for homosexual activists to implement an aggressive, concerted and organized campaign to mold public perceptions. The  book further lays out a blueprint, a methodology that has been rigidly implemented and enforced over the past 2 decades .  Their rationalization for launching such a campaign is that people who do not agree with, or adhere to the Gay Agenda are "bigots, haters, or ignorants". The book further attempts to justify gay activists use of unscrupulous tactics , mass deceit, brainwashing, lying and malicious slander, blackmail, intimidation and violence. Kirk and Madsens book states the following ....
> 
> 
> "All sexual morality should be abolished" (pages 64 to 67)
> 
> 
> Homosexual agenda can succeed by "jamming" and "confusing" adversaries, so as to block or counteract the "rewarding of prejudice" (page 153);
> 
> 
> All opposing disagreements to homosexual behavior is rooted in "Homophobia, Homohatred, and Prejudice" (page 112)
> 
> 
> A media campaign should portray only the most favorable side of gays (page 170);
> 
> 
> Discourage anti-gay harassment by linking and calling all those that have opposing opinions to latent homosexuality (i.e., call people homophobic) (page 227)
> 
> 
> It is acceptable to call people "Homophobic" or "Haters" if they do not agree 100% with the gay agenda views, opinions, or behavior. (page 23)
> Gay and Lesbian Media influences
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're on the side of the Reactionary Islamic Terrorists, trying to kill off the 21st century.   You both deserve each other....but you're still going to lose.
Click to expand...







You think that the metastasization of homosexuality is new, hip, and unprecedented?

You ignorant moron, societies have been killed off by homosexuality for thousands of years going all the way back to ancient Mesopotamia.

We're not the dinosaurs, you are.  And you'll fare no better than they did.  I just hope I see the sign to get out before the sulfur starts raining on your gay parade.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> You ignorant moron, societies have been killed off by homosexuality for thousands of years going all the way back to ancient Mesopotamia.


Homosexuality never killed anything beyond the hopes of a horny drunk girl in a bar.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is absolutely a right.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is a RITE not a right - its also a privilege to be Right - one you will never enjoy - RIGHT ?
Click to expand...

Marriage is contract law written by the states and administered by state courts; marriage is a union of two consenting equal adult partners recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

As a fact of Constitutional law marriage is indeed a right, so too is it a right that same-sex couples be allowed access to marriage contract law they're eligible to participate in; to seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage contract law they're eligible to participate in violates the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.


----------



## JakeStarkey

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is absolutely a right.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is a RITE not a right - its also a privilege to be Right - one you will never enjoy - RIGHT ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is contract law written by the states and administered by state courts; marriage is a union of two consenting equal adult partners recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
> 
> As a fact of Constitutional law marriage is indeed a right, so too is it a right that same-sex couples be allowed access to marriage contract law they're eligible to participate in; to seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage contract law they're eligible to participate in violates the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...


And we have the weirdos saying it "ain't so".


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The times they are a changing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as predicted by the architects of the Gay Agenda
> What they didn't account for was the backlash ... every wave starts with a ripple - can you feel the ripple ?  Best hold onto your seat bitch - the tidal wave isn't far off.....
> 
> As predicted by Kirk and Madsen ...
> 
> Homosexual propaganda has been around for many years, the spark that ignited their present day stranglehold however was a After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **by Marshall Kirk, a researcher in neuropsychiatry and Hunter Madsen.
> 
> This powerfully persuasive, perverse and popular book within the gay community presents an impassioned plea, a call to arms if you will for homosexual activists to implement an aggressive, concerted and organized campaign to mold public perceptions. The  book further lays out a blueprint, a methodology that has been rigidly implemented and enforced over the past 2 decades .  Their rationalization for launching such a campaign is that people who do not agree with, or adhere to the Gay Agenda are "bigots, haters, or ignorants". The book further attempts to justify gay activists use of unscrupulous tactics , mass deceit, brainwashing, lying and malicious slander, blackmail, intimidation and violence. Kirk and Madsens book states the following ....
> 
> 
> "All sexual morality should be abolished" (pages 64 to 67)
> 
> 
> Homosexual agenda can succeed by "jamming" and "confusing" adversaries, so as to block or counteract the "rewarding of prejudice" (page 153);
> 
> 
> All opposing disagreements to homosexual behavior is rooted in "Homophobia, Homohatred, and Prejudice" (page 112)
> 
> 
> A media campaign should portray only the most favorable side of gays (page 170);
> 
> 
> Discourage anti-gay harassment by linking and calling all those that have opposing opinions to latent homosexuality (i.e., call people homophobic) (page 227)
> 
> 
> It is acceptable to call people "Homophobic" or "Haters" if they do not agree 100% with the gay agenda views, opinions, or behavior. (page 23)
> Gay and Lesbian Media influences
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're on the side of the Reactionary Islamic Terrorists, trying to kill off the 21st century.   You both deserve each other....but you're still going to lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think that the metastasization of homosexuality is new, hip, and unprecedented?
> 
> You ignorant moron, *societies have been killed off by homosexuality for thousands of years going all the way back to ancient Mesopotamia.*
> 
> We're not the dinosaurs, you are.  And you'll fare no better than they did.  I just hope I see the sign to get out before the sulfur starts raining on your gay parade.
Click to expand...

1.  Mesopotamia wasn't a society, it's an area where several societies (i.e. the Sumarians, Assyrians, the Babylonians) rose and fell.   (Mesopotamia means "land between the rivers)
2.  List ONE, just ONE society that was killed off by homosexuality.   And, of course, you've got to show us some kind of evidence that homosexuality was the culprit.

TIA


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The times they are a changing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as predicted by the architects of the Gay Agenda
> What they didn't account for was the backlash ... every wave starts with a ripple - can you feel the ripple ?  Best hold onto your seat bitch - the tidal wave isn't far off.....
> 
> As predicted by Kirk and Madsen ...
> 
> Homosexual propaganda has been around for many years, the spark that ignited their present day stranglehold however was a After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **by Marshall Kirk, a researcher in neuropsychiatry and Hunter Madsen.
> 
> This powerfully persuasive, perverse and popular book within the gay community presents an impassioned plea, a call to arms if you will for homosexual activists to implement an aggressive, concerted and organized campaign to mold public perceptions. The  book further lays out a blueprint, a methodology that has been rigidly implemented and enforced over the past 2 decades .  Their rationalization for launching such a campaign is that people who do not agree with, or adhere to the Gay Agenda are "bigots, haters, or ignorants". The book further attempts to justify gay activists use of unscrupulous tactics , mass deceit, brainwashing, lying and malicious slander, blackmail, intimidation and violence. Kirk and Madsens book states the following ....
> 
> 
> "All sexual morality should be abolished" (pages 64 to 67)
> 
> 
> Homosexual agenda can succeed by "jamming" and "confusing" adversaries, so as to block or counteract the "rewarding of prejudice" (page 153);
> 
> 
> All opposing disagreements to homosexual behavior is rooted in "Homophobia, Homohatred, and Prejudice" (page 112)
> 
> 
> A media campaign should portray only the most favorable side of gays (page 170);
> 
> 
> Discourage anti-gay harassment by linking and calling all those that have opposing opinions to latent homosexuality (i.e., call people homophobic) (page 227)
> 
> 
> It is acceptable to call people "Homophobic" or "Haters" if they do not agree 100% with the gay agenda views, opinions, or behavior. (page 23)
> Gay and Lesbian Media influences
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're on the side of the Reactionary Islamic Terrorists, trying to kill off the 21st century.   You both deserve each other....but you're still going to lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think that the metastasization of homosexuality is new, hip, and unprecedented?
> 
> You ignorant moron, *societies have been killed off by homosexuality for thousands of years going all the way back to ancient Mesopotamia.*
> 
> We're not the dinosaurs, you are.  And you'll fare no better than they did.  I just hope I see the sign to get out before the sulfur starts raining on your gay parade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  Mesopotamia wasn't a society, it's an area where several societies (i.e. the Sumarians, Assyrians, the Babylonians) rose and fell.   (Mesopotamia means "land between the rivers)
> 2.  List ONE, just ONE society that was killed off by homosexuality.   And, of course, you've got to show us some kind of evidence that homosexuality was the culprit.
> 
> TIA
Click to expand...


Sodom and Gomorrah.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The times they are a changing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as predicted by the architects of the Gay Agenda
> What they didn't account for was the backlash ... every wave starts with a ripple - can you feel the ripple ?  Best hold onto your seat bitch - the tidal wave isn't far off.....
> 
> As predicted by Kirk and Madsen ...
> 
> Homosexual propaganda has been around for many years, the spark that ignited their present day stranglehold however was a After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **by Marshall Kirk, a researcher in neuropsychiatry and Hunter Madsen.
> 
> This powerfully persuasive, perverse and popular book within the gay community presents an impassioned plea, a call to arms if you will for homosexual activists to implement an aggressive, concerted and organized campaign to mold public perceptions. The  book further lays out a blueprint, a methodology that has been rigidly implemented and enforced over the past 2 decades .  Their rationalization for launching such a campaign is that people who do not agree with, or adhere to the Gay Agenda are "bigots, haters, or ignorants". The book further attempts to justify gay activists use of unscrupulous tactics , mass deceit, brainwashing, lying and malicious slander, blackmail, intimidation and violence. Kirk and Madsens book states the following ....
> 
> 
> "All sexual morality should be abolished" (pages 64 to 67)
> 
> 
> Homosexual agenda can succeed by "jamming" and "confusing" adversaries, so as to block or counteract the "rewarding of prejudice" (page 153);
> 
> 
> All opposing disagreements to homosexual behavior is rooted in "Homophobia, Homohatred, and Prejudice" (page 112)
> 
> 
> A media campaign should portray only the most favorable side of gays (page 170);
> 
> 
> Discourage anti-gay harassment by linking and calling all those that have opposing opinions to latent homosexuality (i.e., call people homophobic) (page 227)
> 
> 
> It is acceptable to call people "Homophobic" or "Haters" if they do not agree 100% with the gay agenda views, opinions, or behavior. (page 23)
> Gay and Lesbian Media influences
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're on the side of the Reactionary Islamic Terrorists, trying to kill off the 21st century.   You both deserve each other....but you're still going to lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think that the metastasization of homosexuality is new, hip, and unprecedented?
> 
> You ignorant moron, *societies have been killed off by homosexuality for thousands of years going all the way back to ancient Mesopotamia.*
> 
> We're not the dinosaurs, you are.  And you'll fare no better than they did.  I just hope I see the sign to get out before the sulfur starts raining on your gay parade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  Mesopotamia wasn't a society, it's an area where several societies (i.e. the Sumarians, Assyrians, the Babylonians) rose and fell.   (Mesopotamia means "land between the rivers)
> 2.  List ONE, just ONE society that was killed off by homosexuality.   And, of course, you've got to show us some kind of evidence that homosexuality was the culprit.
> 
> TIA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sodom and Gomorrah.
Click to expand...

Fiction.  And even in the book that talks about them, the crime they were punished for was inhospitality.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as predicted by the architects of the Gay Agenda
> What they didn't account for was the backlash ... every wave starts with a ripple - can you feel the ripple ?  Best hold onto your seat bitch - the tidal wave isn't far off.....
> 
> As predicted by Kirk and Madsen ...
> 
> Homosexual propaganda has been around for many years, the spark that ignited their present day stranglehold however was a After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **by Marshall Kirk, a researcher in neuropsychiatry and Hunter Madsen.
> 
> This powerfully persuasive, perverse and popular book within the gay community presents an impassioned plea, a call to arms if you will for homosexual activists to implement an aggressive, concerted and organized campaign to mold public perceptions. The  book further lays out a blueprint, a methodology that has been rigidly implemented and enforced over the past 2 decades .  Their rationalization for launching such a campaign is that people who do not agree with, or adhere to the Gay Agenda are "bigots, haters, or ignorants". The book further attempts to justify gay activists use of unscrupulous tactics , mass deceit, brainwashing, lying and malicious slander, blackmail, intimidation and violence. Kirk and Madsens book states the following ....
> 
> 
> "All sexual morality should be abolished" (pages 64 to 67)
> 
> 
> Homosexual agenda can succeed by "jamming" and "confusing" adversaries, so as to block or counteract the "rewarding of prejudice" (page 153);
> 
> 
> All opposing disagreements to homosexual behavior is rooted in "Homophobia, Homohatred, and Prejudice" (page 112)
> 
> 
> A media campaign should portray only the most favorable side of gays (page 170);
> 
> 
> Discourage anti-gay harassment by linking and calling all those that have opposing opinions to latent homosexuality (i.e., call people homophobic) (page 227)
> 
> 
> It is acceptable to call people "Homophobic" or "Haters" if they do not agree 100% with the gay agenda views, opinions, or behavior. (page 23)
> Gay and Lesbian Media influences
> 
> 
> 
> You're on the side of the Reactionary Islamic Terrorists, trying to kill off the 21st century.   You both deserve each other....but you're still going to lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think that the metastasization of homosexuality is new, hip, and unprecedented?
> 
> You ignorant moron, *societies have been killed off by homosexuality for thousands of years going all the way back to ancient Mesopotamia.*
> 
> We're not the dinosaurs, you are.  And you'll fare no better than they did.  I just hope I see the sign to get out before the sulfur starts raining on your gay parade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  Mesopotamia wasn't a society, it's an area where several societies (i.e. the Sumarians, Assyrians, the Babylonians) rose and fell.   (Mesopotamia means "land between the rivers)
> 2.  List ONE, just ONE society that was killed off by homosexuality.   And, of course, you've got to show us some kind of evidence that homosexuality was the culprit.
> 
> TIA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sodom and Gomorrah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fiction.  And even in the book that talks about them, the crime they were punished for was inhospitality.
Click to expand...


Is that what you're going to do, say that every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies that embrace homosexuality is fiction?  Please let me know because I won't waste any more time on you.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're on the side of the Reactionary Islamic Terrorists, trying to kill off the 21st century.   You both deserve each other....but you're still going to lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think that the metastasization of homosexuality is new, hip, and unprecedented?
> 
> You ignorant moron, *societies have been killed off by homosexuality for thousands of years going all the way back to ancient Mesopotamia.*
> 
> We're not the dinosaurs, you are.  And you'll fare no better than they did.  I just hope I see the sign to get out before the sulfur starts raining on your gay parade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  Mesopotamia wasn't a society, it's an area where several societies (i.e. the Sumarians, Assyrians, the Babylonians) rose and fell.   (Mesopotamia means "land between the rivers)
> 2.  List ONE, just ONE society that was killed off by homosexuality.   And, of course, you've got to show us some kind of evidence that homosexuality was the culprit.
> 
> TIA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sodom and Gomorrah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fiction.  And even in the book that talks about them, the crime they were punished for was inhospitality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what you're going to do, say that every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies that embrace homosexuality is fiction?  Please let me know because I won't waste any more time on you.
Click to expand...


Soooooo, where are the ruins?  

One other point....while you keep saying things like "every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies"   you can only list two cities (not societies, btw) that anyone anywhere has any archaeological evidence EVEN EXISTED.   And if you go by the bible, which I assume you are, even that states they were destroyed over the inhospitality of their people....NOT homosexuality.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think that the metastasization of homosexuality is new, hip, and unprecedented?
> 
> You ignorant moron, *societies have been killed off by homosexuality for thousands of years going all the way back to ancient Mesopotamia.*
> 
> We're not the dinosaurs, you are.  And you'll fare no better than they did.  I just hope I see the sign to get out before the sulfur starts raining on your gay parade.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Mesopotamia wasn't a society, it's an area where several societies (i.e. the Sumarians, Assyrians, the Babylonians) rose and fell.   (Mesopotamia means "land between the rivers)
> 2.  List ONE, just ONE society that was killed off by homosexuality.   And, of course, you've got to show us some kind of evidence that homosexuality was the culprit.
> 
> TIA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sodom and Gomorrah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fiction.  And even in the book that talks about them, the crime they were punished for was inhospitality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what you're going to do, say that every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies that embrace homosexuality is fiction?  Please let me know because I won't waste any more time on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Soooooo, where are the ruins?
> 
> One other point....while you keep saying things like "every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies"   you can only list two cities (not societies, btw) that anyone anywhere has any archaeological evidence EVEN EXISTED.   And if you go by the bible, which I assume you are, even that states they were destroyed over the inhospitality of their people....NOT homosexuality.
Click to expand...

Most of the OT stories are "timeless", they may or may not have happened.

The story of S&G is that you don't offer violence to guests.

There are no massive historical events with thunderous fall of societies because of homosexuality,


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is absolutely a right.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is a RITE not a right - its also a privilege to be Right - one you will never enjoy - RIGHT ?
Click to expand...


Marriage is sometimes a rite- but it is always a  right- something I am priveleged to understand- and something you will never understand.

My wife and I have been enjoying our Right to marriage for over 20 years now.

And our marriage is never threatened by others getting married.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is absolutely a right.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage
Click to expand...


Why is bigotry like Greenbeans not only offensive but also dangerous but also immoral?

Because bigots like Greenbean judge people not based upon their own actions but based upon their identity. 

An example of the moral depravity of homophobes?

Alan Turing was instrumental in breaking the unbreakable Nazi code in WW2- saving thousands of lives of sailors and troops from the predations of U-Boats. 

Alan Turing was also a homosexual. After the war, the fine homophobic bigots of Britain judged him not by his brilliant contribution to defeating Nazi Germany- but judged him by his attraction to men.

To Greenbean and his fellow bigots- a homosexual like Turling who saved thousands of lives is no different than a serial murderer like Jeffrey Dahmer. 

Bigots like Greenbean not only want to 'bitch slap' homosexuals- they want to castrate them, they want to use electroshock on them- and if they can they will persecute them like they did Alan Turing. 

And that is morally depraved.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're on the side of the Reactionary Islamic Terrorists, trying to kill off the 21st century.   You both deserve each other....but you're still going to lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think that the metastasization of homosexuality is new, hip, and unprecedented?
> 
> You ignorant moron, *societies have been killed off by homosexuality for thousands of years going all the way back to ancient Mesopotamia.*
> 
> We're not the dinosaurs, you are.  And you'll fare no better than they did.  I just hope I see the sign to get out before the sulfur starts raining on your gay parade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  Mesopotamia wasn't a society, it's an area where several societies (i.e. the Sumarians, Assyrians, the Babylonians) rose and fell.   (Mesopotamia means "land between the rivers)
> 2.  List ONE, just ONE society that was killed off by homosexuality.   And, of course, you've got to show us some kind of evidence that homosexuality was the culprit.
> 
> TIA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sodom and Gomorrah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fiction.  And even in the book that talks about them, the crime they were punished for was inhospitality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what you're going to do, say that every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies that embrace homosexuality is fiction?  Please let me know because I won't waste any more time on you.
Click to expand...


The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by god is not a historical event. We are waiting for you to provide those examples.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> [Q
> We're not the dinosaurs, you are.  And you'll fare no better than they did.  I just hope I see the sign to get out before the sulfur starts raining on your gay parade.



The signs are there for you to see.

Best you rush off to Russia now to be with your kind of people.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> The times they are a changing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as predicted by the architects of the Gay Agenda
> What they didn't account for was the backlash ...s
Click to expand...


Backlash- is that bigot talk for you getting more and more pissed off that it is no longer acceptable for you to bitch slap homosexuals?

The backlash right now is that never in American history have Americans judged a person less based upon who they love- on whether they may- or may not be gay. 

And haters like you hate that.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think that the metastasization of homosexuality is new, hip, and unprecedented?
> 
> You ignorant moron, *societies have been killed off by homosexuality for thousands of years going all the way back to ancient Mesopotamia.*
> 
> We're not the dinosaurs, you are.  And you'll fare no better than they did.  I just hope I see the sign to get out before the sulfur starts raining on your gay parade.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Mesopotamia wasn't a society, it's an area where several societies (i.e. the Sumarians, Assyrians, the Babylonians) rose and fell.   (Mesopotamia means "land between the rivers)
> 2.  List ONE, just ONE society that was killed off by homosexuality.   And, of course, you've got to show us some kind of evidence that homosexuality was the culprit.
> 
> TIA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sodom and Gomorrah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fiction.  And even in the book that talks about them, the crime they were punished for was inhospitality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what you're going to do, say that every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies that embrace homosexuality is fiction?  Please let me know because I won't waste any more time on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by god is not a historical event. We are waiting for you to provide those examples.
Click to expand...


Yes it is.  Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because of the outcry of their neighbors. This is what was told to Lot.  It became an oppressive force and one way or another it had to be stopped.  It's the first recorded example of a homosexual culture destroying itself.  I'm not going to even bother moving on to Greece and Rome if you're an idiot that denies history. There's no way to have a rational discussion with you.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Mesopotamia wasn't a society, it's an area where several societies (i.e. the Sumarians, Assyrians, the Babylonians) rose and fell.   (Mesopotamia means "land between the rivers)
> 2.  List ONE, just ONE society that was killed off by homosexuality.   And, of course, you've got to show us some kind of evidence that homosexuality was the culprit.
> 
> TIA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sodom and Gomorrah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fiction.  And even in the book that talks about them, the crime they were punished for was inhospitality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what you're going to do, say that every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies that embrace homosexuality is fiction?  Please let me know because I won't waste any more time on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by god is not a historical event. We are waiting for you to provide those examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.  Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because of the outcry of their neighbors. This is what was told to Lot.  It became an oppressive force and one way or another it had to be stopped.  It's the first recorded example of a homosexual culture destroying itself.  I'm not going to even bother moving on to Greece and Rome if you're an idiot that denies history. There's no way to have a rational discussion with you.
Click to expand...

Where are the ruins?   If these were two cities....there should be ruins like there are of Jericho, of Ur, of Troy.  Where are they?

And once again...if you go by the bible...those two "cities" were not destroyed because of homosexuality....they were destroyed because of their inhospitality to strangers.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think that the metastasization of homosexuality is new, hip, and unprecedented?
> 
> You ignorant moron, *societies have been killed off by homosexuality for thousands of years going all the way back to ancient Mesopotamia.*
> 
> We're not the dinosaurs, you are.  And you'll fare no better than they did.  I just hope I see the sign to get out before the sulfur starts raining on your gay parade.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Mesopotamia wasn't a society, it's an area where several societies (i.e. the Sumarians, Assyrians, the Babylonians) rose and fell.   (Mesopotamia means "land between the rivers)
> 2.  List ONE, just ONE society that was killed off by homosexuality.   And, of course, you've got to show us some kind of evidence that homosexuality was the culprit.
> 
> TIA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sodom and Gomorrah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fiction.  And even in the book that talks about them, the crime they were punished for was inhospitality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what you're going to do, say that every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies that embrace homosexuality is fiction?  Please let me know because I won't waste any more time on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Soooooo, where are the ruins?
> 
> One other point....while you keep saying things like "every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies"   you can only list two cities (not societies, btw) that anyone anywhere has any archaeological evidence EVEN EXISTED.   And if you go by the bible, which I assume you are, even that states they were destroyed over the inhospitality of their people....NOT homosexuality.
Click to expand...


Incorrect.  The answer to why the cities were destroyed is recorded in Genesis "because the outcry to the Lord against them has become great" (Genesis 19:13)

Let's review the evidence.  When two angels came to the house of Lot, Genesis records that "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom, young and old, surrounded the house, saying to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight. Bring them out so we can have sex with them."  When Lot offered his daughters, they refused, for they were attracted to the angels who were men, not to women.

So in summary, EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape the angels who visited Lot.  No wonder the angel reported that all their neighbors decried their oppression.  The city was full of roving gangs of homosexual rapists. 

Now you on the Left who despise God and God's word to begin with have set up a contradiction that doesn't exist. Ezekiel 16 mentions Sodom saying "Now this was the sin of your Sister Sodom, she and her daughters were arrogant and overfed. They were not concerned for the poor and needy and did not help them." This wasn't a refutation to the main reason that the cities were destroyed, but a corollary of its initial sin.  Cities who hold as it's highest value the indulgence of the flesh and the oppression of human decency are utterly bereft of charity.  Selfish people don't take care of the poor and homosexuals are indeed selfish. 

But the Bible is clear on why the cities were destroyed, Jude 7 confirming, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

There's no doubt what the Bible says about the destruction of those cities and the reason for it.  It only becomes unclear to those who hate God, despise his righteousness, and will twist his words to pervert their meaning.  That's you.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Mesopotamia wasn't a society, it's an area where several societies (i.e. the Sumarians, Assyrians, the Babylonians) rose and fell.   (Mesopotamia means "land between the rivers)
> 2.  List ONE, just ONE society that was killed off by homosexuality.   And, of course, you've got to show us some kind of evidence that homosexuality was the culprit.
> 
> TIA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sodom and Gomorrah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fiction.  And even in the book that talks about them, the crime they were punished for was inhospitality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what you're going to do, say that every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies that embrace homosexuality is fiction?  Please let me know because I won't waste any more time on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Soooooo, where are the ruins?
> 
> One other point....while you keep saying things like "every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies"   you can only list two cities (not societies, btw) that anyone anywhere has any archaeological evidence EVEN EXISTED.   And if you go by the bible, which I assume you are, even that states they were destroyed over the inhospitality of their people....NOT homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  The answer to why the cities were destroyed is recorded in Genesis "because the outcry to the Lord against them has become great" (Genesis 19:13)
> 
> Let's review the evidence.  When two angels came to the house of Lot, Genesis records that "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom, young and old, surrounded the house, saying to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight. Bring them out so we can have sex with them."  When Lot offered his daughters, they refused, for they were attracted to the angels who were men, not to women.
> 
> So in summary, EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape the angels who visited Lot.  No wonder the angel reported that all their neighbors decried their oppression.  The city was full of roving gangs of homosexual rapists.
> 
> Now you on the Left who despise God and God's word to begin with have set up a contradiction that doesn't exist. Ezekiel 16 mentions Sodom saying "Now this was the sin of your Sister Sodom, she and her daughters were arrogant and overfed. They were not concerned for the poor and needy and did not help them." This wasn't a refutation to the main reason that the cities were destroyed, but a corollary of its initial sin.  Cities who hold as it's highest value the indulgence of the flesh and the oppression of human decency are utterly bereft of charity.  Selfish people don't take care of the poor and homosexuals are indeed selfish.
> 
> But the Bible is clear on why the cities were destroyed, Jude 7 confirming, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
> 
> There's no doubt what the Bible says about the destruction of those cities and the reason for it.  It only becomes unclear to those who hate God, despise his righteousness, and will twist his words to pervert their meaning.  That's you.
Click to expand...

This is what the bible says:

Jeremiah 23 14 And among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers so that not one of them turns from their wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah. 

Hmmmm...."adultery" they say?   Adultery?   Not homosexuality.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Mesopotamia wasn't a society, it's an area where several societies (i.e. the Sumarians, Assyrians, the Babylonians) rose and fell.   (Mesopotamia means "land between the rivers)
> 2.  List ONE, just ONE society that was killed off by homosexuality.   And, of course, you've got to show us some kind of evidence that homosexuality was the culprit.
> 
> TIA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sodom and Gomorrah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fiction.  And even in the book that talks about them, the crime they were punished for was inhospitality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what you're going to do, say that every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies that embrace homosexuality is fiction?  Please let me know because I won't waste any more time on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Soooooo, where are the ruins?
> 
> One other point....while you keep saying things like "every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies"   you can only list two cities (not societies, btw) that anyone anywhere has any archaeological evidence EVEN EXISTED.   And if you go by the bible, which I assume you are, even that states they were destroyed over the inhospitality of their people....NOT homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  The answer to why the cities were destroyed is recorded in Genesis "because the outcry to the Lord against them has become great" (Genesis 19:13)
> 
> Let's review the evidence.  When two angels came to the house of Lot, Genesis records that "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom, young and old, surrounded the house, saying to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight. Bring them out so we can have sex with them."  When Lot offered his daughters, they refused, for they were attracted to the angels who were men, not to women.
> 
> So in summary, EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape the angels who visited Lot.  No wonder the angel reported that all their neighbors decried their oppression.  The city was full of roving gangs of homosexual rapists.
> 
> Now you on the Left who despise God and God's word to begin with have set up a contradiction that doesn't exist. Ezekiel 16 mentions Sodom saying "Now this was the sin of your Sister Sodom, she and her daughters were arrogant and overfed. They were not concerned for the poor and needy and did not help them." This wasn't a refutation to the main reason that the cities were destroyed, but a corollary of its initial sin.  Cities who hold as it's highest value the indulgence of the flesh and the oppression of human decency are utterly bereft of charity.  Selfish people don't take care of the poor and homosexuals are indeed selfish.
> 
> But the Bible is clear on why the cities were destroyed, Jude 7 confirming, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
> 
> There's no doubt what the Bible says about the destruction of those cities and the reason for it.  It only becomes unclear to those who hate God, despise his righteousness, and will twist his words to pervert their meaning.  That's you.
Click to expand...

Lot was supposedly a "good man".  So good he offered his virgin daughters to the crowd.  Now, why would he offer his daughters if he knew they were homosexuals?   Doesn't that seem a little odd to you?


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The times they are a changing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as predicted by the architects of the Gay Agenda
> What they didn't account for was the backlash ...s
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Backlash- is that bigot talk for you getting more and more pissed off that it is no longer acceptable for you to bitch slap homosexuals?
> 
> The backlash right now is that never in American history have Americans judged a person less based upon who they love- on whether they may- or may not be gay.
> 
> And haters like you hate that.
Click to expand...



In Colorado, a baker says he’d close his business before decorating a cake for a same-sex wedding. In Washington state, a florist is refusing to provide flowers for a longtime customer’s marriage ceremony. In Iowa, a husband and wife who host weddings in a converted church say only opposite-sex couples are welcome.

“The result of Hobby Lobby is political war,” said Marci Hamilton, a religious-freedom expert who teaches at Yeshiva University’s Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School. Evangelical groups advocating religious rights are “energized and mobilized. Their problem -- and I think they know it -- is that they have now energized and mobilized the silent majority as to both contraception and discrimination.”

At stake is how the country will reconcile deep-seated disagreements over competing rights to religious exercise, free speech and equal treatment.

On one side are people who say a refusal to do business with gay couples should be every bit as illegal as racial discrimination. On the other are those who argue that business owners shouldn’t be forced to violate their consciences as the price of pursuing their profession.

So far, religious-liberty advocates have found little success, at least when pressing their arguments before civil-rights agencies and judges. The New Mexico Human Rights Commission concluded that a wedding photographer, Elaine Huguenin, violated a state anti-discrimination law by refusing to take pictures of a same-sex couple’s commitment ceremony.

The Supreme Court in April turned away the photographer’s appeal without a hearing. Huguenin has since stopped taking wedding photographs, said Jeremy Tedesco, a lawyer with the Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented her.

“Her faith has excluded her from an entire area of business that’s actually quite important for photographers,” Tedesco said.

*A growing number of states are considering legislation that would allow businesses to refuse service to LGBT people  justifying it as “promoting religious freedom,” *


----------



## GreenBean

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sodom and Gomorrah.
> 
> 
> 
> Fiction.  And even in the book that talks about them, the crime they were punished for was inhospitality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what you're going to do, say that every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies that embrace homosexuality is fiction?  Please let me know because I won't waste any more time on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Soooooo, where are the ruins?
> 
> One other point....while you keep saying things like "every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies"   you can only list two cities (not societies, btw) that anyone anywhere has any archaeological evidence EVEN EXISTED.   And if you go by the bible, which I assume you are, even that states they were destroyed over the inhospitality of their people....NOT homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  The answer to why the cities were destroyed is recorded in Genesis "because the outcry to the Lord against them has become great" (Genesis 19:13)
> 
> Let's review the evidence.  When two angels came to the house of Lot, Genesis records that "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom, young and old, surrounded the house, saying to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight. Bring them out so we can have sex with them."  When Lot offered his daughters, they refused, for they were attracted to the angels who were men, not to women.
> 
> So in summary, EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape the angels who visited Lot.  No wonder the angel reported that all their neighbors decried their oppression.  The city was full of roving gangs of homosexual rapists.
> 
> Now you on the Left who despise God and God's word to begin with have set up a contradiction that doesn't exist. Ezekiel 16 mentions Sodom saying "Now this was the sin of your Sister Sodom, she and her daughters were arrogant and overfed. They were not concerned for the poor and needy and did not help them." This wasn't a refutation to the main reason that the cities were destroyed, but a corollary of its initial sin.  Cities who hold as it's highest value the indulgence of the flesh and the oppression of human decency are utterly bereft of charity.  Selfish people don't take care of the poor and homosexuals are indeed selfish.
> 
> But the Bible is clear on why the cities were destroyed, Jude 7 confirming, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
> 
> There's no doubt what the Bible says about the destruction of those cities and the reason for it.  It only becomes unclear to those who hate God, despise his righteousness, and will twist his words to pervert their meaning.  That's you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what the bible says:
> 
> Jeremiah 23 14 And among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers so that not one of them turns from their wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.
> 
> Hmmmm...."adultery" they say?   Adultery?   Not homosexuality.
Click to expand...



Hey Slimey - you know nothing of theology or etymology - The tale of Sodom and Gomorrah was about faggots and other assorted perverts - people we today call LGBT .

Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'" The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver.

Genesis 19:5
New International Version
They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

New Living Translation
They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!"

English Standard Version
And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sodom and Gomorrah.
> 
> 
> 
> Fiction.  And even in the book that talks about them, the crime they were punished for was inhospitality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what you're going to do, say that every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies that embrace homosexuality is fiction?  Please let me know because I won't waste any more time on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Soooooo, where are the ruins?
> 
> One other point....while you keep saying things like "every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies"   you can only list two cities (not societies, btw) that anyone anywhere has any archaeological evidence EVEN EXISTED.   And if you go by the bible, which I assume you are, even that states they were destroyed over the inhospitality of their people....NOT homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  The answer to why the cities were destroyed is recorded in Genesis "because the outcry to the Lord against them has become great" (Genesis 19:13)
> 
> Let's review the evidence.  When two angels came to the house of Lot, Genesis records that "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom, young and old, surrounded the house, saying to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight. Bring them out so we can have sex with them."  When Lot offered his daughters, they refused, for they were attracted to the angels who were men, not to women.
> 
> So in summary, EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape the angels who visited Lot.  No wonder the angel reported that all their neighbors decried their oppression.  The city was full of roving gangs of homosexual rapists.
> 
> Now you on the Left who despise God and God's word to begin with have set up a contradiction that doesn't exist. Ezekiel 16 mentions Sodom saying "Now this was the sin of your Sister Sodom, she and her daughters were arrogant and overfed. They were not concerned for the poor and needy and did not help them." This wasn't a refutation to the main reason that the cities were destroyed, but a corollary of its initial sin.  Cities who hold as it's highest value the indulgence of the flesh and the oppression of human decency are utterly bereft of charity.  Selfish people don't take care of the poor and homosexuals are indeed selfish.
> 
> But the Bible is clear on why the cities were destroyed, Jude 7 confirming, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
> 
> There's no doubt what the Bible says about the destruction of those cities and the reason for it.  It only becomes unclear to those who hate God, despise his righteousness, and will twist his words to pervert their meaning.  That's you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what the bible says:
> 
> Jeremiah 23 14 And among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers so that not one of them turns from their wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.
> 
> Hmmmm...."adultery" they say?   Adultery?   Not homosexuality.
Click to expand...


Now you're just being thick.  I've already explained what the Bible says both in Genesis and confirmed yet again in Jude.  That there were other sins is not a contradiction to why the cities were destroyed.  You're doing nothing more than illustrating my point about people who pervert the word of God because of their contempt for God's righteousness.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

GreenBean said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fiction.  And even in the book that talks about them, the crime they were punished for was inhospitality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what you're going to do, say that every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies that embrace homosexuality is fiction?  Please let me know because I won't waste any more time on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Soooooo, where are the ruins?
> 
> One other point....while you keep saying things like "every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies"   you can only list two cities (not societies, btw) that anyone anywhere has any archaeological evidence EVEN EXISTED.   And if you go by the bible, which I assume you are, even that states they were destroyed over the inhospitality of their people....NOT homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  The answer to why the cities were destroyed is recorded in Genesis "because the outcry to the Lord against them has become great" (Genesis 19:13)
> 
> Let's review the evidence.  When two angels came to the house of Lot, Genesis records that "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom, young and old, surrounded the house, saying to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight. Bring them out so we can have sex with them."  When Lot offered his daughters, they refused, for they were attracted to the angels who were men, not to women.
> 
> So in summary, EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape the angels who visited Lot.  No wonder the angel reported that all their neighbors decried their oppression.  The city was full of roving gangs of homosexual rapists.
> 
> Now you on the Left who despise God and God's word to begin with have set up a contradiction that doesn't exist. Ezekiel 16 mentions Sodom saying "Now this was the sin of your Sister Sodom, she and her daughters were arrogant and overfed. They were not concerned for the poor and needy and did not help them." This wasn't a refutation to the main reason that the cities were destroyed, but a corollary of its initial sin.  Cities who hold as it's highest value the indulgence of the flesh and the oppression of human decency are utterly bereft of charity.  Selfish people don't take care of the poor and homosexuals are indeed selfish.
> 
> But the Bible is clear on why the cities were destroyed, Jude 7 confirming, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
> 
> There's no doubt what the Bible says about the destruction of those cities and the reason for it.  It only becomes unclear to those who hate God, despise his righteousness, and will twist his words to pervert their meaning.  That's you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what the bible says:
> 
> Jeremiah 23 14 And among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers so that not one of them turns from their wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.
> 
> Hmmmm...."adultery" they say?   Adultery?   Not homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Slimey - you know nothing of theology or etymology - The tale of Sodom and Gomorrah was about faggots and other assorted perverts - people we today call LGBT .
> 
> Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'" The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver.
> 
> Genesis 19:5
> New International Version
> They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> New Living Translation
> They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!"
> 
> English Standard Version
> And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”
Click to expand...

Little faggot-hater, you've lost, so now what?  What Jesusland are you going to move to?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

GreenBean said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fiction.  And even in the book that talks about them, the crime they were punished for was inhospitality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what you're going to do, say that every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies that embrace homosexuality is fiction?  Please let me know because I won't waste any more time on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Soooooo, where are the ruins?
> 
> One other point....while you keep saying things like "every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies"   you can only list two cities (not societies, btw) that anyone anywhere has any archaeological evidence EVEN EXISTED.   And if you go by the bible, which I assume you are, even that states they were destroyed over the inhospitality of their people....NOT homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  The answer to why the cities were destroyed is recorded in Genesis "because the outcry to the Lord against them has become great" (Genesis 19:13)
> 
> Let's review the evidence.  When two angels came to the house of Lot, Genesis records that "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom, young and old, surrounded the house, saying to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight. Bring them out so we can have sex with them."  When Lot offered his daughters, they refused, for they were attracted to the angels who were men, not to women.
> 
> So in summary, EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape the angels who visited Lot.  No wonder the angel reported that all their neighbors decried their oppression.  The city was full of roving gangs of homosexual rapists.
> 
> Now you on the Left who despise God and God's word to begin with have set up a contradiction that doesn't exist. Ezekiel 16 mentions Sodom saying "Now this was the sin of your Sister Sodom, she and her daughters were arrogant and overfed. They were not concerned for the poor and needy and did not help them." This wasn't a refutation to the main reason that the cities were destroyed, but a corollary of its initial sin.  Cities who hold as it's highest value the indulgence of the flesh and the oppression of human decency are utterly bereft of charity.  Selfish people don't take care of the poor and homosexuals are indeed selfish.
> 
> But the Bible is clear on why the cities were destroyed, Jude 7 confirming, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
> 
> There's no doubt what the Bible says about the destruction of those cities and the reason for it.  It only becomes unclear to those who hate God, despise his righteousness, and will twist his words to pervert their meaning.  That's you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what the bible says:
> 
> Jeremiah 23 14 And among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers so that not one of them turns from their wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.
> 
> Hmmmm...."adultery" they say?   Adultery?   Not homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Slimey - you know nothing of theology or etymology - The tale of Sodom and Gomorrah was about faggots and other assorted perverts - people we today call LGBT .
> 
> Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'" The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver.
> 
> Genesis 19:5
> New International Version
> They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> New Living Translation
> They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!"
> 
> English Standard Version
> And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”
Click to expand...


I've already given them this info.  What's remarkable is that EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape those angels, yet the homosexual Left insists that homosexuality was not the main issue.  People who hate God and God's word will not endure the rightly divided word of truth.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sodom and Gomorrah.
> 
> 
> 
> Fiction.  And even in the book that talks about them, the crime they were punished for was inhospitality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what you're going to do, say that every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies that embrace homosexuality is fiction?  Please let me know because I won't waste any more time on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Soooooo, where are the ruins?
> 
> One other point....while you keep saying things like "every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies"   you can only list two cities (not societies, btw) that anyone anywhere has any archaeological evidence EVEN EXISTED.   And if you go by the bible, which I assume you are, even that states they were destroyed over the inhospitality of their people....NOT homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  The answer to why the cities were destroyed is recorded in Genesis "because the outcry to the Lord against them has become great" (Genesis 19:13)
> 
> Let's review the evidence.  When two angels came to the house of Lot, Genesis records that "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom, young and old, surrounded the house, saying to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight. Bring them out so we can have sex with them."  When Lot offered his daughters, they refused, for they were attracted to the angels who were men, not to women.
> 
> So in summary, EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape the angels who visited Lot.  No wonder the angel reported that all their neighbors decried their oppression.  The city was full of roving gangs of homosexual rapists.
> 
> Now you on the Left who despise God and God's word to begin with have set up a contradiction that doesn't exist. Ezekiel 16 mentions Sodom saying "Now this was the sin of your Sister Sodom, she and her daughters were arrogant and overfed. They were not concerned for the poor and needy and did not help them." This wasn't a refutation to the main reason that the cities were destroyed, but a corollary of its initial sin.  Cities who hold as it's highest value the indulgence of the flesh and the oppression of human decency are utterly bereft of charity.  Selfish people don't take care of the poor and homosexuals are indeed selfish.
> 
> But the Bible is clear on why the cities were destroyed, Jude 7 confirming, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
> 
> There's no doubt what the Bible says about the destruction of those cities and the reason for it.  It only becomes unclear to those who hate God, despise his righteousness, and will twist his words to pervert their meaning.  That's you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lot was supposedly a "good man".  So good he offered his virgin daughters to the crowd.  Now, why would he offer his daughters if he knew they were homosexuals?   Doesn't that seem a little odd to you?
Click to expand...

Such a good man that after his wife was turned to salt he got drunk and fucked his daughters, two nights in a row.  And God?  God said nothing.


----------



## GreenBean

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sodom and Gomorrah.
> 
> 
> 
> Fiction.  And even in the book that talks about them, the crime they were punished for was inhospitality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what you're going to do, say that every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies that embrace homosexuality is fiction?  Please let me know because I won't waste any more time on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by god is not a historical event. We are waiting for you to provide those examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.  Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because of the outcry of their neighbors. This is what was told to Lot.  It became an oppressive force and one way or another it had to be stopped.  It's the first recorded example of a homosexual culture destroying itself.  I'm not going to even bother moving on to Greece and Rome if you're an idiot that denies history. There's no way to have a rational discussion with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where are the ruins?   If these were two cities....there should be ruins like there are of Jericho, of Ur, of Troy.  Where are they?
> 
> And once again...if you go by the bible...those two "cities" were not destroyed because of homosexuality....they were destroyed because of their inhospitality to strangers.
Click to expand...



The ruins of Sodom and Gomorah are in Pakistan - they are known as Mohenjo-Daro.  It is actually the ruins of twin cities and modern science can not explain how it was destroyed .

"When archeologists got to the street level, people were lying dead in the street - after thousands of years." David H. Childress / Technology of the Gods: The Incredible Sciences of the Ancients





. 

 Had a natural catastrophe, disease, or conventional war brought down Mohenjo Daro the bodies of its citizenry would have been ravaged by animals , and the city plundered by subsequent looters over the centuries. This never happened,  *Dozens of skeletons were found in the area of Mohenjo-Daro – their radioactivity exceeded the norm almost 50 times.*


Russian researchers found a skeleton with* a radioactive level 50 times greater than normal.* Other cities have been found in northern India which also show evidence of intense explosions ._{Riddles of Ancient History - Sputnik Magazine - Alexander Gorbovsky}

Atomic warfare in Ancient India_


----------



## PaintMyHouse

GreenBean said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fiction.  And even in the book that talks about them, the crime they were punished for was inhospitality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what you're going to do, say that every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies that embrace homosexuality is fiction?  Please let me know because I won't waste any more time on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by god is not a historical event. We are waiting for you to provide those examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.  Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because of the outcry of their neighbors. This is what was told to Lot.  It became an oppressive force and one way or another it had to be stopped.  It's the first recorded example of a homosexual culture destroying itself.  I'm not going to even bother moving on to Greece and Rome if you're an idiot that denies history. There's no way to have a rational discussion with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where are the ruins?   If these were two cities....there should be ruins like there are of Jericho, of Ur, of Troy.  Where are they?
> 
> And once again...if you go by the bible...those two "cities" were not destroyed because of homosexuality....they were destroyed because of their inhospitality to strangers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The ruins of Sodom and Gomorah are in Pakistan - they are known as Mohenjo-Daro.  It is actually the ruins of twin cities and modern science can not explain how it was destroyed .
> 
> "When archeologists got to the street level, people were lying dead in the street - after thousands of years." David H. Childress / Technology of the Gods: The Incredible Sciences of the Ancients
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Had a natural catastrophe, disease, or conventional war brought down Mohenjo Daro the bodies of its citizenry would have been ravaged by animals , and the city plundered by subsequent looters over the centuries. This never happened,  *Dozens of skeletons were found in the area of Mohenjo-Daro – their radioactivity exceeded the norm almost 50 times.*
> 
> 
> Russian researchers found a skeleton with* a radioactive level 50 times greater than normal.* Other cities have been found in northern India which also show evidence of intense explosions ._{Riddles of Ancient History - Sputnik Magazine - Alexander Gorbovsky}
> 
> Atomic warfare in Ancient India_
Click to expand...

Boy you really eat that Biblical Bullshit up don't you little Christian?  A laugh a minute.

Got news for you, there is no talking donkey, no giants, no burning bush.  And Jesus, well he finally figured out that he fucked up, on the cross when his God let him die, naked, like any other treasonous scum of Rome.


----------



## GreenBean

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what you're going to do, say that every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies that embrace homosexuality is fiction?  Please let me know because I won't waste any more time on you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soooooo, where are the ruins?
> 
> One other point....while you keep saying things like "every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies"   you can only list two cities (not societies, btw) that anyone anywhere has any archaeological evidence EVEN EXISTED.   And if you go by the bible, which I assume you are, even that states they were destroyed over the inhospitality of their people....NOT homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  The answer to why the cities were destroyed is recorded in Genesis "because the outcry to the Lord against them has become great" (Genesis 19:13)
> 
> Let's review the evidence.  When two angels came to the house of Lot, Genesis records that "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom, young and old, surrounded the house, saying to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight. Bring them out so we can have sex with them."  When Lot offered his daughters, they refused, for they were attracted to the angels who were men, not to women.
> 
> So in summary, EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape the angels who visited Lot.  No wonder the angel reported that all their neighbors decried their oppression.  The city was full of roving gangs of homosexual rapists.
> 
> Now you on the Left who despise God and God's word to begin with have set up a contradiction that doesn't exist. Ezekiel 16 mentions Sodom saying "Now this was the sin of your Sister Sodom, she and her daughters were arrogant and overfed. They were not concerned for the poor and needy and did not help them." This wasn't a refutation to the main reason that the cities were destroyed, but a corollary of its initial sin.  Cities who hold as it's highest value the indulgence of the flesh and the oppression of human decency are utterly bereft of charity.  Selfish people don't take care of the poor and homosexuals are indeed selfish.
> 
> But the Bible is clear on why the cities were destroyed, Jude 7 confirming, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
> 
> There's no doubt what the Bible says about the destruction of those cities and the reason for it.  It only becomes unclear to those who hate God, despise his righteousness, and will twist his words to pervert their meaning.  That's you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what the bible says:
> 
> Jeremiah 23 14 And among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers so that not one of them turns from their wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.
> 
> Hmmmm...."adultery" they say?   Adultery?   Not homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Slimey - you know nothing of theology or etymology - The tale of Sodom and Gomorrah was about faggots and other assorted perverts - people we today call LGBT .
> 
> Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'" The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver.
> 
> Genesis 19:5
> New International Version
> They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> New Living Translation
> They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!"
> 
> English Standard Version
> And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already given them this info.  What's remarkable is that EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape those angels, yet the homosexual Left insists that homosexuality was not the main issue.  People who hate God and God's word will not endure the rightly divided word of truth.
Click to expand...


Actually St.Mike - I am not a Christian or Jew - but do know my scriptures - and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was primarily about Homosexuals - it's not even debatable.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

GreenBean said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Soooooo, where are the ruins?
> 
> One other point....while you keep saying things like "every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies"   you can only list two cities (not societies, btw) that anyone anywhere has any archaeological evidence EVEN EXISTED.   And if you go by the bible, which I assume you are, even that states they were destroyed over the inhospitality of their people....NOT homosexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  The answer to why the cities were destroyed is recorded in Genesis "because the outcry to the Lord against them has become great" (Genesis 19:13)
> 
> Let's review the evidence.  When two angels came to the house of Lot, Genesis records that "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom, young and old, surrounded the house, saying to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight. Bring them out so we can have sex with them."  When Lot offered his daughters, they refused, for they were attracted to the angels who were men, not to women.
> 
> So in summary, EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape the angels who visited Lot.  No wonder the angel reported that all their neighbors decried their oppression.  The city was full of roving gangs of homosexual rapists.
> 
> Now you on the Left who despise God and God's word to begin with have set up a contradiction that doesn't exist. Ezekiel 16 mentions Sodom saying "Now this was the sin of your Sister Sodom, she and her daughters were arrogant and overfed. They were not concerned for the poor and needy and did not help them." This wasn't a refutation to the main reason that the cities were destroyed, but a corollary of its initial sin.  Cities who hold as it's highest value the indulgence of the flesh and the oppression of human decency are utterly bereft of charity.  Selfish people don't take care of the poor and homosexuals are indeed selfish.
> 
> But the Bible is clear on why the cities were destroyed, Jude 7 confirming, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
> 
> There's no doubt what the Bible says about the destruction of those cities and the reason for it.  It only becomes unclear to those who hate God, despise his righteousness, and will twist his words to pervert their meaning.  That's you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what the bible says:
> 
> Jeremiah 23 14 And among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers so that not one of them turns from their wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.
> 
> Hmmmm...."adultery" they say?   Adultery?   Not homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Slimey - you know nothing of theology or etymology - The tale of Sodom and Gomorrah was about faggots and other assorted perverts - people we today call LGBT .
> 
> Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'" The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver.
> 
> Genesis 19:5
> New International Version
> They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> New Living Translation
> They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!"
> 
> English Standard Version
> And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already given them this info.  What's remarkable is that EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape those angels, yet the homosexual Left insists that homosexuality was not the main issue.  People who hate God and God's word will not endure the rightly divided word of truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually St.Mike - I am not a Christian or Jew - but do know my scriptures - and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was primarily about Homosexuals - it's not even debatable.
Click to expand...

S and M was about the lack of Righteous Men.  And then there's Lot, the man who got drunk and fucked both his daughters.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what you're going to do, say that every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies that embrace homosexuality is fiction?  Please let me know because I won't waste any more time on you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soooooo, where are the ruins?
> 
> One other point....while you keep saying things like "every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies"   you can only list two cities (not societies, btw) that anyone anywhere has any archaeological evidence EVEN EXISTED.   And if you go by the bible, which I assume you are, even that states they were destroyed over the inhospitality of their people....NOT homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  The answer to why the cities were destroyed is recorded in Genesis "because the outcry to the Lord against them has become great" (Genesis 19:13)
> 
> Let's review the evidence.  When two angels came to the house of Lot, Genesis records that "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom, young and old, surrounded the house, saying to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight. Bring them out so we can have sex with them."  When Lot offered his daughters, they refused, for they were attracted to the angels who were men, not to women.
> 
> So in summary, EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape the angels who visited Lot.  No wonder the angel reported that all their neighbors decried their oppression.  The city was full of roving gangs of homosexual rapists.
> 
> Now you on the Left who despise God and God's word to begin with have set up a contradiction that doesn't exist. Ezekiel 16 mentions Sodom saying "Now this was the sin of your Sister Sodom, she and her daughters were arrogant and overfed. They were not concerned for the poor and needy and did not help them." This wasn't a refutation to the main reason that the cities were destroyed, but a corollary of its initial sin.  Cities who hold as it's highest value the indulgence of the flesh and the oppression of human decency are utterly bereft of charity.  Selfish people don't take care of the poor and homosexuals are indeed selfish.
> 
> But the Bible is clear on why the cities were destroyed, Jude 7 confirming, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
> 
> There's no doubt what the Bible says about the destruction of those cities and the reason for it.  It only becomes unclear to those who hate God, despise his righteousness, and will twist his words to pervert their meaning.  That's you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what the bible says:
> 
> Jeremiah 23 14 And among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers so that not one of them turns from their wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.
> 
> Hmmmm...."adultery" they say?   Adultery?   Not homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Slimey - you know nothing of theology or etymology - The tale of Sodom and Gomorrah was about faggots and other assorted perverts - people we today call LGBT .
> 
> Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'" The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver.
> 
> Genesis 19:5
> New International Version
> They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> New Living Translation
> They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!"
> 
> English Standard Version
> And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already given them this info.  What's remarkable is that EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape those angels, yet the homosexual Left insists that homosexuality was not the main issue.  People who hate God and God's word will not endure the rightly divided word of truth.
Click to expand...

Well they had no issues fucking his virgin daughters now did they?  And then Lot fucked them too, over the next two nights.  That's what the Bible says.


----------



## GreenBean

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is absolutely a right.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is a RITE not a right - its also a privilege to be Right - one you will never enjoy - RIGHT ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is contract law written by the states and administered by state courts; marriage is a union of two consenting equal adult partners recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
> 
> As a fact of Constitutional law marriage is indeed a right, so too is it a right that same-sex couples be allowed access to marriage contract law they're eligible to participate in; to seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage contract law they're eligible to participate in violates the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...


Well put - Bravo !  however *you need to learn to distinguish between your personal Opinions and Facts.* 

I know that being a Liberal , distinguishing between fact and fantasy is sometimes difficult - especially considering your well documented over active imagination, your ability to bend reality to suit your agenda and your extremely exaggerated sense of self worth - but do give it a try - it's actually psychologically healthy to be honest with ones self and others occasionally - Honesty ...hmmm...something else you've never achieved either.

No need to Thank me for the free Psychological Advice - glad to have been of service.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

GreenBean said:


> In Colorado, a baker says he’d close his business before decorating a cake for a same-sex wedding. In Washington state, a florist is refusing to provide flowers for a longtime customer’s marriage ceremony. In Iowa, a husband and wife who host weddings in a converted church say only opposite-sex couples are welcome.


Either do your fucking job or close the business, your call.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is absolutely a right.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is a RITE not a right - its also a privilege to be Right - one you will never enjoy - RIGHT ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is contract law written by the states and administered by state courts; marriage is a union of two consenting equal adult partners recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.
> 
> As a fact of Constitutional law marriage is indeed a right, so too is it a right that same-sex couples be allowed access to marriage contract law they're eligible to participate in; to seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage contract law they're eligible to participate in violates the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well put - Bravo !  however *you need to learn to distinguish between your personal Opinions and Facts.*
> .
Click to expand...


Clearly he is able to to distinguish between personal opinions and facts- and you are not.

Marriage is indeed a right. 

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

Although_Loving_arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

_Maynard v. Hill,_125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as *"the most important relation in life,"*_id._at125 U. S. 205, and as *"the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,*"

In_Meyer v. Nebraska,_262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that *the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,*

In_Griswold v. Connecticut,_381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

_Carey v. Population Services International,_431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that *an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage*,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Soooooo, where are the ruins?
> 
> One other point....while you keep saying things like "every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies"   you can only list two cities (not societies, btw) that anyone anywhere has any archaeological evidence EVEN EXISTED.   And if you go by the bible, which I assume you are, even that states they were destroyed over the inhospitality of their people....NOT homosexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  The answer to why the cities were destroyed is recorded in Genesis "because the outcry to the Lord against them has become great" (Genesis 19:13)
> 
> Let's review the evidence.  When two angels came to the house of Lot, Genesis records that "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom, young and old, surrounded the house, saying to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight. Bring them out so we can have sex with them."  When Lot offered his daughters, they refused, for they were attracted to the angels who were men, not to women.
> 
> So in summary, EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape the angels who visited Lot.  No wonder the angel reported that all their neighbors decried their oppression.  The city was full of roving gangs of homosexual rapists.
> 
> Now you on the Left who despise God and God's word to begin with have set up a contradiction that doesn't exist. Ezekiel 16 mentions Sodom saying "Now this was the sin of your Sister Sodom, she and her daughters were arrogant and overfed. They were not concerned for the poor and needy and did not help them." This wasn't a refutation to the main reason that the cities were destroyed, but a corollary of its initial sin.  Cities who hold as it's highest value the indulgence of the flesh and the oppression of human decency are utterly bereft of charity.  Selfish people don't take care of the poor and homosexuals are indeed selfish.
> 
> But the Bible is clear on why the cities were destroyed, Jude 7 confirming, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
> 
> There's no doubt what the Bible says about the destruction of those cities and the reason for it.  It only becomes unclear to those who hate God, despise his righteousness, and will twist his words to pervert their meaning.  That's you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what the bible says:
> 
> Jeremiah 23 14 And among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers so that not one of them turns from their wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.
> 
> Hmmmm...."adultery" they say?   Adultery?   Not homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Slimey - you know nothing of theology or etymology - The tale of Sodom and Gomorrah was about faggots and other assorted perverts - people we today call LGBT .
> 
> Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'" The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver.
> 
> Genesis 19:5
> New International Version
> They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> New Living Translation
> They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!"
> 
> English Standard Version
> And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already given them this info.  What's remarkable is that EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape those angels, yet the homosexual Left insists that homosexuality was not the main issue.  People who hate God and God's word will not endure the rightly divided word of truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually St.Mike - I am not a Christian or Jew - but do know my scriptures - and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was primarily about Homosexuals - it's not even debatable.
Click to expand...


Yet it is a topic that is regularly debated. Are you ignorant or a liar? Well clearly you are both.

There are whole books that debate the subject.  Here is one discussion of the various theories:

_The scholar and activist Jay Michaelson proposes a reading of the story of Sodom that emphasizes the violation of hospitality as well as the violence of the Sodomites. "Homosexual rape is the way in which they violate hospitality—not the essence of their transgression. Reading the story of Sodom as being about homosexuality is like reading the story of an ax murderer as being about an ax."[38] Michaelson places the story of Sodom in context with other Genesis stories regarding Abraham's hospitality to strangers, and argues that when other texts in the Hebrew Bible mention Sodom, they do so without commentary on homosexuality. The verses cited by Michaelson include Jeremiah 23:14,[Jeremiah 23:14] where the sins of Jerusalem are compared to Sodom and are listed as adultery, lying, and strengthening the hands of evildoers; Amos 4:1-11 (oppressing the poor and crushing the needy);[Amos 4:1-11] and Ezekiel 16:49-50,[Ezekiel 16:49-50] which defines the sins of Sodom as "pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and did toevah before me, and I took them away as I saw fit." Michaelson uses toevah in place of abomination to emphasize the original Hebrew, which he explains as being more correctly translated as "taboo".[39]


_


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fiction.  And even in the book that talks about them, the crime they were punished for was inhospitality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what you're going to do, say that every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies that embrace homosexuality is fiction?  Please let me know because I won't waste any more time on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by god is not a historical event. We are waiting for you to provide those examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.  Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because of the outcry of their neighbors. This is what was told to Lot.  It became an oppressive force and one way or another it had to be stopped.  It's the first recorded example of a homosexual culture destroying itself.  I'm not going to even bother moving on to Greece and Rome if you're an idiot that denies history. There's no way to have a rational discussion with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where are the ruins?   If these were two cities....there should be ruins like there are of Jericho, of Ur, of Troy.  Where are they?
> 
> And once again...if you go by the bible...those two "cities" were not destroyed because of homosexuality....they were destroyed because of their inhospitality to strangers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The ruins of Sodom and Gomorah are in Pakistan - they are known as Mohenjo-Daro.  It is actually the ruins of twin cities and modern science can not explain how it was destroyed .
> 
> "When archeologists got to the street level, people were lying dead in the street - after thousands of years." David H. Childress / Technology of the Gods: The Incredible Sciences of the Ancients
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Had a natural catastrophe, disease, or conventional war brought down Mohenjo Daro the bodies of its citizenry would have been ravaged by animals , and the city plundered by subsequent looters over the centuries. This never happened,  *Dozens of skeletons were found in the area of Mohenjo-Daro – their radioactivity exceeded the norm almost 50 times.*
> 
> 
> Russian researchers found a skeleton with* a radioactive level 50 times greater than normal.* Other cities have been found in northern India which also show evidence of intense explosions ._{Riddles of Ancient History - Sputnik Magazine - Alexander Gorbovsky}
> 
> Atomic warfare in Ancient India_
Click to expand...


Atomic warfare in Ancient India?  Really?

LOL.....


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The times they are a changing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as predicted by the architects of the Gay Agenda
> What they didn't account for was the backlash ...s
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Backlash- is that bigot talk for you getting more and more pissed off that it is no longer acceptable for you to bitch slap homosexuals?
> 
> The backlash right now is that never in American history have Americans judged a person less based upon who they love- on whether they may- or may not be gay.
> 
> And haters like you hate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In Colorado, a baker says he’d close his business before decorating a cake for a same-sex wedding. In Washington state, a florist is refusing to provide flowers for a longtime customer’s marriage ceremony. In Iowa, a husband and wife who host weddings in a converted church say only opposite-sex couples are welcome.
> 
> “The result of Hobby Lobby is political war,” said Marci Hamilton, a religious-freedom expert who teaches at Yeshiva University’s Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School. Evangelical groups advocating religious rights are “energized and mobilized. Their problem -- and I think they know it -- is that they have now energized and mobilized the silent majority as to both contraception and discrimination.”
> 
> At stake is how the country will reconcile deep-seated disagreements over competing rights to religious exercise, free speech and equal treatment.
> 
> On one side are people who say a refusal to do business with gay couples should be every bit as illegal as racial discrimination. On the other are those who argue that business owners shouldn’t be forced to violate their consciences as the price of pursuing their profession.
> 
> So far, religious-liberty advocates have found little success, at least when pressing their arguments before civil-rights agencies and judges. The New Mexico Human Rights Commission concluded that a wedding photographer, Elaine Huguenin, violated a state anti-discrimination law by refusing to take pictures of a same-sex couple’s commitment ceremony.
> 
> The Supreme Court in April turned away the photographer’s appeal without a hearing. Huguenin has since stopped taking wedding photographs, said Jeremy Tedesco, a lawyer with the Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented her.
> 
> “Her faith has excluded her from an entire area of business that’s actually quite important for photographers,” Tedesco said.
> 
> *A growing number of states are considering legislation that would allow businesses to refuse service to LGBT people  justifying it as “promoting religious freedom,” *
Click to expand...


LOL- all that any of those states need to do is change the public accommodation laws so it is legal for bigots and other business owners to discriminate against homosexuals. 

States and localities pass public accommodation laws- and unless they specify homosexuals or sexual preference then homosexual are not covered.  

Don't like the law- then repeal it. 

Or you can do like gay couples have done, and go to court to argue that the law is unconstitutional.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Mesopotamia wasn't a society, it's an area where several societies (i.e. the Sumarians, Assyrians, the Babylonians) rose and fell.   (Mesopotamia means "land between the rivers)
> 2.  List ONE, just ONE society that was killed off by homosexuality.   And, of course, you've got to show us some kind of evidence that homosexuality was the culprit.
> 
> TIA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sodom and Gomorrah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fiction.  And even in the book that talks about them, the crime they were punished for was inhospitality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what you're going to do, say that every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies that embrace homosexuality is fiction?  Please let me know because I won't waste any more time on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Soooooo, where are the ruins?
> 
> One other point....while you keep saying things like "every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies"   you can only list two cities (not societies, btw) that anyone anywhere has any archaeological evidence EVEN EXISTED.   And if you go by the bible, which I assume you are, even that states they were destroyed over the inhospitality of their people....NOT homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  The answer to why the cities were destroyed is recorded in Genesis "because the outcry to the Lord against them has become great" (Genesis 19:13)
> 
> Let's review the evidence.  When two angels came to the house of Lot, Genesis records that "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom, young and old, surrounded the house, saying to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight. Bring them out so we can have sex with them."  When Lot offered his daughters, they refused, for they were attracted to the angels who were men, not to women.
> 
> So in summary, EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape the angels who visited Lot. .
Click to expand...


If every man in both Sodom and Gomorrah was a homosexual- how exactly was the population replenishing itself in these days before invitro?


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Mesopotamia wasn't a society, it's an area where several societies (i.e. the Sumarians, Assyrians, the Babylonians) rose and fell.   (Mesopotamia means "land between the rivers)
> 2.  List ONE, just ONE society that was killed off by homosexuality.   And, of course, you've got to show us some kind of evidence that homosexuality was the culprit.
> 
> TIA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sodom and Gomorrah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fiction.  And even in the book that talks about them, the crime they were punished for was inhospitality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what you're going to do, say that every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies that embrace homosexuality is fiction?  Please let me know because I won't waste any more time on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by god is not a historical event. We are waiting for you to provide those examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.  Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because of the outcry of their neighbors. This is what was told to Lot.  It became an oppressive force and one way or another it had to be stopped.  It's the first recorded example of a homosexual culture destroying itself.  I'm not going to even bother moving on to Greece and Rome if you're an idiot that denies history. There's no way to have a rational discussion with you.
Click to expand...


Except of course that:
a) Sodom and Gomorrah is not a recorded example of any culture- because we still have no evidence that Sodom and Gomorrah ever existed and 
b) There is no evidence that it was a 'homosexual' culture.

The interpretation by you and some biblical scholars of what the Bible says- is not evidence.


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what you're going to do, say that every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies that embrace homosexuality is fiction?  Please let me know because I won't waste any more time on you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soooooo, where are the ruins?
> 
> One other point....while you keep saying things like "every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies"   you can only list two cities (not societies, btw) that anyone anywhere has any archaeological evidence EVEN EXISTED.   And if you go by the bible, which I assume you are, even that states they were destroyed over the inhospitality of their people....NOT homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  The answer to why the cities were destroyed is recorded in Genesis "because the outcry to the Lord against them has become great" (Genesis 19:13)
> 
> Let's review the evidence.  When two angels came to the house of Lot, Genesis records that "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom, young and old, surrounded the house, saying to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight. Bring them out so we can have sex with them."  When Lot offered his daughters, they refused, for they were attracted to the angels who were men, not to women.
> 
> So in summary, EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape the angels who visited Lot.  No wonder the angel reported that all their neighbors decried their oppression.  The city was full of roving gangs of homosexual rapists.
> 
> Now you on the Left who despise God and God's word to begin with have set up a contradiction that doesn't exist. Ezekiel 16 mentions Sodom saying "Now this was the sin of your Sister Sodom, she and her daughters were arrogant and overfed. They were not concerned for the poor and needy and did not help them." This wasn't a refutation to the main reason that the cities were destroyed, but a corollary of its initial sin.  Cities who hold as it's highest value the indulgence of the flesh and the oppression of human decency are utterly bereft of charity.  Selfish people don't take care of the poor and homosexuals are indeed selfish.
> 
> But the Bible is clear on why the cities were destroyed, Jude 7 confirming, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
> 
> There's no doubt what the Bible says about the destruction of those cities and the reason for it.  It only becomes unclear to those who hate God, despise his righteousness, and will twist his words to pervert their meaning.  That's you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what the bible says:
> 
> Jeremiah 23 14 And among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers so that not one of them turns from their wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.
> 
> Hmmmm...."adultery" they say?   Adultery?   Not homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Slimey - you know nothing of theology or etymology - The tale of Sodom and Gomorrah was about faggots and other assorted perverts - people we today call LGBT .
> 
> Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'" The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver.
> 
> Genesis 19:5
> New International Version
> They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> New Living Translation
> They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!"
> 
> English Standard Version
> And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already given them this info.  What's remarkable is that EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape those angels, yet the homosexual Left insists that homosexuality was not the main issue.  People who hate God and God's word will not endure the rightly divided word of truth.
Click to expand...



Indeed remarkable...so remarkable as to be unbelievable. 

Homosexuality was not the main issue. Why were the angels there in the first place? They didn't go to the city because the whole town was allegedly gay did they? No, they went there because the city did not honor god. They were gluttonous, inhospitable to strangers and performed idol worship. An angry mob shows up where they are and the guy inside the house offers up his virgin daughters to be raped by the angry mob. Still not sounding like widespread gay to me...sounds like an angry mob bent on rape...which is about power by the way. 

Then the "hero", after his wife turns to salt (yeah, so believable), fucks his daughters in a cave in the mountain. 

I can see why ya'll have tried to scapegoat gays with that fucking story.


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry, I just don't  see homosexuals as a discreet group that NEEDS any more protections than are already guaranteed by the constitution to all of us, anyway. And YES,  given that, people should be given leeway to accept or reject people on  sexual preference, because choice transcends petty sexual matters, and THAT should be the capitol issue. In my humble opinion, anyway...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm not sorry that gays and lesbians fighting for and attaining rights and protections equal to heterosexuals causes consternation to bigots and homophobes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> my wife had an aunt who was a lesbian, she outgrew it.   what will happen to your "marriage" when you or you partner outgrow it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been a lesbian for over 40 years and with my spouse for 20. I think we'll be okay. Your concern is touching.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to believe those numbers when California voters approved of a ban on gay marriage by popular referendum. When it was struck down in court, they passed another referendum adding a ban to gay marriage to the California constitution.  Yeah, Blue State California.  Compare this to New York who pulled some shady tricks to pass gay marriage in the middle of the night before any opposition could be mounted to it.  And that was the legislature, not a popular movement, so they can hardly be seen as representing the people in doing that.  When it comes to the laws that are backed by popular support, gay marriage is trumped by those who want to preserve what real marriage is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just providing an excellent example of why we don't vote on people's civil rights. Loving v Virginia was in 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling it a "civil right" over and over again doesn't make it so...unless you're silly enough to believe that repetition has the power to turn a lie into truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, oddly, court after court is agreeing with me and not you, aren't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not all of them.
> 
> Are they?
Click to expand...


You're right...one agreed with you. One out of dozens. That must really give you hope.


----------



## bodecea

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The times they are a changing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as predicted by the architects of the Gay Agenda
> What they didn't account for was the backlash ...s
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Backlash- is that bigot talk for you getting more and more pissed off that it is no longer acceptable for you to bitch slap homosexuals?
> 
> The backlash right now is that never in American history have Americans judged a person less based upon who they love- on whether they may- or may not be gay.
> 
> And haters like you hate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In Colorado, a baker says he’d close his business before decorating a cake for a same-sex wedding. In Washington state, a florist is refusing to provide flowers for a longtime customer’s marriage ceremony. In Iowa, a husband and wife who host weddings in a converted church say only opposite-sex couples are welcome.
> 
> “The result of Hobby Lobby is political war,” said Marci Hamilton, a religious-freedom expert who teaches at Yeshiva University’s Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School. Evangelical groups advocating religious rights are “energized and mobilized. Their problem -- and I think they know it -- is that they have now energized and mobilized the silent majority as to both contraception and discrimination.”
> 
> At stake is how the country will reconcile deep-seated disagreements over competing rights to religious exercise, free speech and equal treatment.
> 
> On one side are people who say a refusal to do business with gay couples should be every bit as illegal as racial discrimination. On the other are those who argue that business owners shouldn’t be forced to violate their consciences as the price of pursuing their profession.
> 
> So far, religious-liberty advocates have found little success, at least when pressing their arguments before civil-rights agencies and judges. The New Mexico Human Rights Commission concluded that a wedding photographer, Elaine Huguenin, violated a state anti-discrimination law by refusing to take pictures of a same-sex couple’s commitment ceremony.
> 
> The Supreme Court in April turned away the photographer’s appeal without a hearing. Huguenin has since stopped taking wedding photographs, said Jeremy Tedesco, a lawyer with the Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented her.
> 
> “Her faith has excluded her from an entire area of business that’s actually quite important for photographers,” Tedesco said.
> 
> *A growing number of states are considering legislation that would allow businesses to refuse service to LGBT people  justifying it as “promoting religious freedom,” *
Click to expand...

Their choices...just like those muslim taxi drivers who refuse to carry customers with dogs or alcohol.  Their choice.


----------



## bodecea

GreenBean said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fiction.  And even in the book that talks about them, the crime they were punished for was inhospitality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what you're going to do, say that every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies that embrace homosexuality is fiction?  Please let me know because I won't waste any more time on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Soooooo, where are the ruins?
> 
> One other point....while you keep saying things like "every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies"   you can only list two cities (not societies, btw) that anyone anywhere has any archaeological evidence EVEN EXISTED.   And if you go by the bible, which I assume you are, even that states they were destroyed over the inhospitality of their people....NOT homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  The answer to why the cities were destroyed is recorded in Genesis "because the outcry to the Lord against them has become great" (Genesis 19:13)
> 
> Let's review the evidence.  When two angels came to the house of Lot, Genesis records that "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom, young and old, surrounded the house, saying to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight. Bring them out so we can have sex with them."  When Lot offered his daughters, they refused, for they were attracted to the angels who were men, not to women.
> 
> So in summary, EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape the angels who visited Lot.  No wonder the angel reported that all their neighbors decried their oppression.  The city was full of roving gangs of homosexual rapists.
> 
> Now you on the Left who despise God and God's word to begin with have set up a contradiction that doesn't exist. Ezekiel 16 mentions Sodom saying "Now this was the sin of your Sister Sodom, she and her daughters were arrogant and overfed. They were not concerned for the poor and needy and did not help them." This wasn't a refutation to the main reason that the cities were destroyed, but a corollary of its initial sin.  Cities who hold as it's highest value the indulgence of the flesh and the oppression of human decency are utterly bereft of charity.  Selfish people don't take care of the poor and homosexuals are indeed selfish.
> 
> But the Bible is clear on why the cities were destroyed, Jude 7 confirming, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
> 
> There's no doubt what the Bible says about the destruction of those cities and the reason for it.  It only becomes unclear to those who hate God, despise his righteousness, and will twist his words to pervert their meaning.  That's you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what the bible says:
> 
> Jeremiah 23 14 And among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers so that not one of them turns from their wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.
> 
> Hmmmm...."adultery" they say?   Adultery?   Not homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Slimey - you know nothing of theology or etymology - The tale of Sodom and Gomorrah was about faggots and other assorted perverts - people we today call LGBT .
> 
> Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'" The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver.
> 
> Genesis 19:5
> New International Version
> They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> New Living Translation
> They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!"
> 
> English Standard Version
> And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”
Click to expand...


The "tale of Sodom and Gomorrah" indeed.  A tale.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what you're going to do, say that every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies that embrace homosexuality is fiction?  Please let me know because I won't waste any more time on you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soooooo, where are the ruins?
> 
> One other point....while you keep saying things like "every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies"   you can only list two cities (not societies, btw) that anyone anywhere has any archaeological evidence EVEN EXISTED.   And if you go by the bible, which I assume you are, even that states they were destroyed over the inhospitality of their people....NOT homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  The answer to why the cities were destroyed is recorded in Genesis "because the outcry to the Lord against them has become great" (Genesis 19:13)
> 
> Let's review the evidence.  When two angels came to the house of Lot, Genesis records that "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom, young and old, surrounded the house, saying to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight. Bring them out so we can have sex with them."  When Lot offered his daughters, they refused, for they were attracted to the angels who were men, not to women.
> 
> So in summary, EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape the angels who visited Lot.  No wonder the angel reported that all their neighbors decried their oppression.  The city was full of roving gangs of homosexual rapists.
> 
> Now you on the Left who despise God and God's word to begin with have set up a contradiction that doesn't exist. Ezekiel 16 mentions Sodom saying "Now this was the sin of your Sister Sodom, she and her daughters were arrogant and overfed. They were not concerned for the poor and needy and did not help them." This wasn't a refutation to the main reason that the cities were destroyed, but a corollary of its initial sin.  Cities who hold as it's highest value the indulgence of the flesh and the oppression of human decency are utterly bereft of charity.  Selfish people don't take care of the poor and homosexuals are indeed selfish.
> 
> But the Bible is clear on why the cities were destroyed, Jude 7 confirming, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
> 
> There's no doubt what the Bible says about the destruction of those cities and the reason for it.  It only becomes unclear to those who hate God, despise his righteousness, and will twist his words to pervert their meaning.  That's you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what the bible says:
> 
> Jeremiah 23 14 And among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers so that not one of them turns from their wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.
> 
> Hmmmm...."adultery" they say?   Adultery?   Not homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Slimey - you know nothing of theology or etymology - The tale of Sodom and Gomorrah was about faggots and other assorted perverts - people we today call LGBT .
> 
> Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'" The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver.
> 
> Genesis 19:5
> New International Version
> They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> New Living Translation
> They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!"
> 
> English Standard Version
> And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already given them this info.  What's remarkable is that *EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape those angels*, yet the homosexual Left insists that homosexuality was not the main issue.  People who hate God and God's word will not endure the rightly divided word of truth.
Click to expand...

Where does it say that?


----------



## bodecea

GreenBean said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fiction.  And even in the book that talks about them, the crime they were punished for was inhospitality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what you're going to do, say that every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies that embrace homosexuality is fiction?  Please let me know because I won't waste any more time on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by god is not a historical event. We are waiting for you to provide those examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.  Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because of the outcry of their neighbors. This is what was told to Lot.  It became an oppressive force and one way or another it had to be stopped.  It's the first recorded example of a homosexual culture destroying itself.  I'm not going to even bother moving on to Greece and Rome if you're an idiot that denies history. There's no way to have a rational discussion with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where are the ruins?   If these were two cities....there should be ruins like there are of Jericho, of Ur, of Troy.  Where are they?
> 
> And once again...if you go by the bible...those two "cities" were not destroyed because of homosexuality....they were destroyed because of their inhospitality to strangers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The ruins of Sodom and Gomorah are in Pakistan - they are known as Mohenjo-Daro.  It is actually the ruins of twin cities and modern science can not explain how it was destroyed .
> 
> "When archeologists got to the street level, people were lying dead in the street - after thousands of years." David H. Childress / Technology of the Gods: The Incredible Sciences of the Ancients.
> 
> Had a natural catastrophe, disease, or conventional war brought down Mohenjo Daro the bodies of its citizenry would have been ravaged by animals , and the city plundered by subsequent looters over the centuries. This never happened,  *Dozens of skeletons were found in the area of Mohenjo-Daro – their radioactivity exceeded the norm almost 50 times.*
> 
> 
> Russian researchers found a skeleton with* a radioactive level 50 times greater than normal.* Other cities have been found in northern India which also show evidence of intense explosions ._{Riddles of Ancient History - Sputnik Magazine - Alexander Gorbovsky}
> 
> Atomic warfare in Ancient India_
Click to expand...


----------



## bodecea

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what you're going to do, say that every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies that embrace homosexuality is fiction?  Please let me know because I won't waste any more time on you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by god is not a historical event. We are waiting for you to provide those examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.  Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because of the outcry of their neighbors. This is what was told to Lot.  It became an oppressive force and one way or another it had to be stopped.  It's the first recorded example of a homosexual culture destroying itself.  I'm not going to even bother moving on to Greece and Rome if you're an idiot that denies history. There's no way to have a rational discussion with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where are the ruins?   If these were two cities....there should be ruins like there are of Jericho, of Ur, of Troy.  Where are they?
> 
> And once again...if you go by the bible...those two "cities" were not destroyed because of homosexuality....they were destroyed because of their inhospitality to strangers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The ruins of Sodom and Gomorah are in Pakistan - they are known as Mohenjo-Daro.  It is actually the ruins of twin cities and modern science can not explain how it was destroyed .
> 
> "When archeologists got to the street level, people were lying dead in the street - after thousands of years." David H. Childress / Technology of the Gods: The Incredible Sciences of the Ancients.
> 
> Had a natural catastrophe, disease, or conventional war brought down Mohenjo Daro the bodies of its citizenry would have been ravaged by animals , and the city plundered by subsequent looters over the centuries. This never happened,  *Dozens of skeletons were found in the area of Mohenjo-Daro – their radioactivity exceeded the norm almost 50 times.*
> 
> 
> Russian researchers found a skeleton with* a radioactive level 50 times greater than normal.* Other cities have been found in northern India which also show evidence of intense explosions ._{Riddles of Ancient History - Sputnik Magazine - Alexander Gorbovsky}
> 
> Atomic warfare in Ancient India_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atomic warfare in Ancient India?  Really?
> 
> LOL.....
Click to expand...

It's particularly amusing considering that the biblical story of Sodom etc places them in Canaan...and it was actually 5 cities with 4 of them being destroyed...even tho it's only the first 2 that seem to be remembered.  But it's only a tale.


----------



## GreenBean

bodecea said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by god is not a historical event. We are waiting for you to provide those examples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is.  Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because of the outcry of their neighbors. This is what was told to Lot.  It became an oppressive force and one way or another it had to be stopped.  It's the first recorded example of a homosexual culture destroying itself.  I'm not going to even bother moving on to Greece and Rome if you're an idiot that denies history. There's no way to have a rational discussion with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where are the ruins?   If these were two cities....there should be ruins like there are of Jericho, of Ur, of Troy.  Where are they?
> 
> And once again...if you go by the bible...those two "cities" were not destroyed because of homosexuality....they were destroyed because of their inhospitality to strangers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The ruins of Sodom and Gomorah are in Pakistan - they are known as Mohenjo-Daro.  It is actually the ruins of twin cities and modern science can not explain how it was destroyed .
> 
> "When archeologists got to the street level, people were lying dead in the street - after thousands of years." David H. Childress / Technology of the Gods: The Incredible Sciences of the Ancients.
> 
> Had a natural catastrophe, disease, or conventional war brought down Mohenjo Daro the bodies of its citizenry would have been ravaged by animals , and the city plundered by subsequent looters over the centuries. This never happened,  *Dozens of skeletons were found in the area of Mohenjo-Daro – their radioactivity exceeded the norm almost 50 times.*
> 
> 
> Russian researchers found a skeleton with* a radioactive level 50 times greater than normal.* Other cities have been found in northern India which also show evidence of intense explosions ._{Riddles of Ancient History - Sputnik Magazine - Alexander Gorbovsky}
> 
> Atomic warfare in Ancient India_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atomic warfare in Ancient India?  Really?
> 
> LOL.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's particularly amusing considering that the biblical story of Sodom etc places them in Canaan...and it was actually 5 cities with 4 of them being destroyed...even tho it's only the first 2 that seem to be remembered.  But it's only a tale.
Click to expand...


Scholars believe that most Biblical "tales"   have their roots in actual Historical events. The written version is frequently aggrandized and exaggerated, but no serious scholar takes them as 100% literal, only religious zealots. 

Abraham, forebear of the Hebrews, is believed to have come from a region of modern day Iraq known as "Ur"  not far from the region of Mohenjo Daro - some of the Old Test.Biblical tales - such as Sodom & Gomorrah are theorized to have derived from there.  In fact there is even a theory that Brahma and ABraham are one and the same Historical character.

I do realize that most of this is beyond your ability to grasp given the minuscule intellectual capacity you have to work with - but you do realize that it is only a theory - there are some alternative claimants to being Sodom & Gomorrah - such as that it was on a  plain south of the Dead Sea and later covered by the waters as the Dead sea water levels changed.


----------



## bodecea

GreenBean said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is.  Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because of the outcry of their neighbors. This is what was told to Lot.  It became an oppressive force and one way or another it had to be stopped.  It's the first recorded example of a homosexual culture destroying itself.  I'm not going to even bother moving on to Greece and Rome if you're an idiot that denies history. There's no way to have a rational discussion with you.
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the ruins?   If these were two cities....there should be ruins like there are of Jericho, of Ur, of Troy.  Where are they?
> 
> And once again...if you go by the bible...those two "cities" were not destroyed because of homosexuality....they were destroyed because of their inhospitality to strangers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The ruins of Sodom and Gomorah are in Pakistan - they are known as Mohenjo-Daro.  It is actually the ruins of twin cities and modern science can not explain how it was destroyed .
> 
> "When archeologists got to the street level, people were lying dead in the street - after thousands of years." David H. Childress / Technology of the Gods: The Incredible Sciences of the Ancients.
> 
> Had a natural catastrophe, disease, or conventional war brought down Mohenjo Daro the bodies of its citizenry would have been ravaged by animals , and the city plundered by subsequent looters over the centuries. This never happened,  *Dozens of skeletons were found in the area of Mohenjo-Daro – their radioactivity exceeded the norm almost 50 times.*
> 
> 
> Russian researchers found a skeleton with* a radioactive level 50 times greater than normal.* Other cities have been found in northern India which also show evidence of intense explosions ._{Riddles of Ancient History - Sputnik Magazine - Alexander Gorbovsky}
> 
> Atomic warfare in Ancient India_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atomic warfare in Ancient India?  Really?
> 
> LOL.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's particularly amusing considering that the biblical story of Sodom etc places them in Canaan...and it was actually 5 cities with 4 of them being destroyed...even tho it's only the first 2 that seem to be remembered.  But it's only a tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scholars believe that most Biblical "tales"   have their roots in actual Historical events. The written version is frequently aggrandized and exaggerated, but no serious scholar takes them as 100% literal, only religious zealots.
> 
> Abraham, forebear of the Hebrews, is believed to have come from a region of modern day Iraq known as "Ur"  not far from the region of Mohenjo Daro - some of the Old Test.Biblical tales - such as Sodom & Gomorrah are theorized to have derived from there.  In fact there is even a theory that Brahma and ABraham are one and the same Historical character.
Click to expand...

Ur is in Mesopotamian...near where the Tigris and Euphrates come together....not anywhere near the Indus river valley.


----------



## GreenBean

bodecea said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the ruins?   If these were two cities....there should be ruins like there are of Jericho, of Ur, of Troy.  Where are they?
> 
> And once again...if you go by the bible...those two "cities" were not destroyed because of homosexuality....they were destroyed because of their inhospitality to strangers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ruins of Sodom and Gomorah are in Pakistan - they are known as Mohenjo-Daro.  It is actually the ruins of twin cities and modern science can not explain how it was destroyed .
> 
> "When archeologists got to the street level, people were lying dead in the street - after thousands of years." David H. Childress / Technology of the Gods: The Incredible Sciences of the Ancients.
> 
> Had a natural catastrophe, disease, or conventional war brought down Mohenjo Daro the bodies of its citizenry would have been ravaged by animals , and the city plundered by subsequent looters over the centuries. This never happened,  *Dozens of skeletons were found in the area of Mohenjo-Daro – their radioactivity exceeded the norm almost 50 times.*
> 
> 
> Russian researchers found a skeleton with* a radioactive level 50 times greater than normal.* Other cities have been found in northern India which also show evidence of intense explosions ._{Riddles of Ancient History - Sputnik Magazine - Alexander Gorbovsky}
> 
> Atomic warfare in Ancient India_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atomic warfare in Ancient India?  Really?
> 
> LOL.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's particularly amusing considering that the biblical story of Sodom etc places them in Canaan...and it was actually 5 cities with 4 of them being destroyed...even tho it's only the first 2 that seem to be remembered.  But it's only a tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scholars believe that most Biblical "tales"   have their roots in actual Historical events. The written version is frequently aggrandized and exaggerated, but no serious scholar takes them as 100% literal, only religious zealots.
> 
> Abraham, forebear of the Hebrews, is believed to have come from a region of modern day Iraq known as "Ur"  not far from the region of Mohenjo Daro - some of the Old Test.Biblical tales - such as Sodom & Gomorrah are theorized to have derived from there.  In fact there is even a theory that Brahma and ABraham are one and the same Historical character.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ur is in Mesopotamian...near where the Tigris and Euphrates come together....not anywhere near the Indus river valley.
Click to expand...


Right ... and the Statue of Liberty is in New Jersey ...not New York  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## bodecea

GreenBean said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ruins of Sodom and Gomorah are in Pakistan - they are known as Mohenjo-Daro.  It is actually the ruins of twin cities and modern science can not explain how it was destroyed .
> 
> "When archeologists got to the street level, people were lying dead in the street - after thousands of years." David H. Childress / Technology of the Gods: The Incredible Sciences of the Ancients.
> 
> Had a natural catastrophe, disease, or conventional war brought down Mohenjo Daro the bodies of its citizenry would have been ravaged by animals , and the city plundered by subsequent looters over the centuries. This never happened,  *Dozens of skeletons were found in the area of Mohenjo-Daro – their radioactivity exceeded the norm almost 50 times.*
> 
> 
> Russian researchers found a skeleton with* a radioactive level 50 times greater than normal.* Other cities have been found in northern India which also show evidence of intense explosions ._{Riddles of Ancient History - Sputnik Magazine - Alexander Gorbovsky}
> 
> Atomic warfare in Ancient India_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atomic warfare in Ancient India?  Really?
> 
> LOL.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's particularly amusing considering that the biblical story of Sodom etc places them in Canaan...and it was actually 5 cities with 4 of them being destroyed...even tho it's only the first 2 that seem to be remembered.  But it's only a tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scholars believe that most Biblical "tales"   have their roots in actual Historical events. The written version is frequently aggrandized and exaggerated, but no serious scholar takes them as 100% literal, only religious zealots.
> 
> Abraham, forebear of the Hebrews, is believed to have come from a region of modern day Iraq known as "Ur"  not far from the region of Mohenjo Daro - some of the Old Test.Biblical tales - such as Sodom & Gomorrah are theorized to have derived from there.  In fact there is even a theory that Brahma and ABraham are one and the same Historical character.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ur is in Mesopotamian...near where the Tigris and Euphrates come together....not anywhere near the Indus river valley.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right ... and the Statue of Liberty is in New Jersey ...not New York
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point.   According to your own map and it's scale, where Ur has been discovered and where the Indus Valley is are about 1000 miles apart.   Thanks.


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  The answer to why the cities were destroyed is recorded in Genesis "because the outcry to the Lord against them has become great" (Genesis 19:13)
> 
> Let's review the evidence.  When two angels came to the house of Lot, Genesis records that "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom, young and old, surrounded the house, saying to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight. Bring them out so we can have sex with them."  When Lot offered his daughters, they refused, for they were attracted to the angels who were men, not to women.
> 
> So in summary, EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape the angels who visited Lot.  No wonder the angel reported that all their neighbors decried their oppression.  The city was full of roving gangs of homosexual rapists.
> 
> Now you on the Left who despise God and God's word to begin with have set up a contradiction that doesn't exist. Ezekiel 16 mentions Sodom saying "Now this was the sin of your Sister Sodom, she and her daughters were arrogant and overfed. They were not concerned for the poor and needy and did not help them." This wasn't a refutation to the main reason that the cities were destroyed, but a corollary of its initial sin.  Cities who hold as it's highest value the indulgence of the flesh and the oppression of human decency are utterly bereft of charity.  Selfish people don't take care of the poor and homosexuals are indeed selfish.
> 
> But the Bible is clear on why the cities were destroyed, Jude 7 confirming, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
> 
> There's no doubt what the Bible says about the destruction of those cities and the reason for it.  It only becomes unclear to those who hate God, despise his righteousness, and will twist his words to pervert their meaning.  That's you.
> 
> 
> 
> This is what the bible says:
> 
> Jeremiah 23 14 And among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers so that not one of them turns from their wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.
> 
> Hmmmm...."adultery" they say?   Adultery?   Not homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Slimey - you know nothing of theology or etymology - The tale of Sodom and Gomorrah was about faggots and other assorted perverts - people we today call LGBT .
> 
> Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'" The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver.
> 
> Genesis 19:5
> New International Version
> They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> New Living Translation
> They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!"
> 
> English Standard Version
> And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already given them this info.  What's remarkable is that EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape those angels, yet the homosexual Left insists that homosexuality was not the main issue.  People who hate God and God's word will not endure the rightly divided word of truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually St.Mike - I am not a Christian or Jew - but do know my scriptures - and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was primarily about Homosexuals - it's not even debatable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet it is a topic that is regularly debated. Are you ignorant or a liar? Well clearly you are both.
> 
> There are whole books that debate the subject.  Here is one discussion of the various theories:
> 
> _The scholar and activist Jay Michaelson proposes a reading of the story of Sodom that emphasizes the violation of hospitality as well as the violence of the Sodomites. "Homosexual rape is the way in which they violate hospitality—not the essence of their transgression. Reading the story of Sodom as being about homosexuality is like reading the story of an ax murderer as being about an ax."[38] Michaelson places the story of Sodom in context with other Genesis stories regarding Abraham's hospitality to strangers, and argues that when other texts in the Hebrew Bible mention Sodom, they do so without commentary on homosexuality. The verses cited by Michaelson include Jeremiah 23:14,[Jeremiah 23:14] where the sins of Jerusalem are compared to Sodom and are listed as adultery, lying, and strengthening the hands of evildoers; Amos 4:1-11 (oppressing the poor and crushing the needy);[Amos 4:1-11] and Ezekiel 16:49-50,[Ezekiel 16:49-50] which defines the sins of Sodom as "pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and did toevah before me, and I took them away as I saw fit." Michaelson uses toevah in place of abomination to emphasize the original Hebrew, which he explains as being more correctly translated as "taboo".[39]
> 
> _
Click to expand...

So those were some of the OTHER perceived sins of the Sin Cities ... uh huh .. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




while homosexuality was not the only sin in which the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah indulged, it does appear to be the primary reason for the destruction of the cities.


*Genesis 19:5

They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."*


----------



## PaintMyHouse

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what the bible says:
> 
> Jeremiah 23 14 And among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers so that not one of them turns from their wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.
> 
> Hmmmm...."adultery" they say?   Adultery?   Not homosexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Slimey - you know nothing of theology or etymology - The tale of Sodom and Gomorrah was about faggots and other assorted perverts - people we today call LGBT .
> 
> Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'" The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver.
> 
> Genesis 19:5
> New International Version
> They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> New Living Translation
> They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!"
> 
> English Standard Version
> And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already given them this info.  What's remarkable is that EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape those angels, yet the homosexual Left insists that homosexuality was not the main issue.  People who hate God and God's word will not endure the rightly divided word of truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually St.Mike - I am not a Christian or Jew - but do know my scriptures - and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was primarily about Homosexuals - it's not even debatable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet it is a topic that is regularly debated. Are you ignorant or a liar? Well clearly you are both.
> 
> There are whole books that debate the subject.  Here is one discussion of the various theories:
> 
> _The scholar and activist Jay Michaelson proposes a reading of the story of Sodom that emphasizes the violation of hospitality as well as the violence of the Sodomites. "Homosexual rape is the way in which they violate hospitality—not the essence of their transgression. Reading the story of Sodom as being about homosexuality is like reading the story of an ax murderer as being about an ax."[38] Michaelson places the story of Sodom in context with other Genesis stories regarding Abraham's hospitality to strangers, and argues that when other texts in the Hebrew Bible mention Sodom, they do so without commentary on homosexuality. The verses cited by Michaelson include Jeremiah 23:14,[Jeremiah 23:14] where the sins of Jerusalem are compared to Sodom and are listed as adultery, lying, and strengthening the hands of evildoers; Amos 4:1-11 (oppressing the poor and crushing the needy);[Amos 4:1-11] and Ezekiel 16:49-50,[Ezekiel 16:49-50] which defines the sins of Sodom as "pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and did toevah before me, and I took them away as I saw fit." Michaelson uses toevah in place of abomination to emphasize the original Hebrew, which he explains as being more correctly translated as "taboo".[39]
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So those were some of the OTHER perceived sins of the Sin Cities ... uh huh ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> while homosexuality was not the only sin in which the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah indulged, it does appear to be the primary reason for the destruction of the cities.
> 
> 
> *Genesis 19:5
> 
> They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."*
Click to expand...

Fags bad, incest good eh?

34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.” 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

36 So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites of today.


----------



## GreenBean

bodecea said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atomic warfare in Ancient India?  Really?
> 
> LOL.....
> 
> 
> 
> It's particularly amusing considering that the biblical story of Sodom etc places them in Canaan...and it was actually 5 cities with 4 of them being destroyed...even tho it's only the first 2 that seem to be remembered.  But it's only a tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scholars believe that most Biblical "tales"   have their roots in actual Historical events. The written version is frequently aggrandized and exaggerated, but no serious scholar takes them as 100% literal, only religious zealots.
> 
> Abraham, forebear of the Hebrews, is believed to have come from a region of modern day Iraq known as "Ur"  not far from the region of Mohenjo Daro - some of the Old Test.Biblical tales - such as Sodom & Gomorrah are theorized to have derived from there.  In fact there is even a theory that Brahma and ABraham are one and the same Historical character.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ur is in Mesopotamian...near where the Tigris and Euphrates come together....not anywhere near the Indus river valley.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right ... and the Statue of Liberty is in New Jersey ...not New York
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.   According to your own map and it's scale, where Ur has been discovered and where the Indus Valley is are about 1000 miles apart.   Thanks.
Click to expand...


And UR and Canaan are even further than that - If you are attempting to demonstrate how hopelessly infantile, ignorant and intellectually slovenly you truly are .....  you're doing a wonderful Job  !


----------



## GreenBean

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Soooooo, where are the ruins?
> 
> One other point....while you keep saying things like "every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies"   you can only list two cities (not societies, btw) that anyone anywhere has any archaeological evidence EVEN EXISTED.   And if you go by the bible, which I assume you are, even that states they were destroyed over the inhospitality of their people....NOT homosexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  The answer to why the cities were destroyed is recorded in Genesis "because the outcry to the Lord against them has become great" (Genesis 19:13)
> 
> Let's review the evidence.  When two angels came to the house of Lot, Genesis records that "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom, young and old, surrounded the house, saying to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight. Bring them out so we can have sex with them."  When Lot offered his daughters, they refused, for they were attracted to the angels who were men, not to women.
> 
> So in summary, EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape the angels who visited Lot.  No wonder the angel reported that all their neighbors decried their oppression.  The city was full of roving gangs of homosexual rapists.
> 
> Now you on the Left who despise God and God's word to begin with have set up a contradiction that doesn't exist. Ezekiel 16 mentions Sodom saying "Now this was the sin of your Sister Sodom, she and her daughters were arrogant and overfed. They were not concerned for the poor and needy and did not help them." This wasn't a refutation to the main reason that the cities were destroyed, but a corollary of its initial sin.  Cities who hold as it's highest value the indulgence of the flesh and the oppression of human decency are utterly bereft of charity.  Selfish people don't take care of the poor and homosexuals are indeed selfish.
> 
> But the Bible is clear on why the cities were destroyed, Jude 7 confirming, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
> 
> There's no doubt what the Bible says about the destruction of those cities and the reason for it.  It only becomes unclear to those who hate God, despise his righteousness, and will twist his words to pervert their meaning.  That's you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what the bible says:
> 
> Jeremiah 23 14 And among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers so that not one of them turns from their wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.
> 
> Hmmmm...."adultery" they say?   Adultery?   Not homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Slimey - you know nothing of theology or etymology - The tale of Sodom and Gomorrah was about faggots and other assorted perverts - people we today call LGBT .
> 
> Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'" The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver.
> 
> Genesis 19:5
> New International Version
> They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> New Living Translation
> They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!"
> 
> English Standard Version
> And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already given them this info.  What's remarkable is that EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape those angels, yet the homosexual Left insists that homosexuality was not the main issue.  People who hate God and God's word will not endure the rightly divided word of truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed remarkable...so remarkable as to be unbelievable.
> 
> Homosexuality was not the main issue. Why were the angels there in the first place? They didn't go to the city because the whole town was allegedly gay did they? No, they went there because the city did not honor god. They were gluttonous, inhospitable to strangers and performed idol worship. An angry mob shows up where they are and the guy inside the house offers up his virgin daughters to be raped by the angry mob. Still not sounding like widespread gay to me...sounds like an angry mob bent on rape...which is about power by the way.
> 
> Then the "hero", after his wife turns to salt (yeah, so believable), fucks his daughters in a cave in the mountain.
> 
> I can see why ya'll have tried to scapegoat gays with that fucking story.
Click to expand...





> They were gluttonous, inhospitable to strangers and performed idol worship.



Sounds a lot like Modern Day Queers to me.  Childish, ignorant ...... they worship idols - like Harvey the pedophile Milk and Ellen Degenerate yup..... nothing has changed.





> An angry mob shows up where they are and the guy inside the house offers up his virgin daughters to be raped by the angry mob.



The females were an offering to save his own ass from* Gay gang rape *



> Still not sounding like widespread gay to me...sounds like an angry mob bent on rape



Yup - Homosexual Rape
Genesis 19-5
"Where are the *men* who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have *sex* with them!"



> ...which is about power by the way.



The rape/power hypothesis only holds in scenarios where one individual seeks sexual domination and gratification through forceful domination- generally by a male over a female or a faggot over another man.  When you delve into the gang rape scenario a whole new set of dynamics comes into play.

I think perhaps you should think before you vomit your canned rhetoric onto people as it doesn't apply to all situations , and its propaganda value is watered down


----------



## bodecea

GreenBean said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's particularly amusing considering that the biblical story of Sodom etc places them in Canaan...and it was actually 5 cities with 4 of them being destroyed...even tho it's only the first 2 that seem to be remembered.  But it's only a tale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scholars believe that most Biblical "tales"   have their roots in actual Historical events. The written version is frequently aggrandized and exaggerated, but no serious scholar takes them as 100% literal, only religious zealots.
> 
> Abraham, forebear of the Hebrews, is believed to have come from a region of modern day Iraq known as "Ur"  not far from the region of Mohenjo Daro - some of the Old Test.Biblical tales - such as Sodom & Gomorrah are theorized to have derived from there.  In fact there is even a theory that Brahma and ABraham are one and the same Historical character.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ur is in Mesopotamian...near where the Tigris and Euphrates come together....not anywhere near the Indus river valley.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right ... and the Statue of Liberty is in New Jersey ...not New York
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.   According to your own map and it's scale, where Ur has been discovered and where the Indus Valley is are about 1000 miles apart.   Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And UR and Canaan are even further than that - If you are attempting to demonstrate how hopelessly infantile, ignorant and intellectually slovenly you truly are .....  you're doing a wonderful Job  !
Click to expand...

Abraham originally was from Ur, according to the "tale"...but traveled to Canaan....which was STILL part of the Fertile Crescent and NOT, as you ridiculously claim, farther away than the Indus Valley.  In fact, looking at your map, he could have easily traveled up river to get close to Canaan.   

You're not very good at this, are you?


----------



## GreenBean

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Soooooo, where are the ruins?
> 
> One other point....while you keep saying things like "every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies"   you can only list two cities (not societies, btw) that anyone anywhere has any archaeological evidence EVEN EXISTED.   And if you go by the bible, which I assume you are, even that states they were destroyed over the inhospitality of their people....NOT homosexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  The answer to why the cities were destroyed is recorded in Genesis "because the outcry to the Lord against them has become great" (Genesis 19:13)
> 
> Let's review the evidence.  When two angels came to the house of Lot, Genesis records that "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom, young and old, surrounded the house, saying to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight. Bring them out so we can have sex with them."  When Lot offered his daughters, they refused, for they were attracted to the angels who were men, not to women.
> 
> So in summary, EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape the angels who visited Lot.  No wonder the angel reported that all their neighbors decried their oppression.  The city was full of roving gangs of homosexual rapists.
> 
> Now you on the Left who despise God and God's word to begin with have set up a contradiction that doesn't exist. Ezekiel 16 mentions Sodom saying "Now this was the sin of your Sister Sodom, she and her daughters were arrogant and overfed. They were not concerned for the poor and needy and did not help them." This wasn't a refutation to the main reason that the cities were destroyed, but a corollary of its initial sin.  Cities who hold as it's highest value the indulgence of the flesh and the oppression of human decency are utterly bereft of charity.  Selfish people don't take care of the poor and homosexuals are indeed selfish.
> 
> But the Bible is clear on why the cities were destroyed, Jude 7 confirming, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
> 
> There's no doubt what the Bible says about the destruction of those cities and the reason for it.  It only becomes unclear to those who hate God, despise his righteousness, and will twist his words to pervert their meaning.  That's you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what the bible says:
> 
> Jeremiah 23 14 And among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers so that not one of them turns from their wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.
> 
> Hmmmm...."adultery" they say?   Adultery?   Not homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Slimey - you know nothing of theology or etymology - The tale of Sodom and Gomorrah was about faggots and other assorted perverts - people we today call LGBT .
> 
> Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'" The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver.
> 
> Genesis 19:5
> New International Version
> They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> New Living Translation
> They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!"
> 
> English Standard Version
> And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already given them this info.  What's remarkable is that *EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape those angels*, yet the homosexual Left insists that homosexuality was not the main issue.  People who hate God and God's word will not endure the rightly divided word of truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that?
Click to expand...



For the Umpteenth Time ...

*Genesis 19-5 
Genesis 19-5  
Genesis 19-5  
Genesis 19-5   *

Got it  ?  Good - stop trying to pretend it doesn't exist - it destroys your argument slime ball


----------



## GreenBean

bodecea said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scholars believe that most Biblical "tales"   have their roots in actual Historical events. The written version is frequently aggrandized and exaggerated, but no serious scholar takes them as 100% literal, only religious zealots.
> 
> Abraham, forebear of the Hebrews, is believed to have come from a region of modern day Iraq known as "Ur"  not far from the region of Mohenjo Daro - some of the Old Test.Biblical tales - such as Sodom & Gomorrah are theorized to have derived from there.  In fact there is even a theory that Brahma and ABraham are one and the same Historical character.
> 
> 
> 
> Ur is in Mesopotamian...near where the Tigris and Euphrates come together....not anywhere near the Indus river valley.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right ... and the Statue of Liberty is in New Jersey ...not New York
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.   According to your own map and it's scale, where Ur has been discovered and where the Indus Valley is are about 1000 miles apart.   Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And UR and Canaan are even further than that - If you are attempting to demonstrate how hopelessly infantile, ignorant and intellectually slovenly you truly are .....  you're doing a wonderful Job  !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abraham originally was from Ur, according to the "tale"...but traveled to Canaan....which was STILL part of the Fertile Crescent and NOT, as you ridiculously claim, farther away than the Indus Valley.  In fact, looking at your map, he could have easily traveled up river to get close to Canaan.
> 
> You're not very good at this, are you?
Click to expand...


Clutching at straws - huh fish breath ??  
You aren't even worth having a discussion with Connecticut is next to NY as is New Jersey - distance is relative and you're one pathetic dumbass


----------



## bodecea

GreenBean said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  The answer to why the cities were destroyed is recorded in Genesis "because the outcry to the Lord against them has become great" (Genesis 19:13)
> 
> Let's review the evidence.  When two angels came to the house of Lot, Genesis records that "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom, young and old, surrounded the house, saying to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight. Bring them out so we can have sex with them."  When Lot offered his daughters, they refused, for they were attracted to the angels who were men, not to women.
> 
> So in summary, EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape the angels who visited Lot.  No wonder the angel reported that all their neighbors decried their oppression.  The city was full of roving gangs of homosexual rapists.
> 
> Now you on the Left who despise God and God's word to begin with have set up a contradiction that doesn't exist. Ezekiel 16 mentions Sodom saying "Now this was the sin of your Sister Sodom, she and her daughters were arrogant and overfed. They were not concerned for the poor and needy and did not help them." This wasn't a refutation to the main reason that the cities were destroyed, but a corollary of its initial sin.  Cities who hold as it's highest value the indulgence of the flesh and the oppression of human decency are utterly bereft of charity.  Selfish people don't take care of the poor and homosexuals are indeed selfish.
> 
> But the Bible is clear on why the cities were destroyed, Jude 7 confirming, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
> 
> There's no doubt what the Bible says about the destruction of those cities and the reason for it.  It only becomes unclear to those who hate God, despise his righteousness, and will twist his words to pervert their meaning.  That's you.
> 
> 
> 
> This is what the bible says:
> 
> Jeremiah 23 14 And among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers so that not one of them turns from their wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.
> 
> Hmmmm...."adultery" they say?   Adultery?   Not homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Slimey - you know nothing of theology or etymology - The tale of Sodom and Gomorrah was about faggots and other assorted perverts - people we today call LGBT .
> 
> Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'" The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver.
> 
> Genesis 19:5
> New International Version
> They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> New Living Translation
> They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!"
> 
> English Standard Version
> And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already given them this info.  What's remarkable is that *EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape those angels*, yet the homosexual Left insists that homosexuality was not the main issue.  People who hate God and God's word will not endure the rightly divided word of truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> For the Umpteenth Time ...
> 
> *Genesis 19-5
> Genesis 19-5
> Genesis 19-5
> Genesis 19-5   *
> 
> Got it  ?  Good - stop trying to pretend it doesn't exist - it destroys your argument slime ball
Click to expand...

Stories.....you've got stories.   Shall I pull out Lord of the Rings now?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ur is in Chaldea far, far to the east of Palestine.

The violation of hospitality, goes the Hebrew myth, led to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.


----------



## Ubiquitor

This thread demonstrates perfectly why these civil rights have had to be given via the courts.


----------



## pillars

In all seriousness, who gives a fuck what an ancient document written by an ancient people has to say on the subject?  That should not be driving public policy.  If you're not gay and don't want to be gay, great.  If you are gay, you should be allowed the same opportunities for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness that anyone else is.

If you don't like someone else's gayness, gfy.  I don't like your bigotry, but you're still allowed to be a bigot.


----------



## pillars

I have never, and probably will never understand why it is such a dilemma for people to MYOB on the gay issue.


----------



## JakeStarkey

cause the fundamentalists and evangelicals and Pentecostals and those sects in alliance with them want to tell the other 75% of the country how to run their private lives.  It's modern day Puritanism, nothing more.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is.  Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because of the outcry of their neighbors. This is what was told to Lot.  It became an oppressive force and one way or another it had to be stopped.  It's the first recorded example of a homosexual culture destroying itself.  I'm not going to even bother moving on to Greece and Rome if you're an idiot that denies history. There's no way to have a rational discussion with you.
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the ruins?   If these were two cities....there should be ruins like there are of Jericho, of Ur, of Troy.  Where are they?
> 
> And once again...if you go by the bible...those two "cities" were not destroyed because of homosexuality....they were destroyed because of their inhospitality to strangers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The ruins of Sodom and Gomorah are in Pakistan - they are known as Mohenjo-Daro.  It is actually the ruins of twin cities and modern science can not explain how it was destroyed .
> 
> "When archeologists got to the street level, people were lying dead in the street - after thousands of years." David H. Childress / Technology of the Gods: The Incredible Sciences of the Ancients.
> 
> Had a natural catastrophe, disease, or conventional war brought down Mohenjo Daro the bodies of its citizenry would have been ravaged by animals , and the city plundered by subsequent looters over the centuries. This never happened,  *Dozens of skeletons were found in the area of Mohenjo-Daro – their radioactivity exceeded the norm almost 50 times.*
> 
> 
> Russian researchers found a skeleton with* a radioactive level 50 times greater than normal.* Other cities have been found in northern India which also show evidence of intense explosions ._{Riddles of Ancient History - Sputnik Magazine - Alexander Gorbovsky}
> 
> Atomic warfare in Ancient India_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atomic warfare in Ancient India?  Really?
> 
> LOL.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's particularly amusing considering that the biblical story of Sodom etc places them in Canaan...and it was actually 5 cities with 4 of them being destroyed...even tho it's only the first 2 that seem to be remembered.  But it's only a tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scholars believe that most Biblical "tales"   have their roots in actual Historical events. The written version is frequently aggrandized and exaggerated, but no serious scholar takes them as 100% literal, only religious zealots.
> 
> Abraham, forebear of the Hebrews, is believed to have come from a region of modern day Iraq known as "Ur"  not far from the region of Mohenjo Daro - some of the Old Test.Biblical tales - such as Sodom & Gomorrah are theorized to have derived from there.  In fact there is even a theory that Brahma and ABraham are one and the same Historical character.
> 
> I do realize that most of this is beyond your ability to grasp given the minuscule intellectual capacity you have to work with - but you do realize that it is only a theory - there are some alternative claimants to being Sodom & Gomorrah - such as that it was on a  plain south of the Dead Sea and later covered by the waters as the Dead sea water levels changed.
Click to expand...


Sorry- I am still laughing at your reference to Atomic warfare in Ancient India.....


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> cause the fundamentalists and evangelicals and Pentecostals and those sects in alliance with them want to tell the other 75% of the country how to run their private lives.  It's modern day Puritanism, nothing more.


 

more horseshit.   Biology is not based on the Bible or some form of puritanism.   Human sexuality is biological, there are males and females for a reason.   Homosexuality is an aberation of the human condition, it is a mental illness, it is not normal. 

you cannot declare it normal by court order or executive dictate.  

gay marriage is an oxymoron.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what the bible says:
> 
> Jeremiah 23 14 And among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers so that not one of them turns from their wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.
> 
> Hmmmm...."adultery" they say?   Adultery?   Not homosexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Slimey - you know nothing of theology or etymology - The tale of Sodom and Gomorrah was about faggots and other assorted perverts - people we today call LGBT .
> 
> Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'" The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver.
> 
> Genesis 19:5
> New International Version
> They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> New Living Translation
> They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!"
> 
> English Standard Version
> And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already given them this info.  What's remarkable is that EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape those angels, yet the homosexual Left insists that homosexuality was not the main issue.  People who hate God and God's word will not endure the rightly divided word of truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually St.Mike - I am not a Christian or Jew - but do know my scriptures - and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was primarily about Homosexuals - it's not even debatable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet it is a topic that is regularly debated. Are you ignorant or a liar? Well clearly you are both.
> 
> There are whole books that debate the subject.  Here is one discussion of the various theories:
> 
> _The scholar and activist Jay Michaelson proposes a reading of the story of Sodom that emphasizes the violation of hospitality as well as the violence of the Sodomites. "Homosexual rape is the way in which they violate hospitality—not the essence of their transgression. Reading the story of Sodom as being about homosexuality is like reading the story of an ax murderer as being about an ax."[38] Michaelson places the story of Sodom in context with other Genesis stories regarding Abraham's hospitality to strangers, and argues that when other texts in the Hebrew Bible mention Sodom, they do so without commentary on homosexuality. The verses cited by Michaelson include Jeremiah 23:14,[Jeremiah 23:14] where the sins of Jerusalem are compared to Sodom and are listed as adultery, lying, and strengthening the hands of evildoers; Amos 4:1-11 (oppressing the poor and crushing the needy);[Amos 4:1-11] and Ezekiel 16:49-50,[Ezekiel 16:49-50] which defines the sins of Sodom as "pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and did toevah before me, and I took them away as I saw fit." Michaelson uses toevah in place of abomination to emphasize the original Hebrew, which he explains as being more correctly translated as "taboo".[39]
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So those were some of the OTHER perceived sins of the Sin Cities ... uh huh ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> while homosexuality was not the only sin in which the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah indulged, it does appear to be the primary reason for the destruction of the cities.
> 
> 
> *Genesis 19:5
> 
> They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."*
Click to expand...


But, but, but....you said the issue is not even debatable.

I pointed out that your claim was not only false- but that there is a very active debate on the issue. 

You are hardly an authority on anything in the ancient world- which you revealed quite hilariously by citing the article about 'Atomic Warfare in Ancient India"


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> cause the fundamentalists and evangelicals and Pentecostals and those sects in alliance with them want to tell the other 75% of the country how to run their private lives.  It's modern day Puritanism, nothing more.


 

ok, lets see some proof of your 75% claim.   Or you can just admit that you made it up.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> The females were an offering to save his own ass from* Gay gang rape *



That part of the story is the one that is always glossed over- that the father offered his own daughters over to the mob to be gang raped- to save a stranger from 'gay gang rape'. 

That is kind of man homophobes worship.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  The answer to why the cities were destroyed is recorded in Genesis "because the outcry to the Lord against them has become great" (Genesis 19:13)
> 
> Let's review the evidence.  When two angels came to the house of Lot, Genesis records that "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom, young and old, surrounded the house, saying to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight. Bring them out so we can have sex with them."  When Lot offered his daughters, they refused, for they were attracted to the angels who were men, not to women.
> 
> So in summary, EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape the angels who visited Lot.  No wonder the angel reported that all their neighbors decried their oppression.  The city was full of roving gangs of homosexual rapists.
> 
> Now you on the Left who despise God and God's word to begin with have set up a contradiction that doesn't exist. Ezekiel 16 mentions Sodom saying "Now this was the sin of your Sister Sodom, she and her daughters were arrogant and overfed. They were not concerned for the poor and needy and did not help them." This wasn't a refutation to the main reason that the cities were destroyed, but a corollary of its initial sin.  Cities who hold as it's highest value the indulgence of the flesh and the oppression of human decency are utterly bereft of charity.  Selfish people don't take care of the poor and homosexuals are indeed selfish.
> 
> But the Bible is clear on why the cities were destroyed, Jude 7 confirming, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
> 
> There's no doubt what the Bible says about the destruction of those cities and the reason for it.  It only becomes unclear to those who hate God, despise his righteousness, and will twist his words to pervert their meaning.  That's you.
> 
> 
> 
> This is what the bible says:
> 
> Jeremiah 23 14 And among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers so that not one of them turns from their wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.
> 
> Hmmmm...."adultery" they say?   Adultery?   Not homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Slimey - you know nothing of theology or etymology - The tale of Sodom and Gomorrah was about faggots and other assorted perverts - people we today call LGBT .
> 
> Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'" The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver.
> 
> Genesis 19:5
> New International Version
> They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> New Living Translation
> They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!"
> 
> English Standard Version
> And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already given them this info.  What's remarkable is that *EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape those angels*, yet the homosexual Left insists that homosexuality was not the main issue.  People who hate God and God's word will not endure the rightly divided word of truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> For the Umpteenth Time ...
> 
> *Genesis 19-5
> Genesis 19-5
> Genesis 19-5
> Genesis 19-5   *
> 
> Got it  ?  Good - stop trying to pretend it doesn't exist - it destroys your argument slime ball
Click to expand...

Jeremiah 23
But now I see that the prophets of Jerusalem are even worse!

*They commit adultery and love dishonesty.*

They encourage those who are doing evil

so that no one turns away from their sins.

These prophets are as wicked

*as the people of Sodom and Gomorrah once were*.”

Hmmm that sounds like Greenbean.....

_
Ezekial
Your younger sister was Sodom, who lived with her daughters in the south. 
*47 *But you have not merely sinned as they did. You quickly surpassed them in corruption.
*48 *As surely as I live, says the Sovereign LORD, Sodom and her daughters were never as wicked as you and your daughters. 
*49 Sodom’s sins were pride, gluttony, and laziness*, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door.
*50 *She was proud and committed detestable sins, so I wiped her out, as you have seen.c
_
Hmmm that sounds like Greenbean too. 

But Greenbean tells us there is no debating his conclusions. Because he is clearly an expert on all things Biblical and ancient......like Atomic war in Ancient India.....lol....


----------



## Syriusly

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> cause the fundamentalists and evangelicals and Pentecostals and those sects in alliance with them want to tell the other 75% of the country how to run their private lives.  It's modern day Puritanism, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more horseshit.   Biology is not based on the Bible or some form of puritanism.   Human sexuality is biological, there are males and females for a reason.   Homosexuality is an aberation of the human condition, it is a mental illness, it is not normal.
> 
> you cannot declare it normal by court order or executive dictate.
> 
> gay marriage is an oxymoron.
Click to expand...


I can declare it normal because I am not a hater. Homosexuality is as 'normal' as being left handed is. You don't have to accept that humans can be attracted to other humans of the same gender- you can continue to hate them as you will. 

But the mentally ill are those who want to discriminate against other human beings simply because of the gender that they are attracted to.


----------



## Syriusly

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> cause the fundamentalists and evangelicals and Pentecostals and those sects in alliance with them want to tell the other 75% of the country how to run their private lives.  It's modern day Puritanism, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok, lets see some proof of your 75% claim.   Or you can just admit that you made it up.
Click to expand...


Lets see some proof of your claim that homosexuality is a mental illness.


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what the bible says:
> 
> Jeremiah 23 14 And among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers so that not one of them turns from their wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.
> 
> Hmmmm...."adultery" they say?   Adultery?   Not homosexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Slimey - you know nothing of theology or etymology - The tale of Sodom and Gomorrah was about faggots and other assorted perverts - people we today call LGBT .
> 
> Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'" The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver.
> 
> Genesis 19:5
> New International Version
> They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> New Living Translation
> They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!"
> 
> English Standard Version
> And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already given them this info.  What's remarkable is that *EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape those angels*, yet the homosexual Left insists that homosexuality was not the main issue.  People who hate God and God's word will not endure the rightly divided word of truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> For the Umpteenth Time ...
> 
> *Genesis 19-5
> Genesis 19-5
> Genesis 19-5
> Genesis 19-5   *
> 
> Got it  ?  Good - stop trying to pretend it doesn't exist - it destroys your argument slime ball
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jeremiah 23
> But now I see that the prophets of Jerusalem are even worse!
> 
> *They commit adultery and love dishonesty.*
> 
> They encourage those who are doing evil
> 
> so that no one turns away from their sins.
> 
> These prophets are as wicked
> 
> *as the people of Sodom and Gomorrah once were*.”
> 
> Hmmm that sounds like Greenbean.....
> 
> _
> Ezekial
> Your younger sister was Sodom, who lived with her daughters in the south.
> *47 *But you have not merely sinned as they did. You quickly surpassed them in corruption.
> *48 *As surely as I live, says the Sovereign LORD, Sodom and her daughters were never as wicked as you and your daughters.
> *49 Sodom’s sins were pride, gluttony, and laziness*, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door.
> *50 *She was proud and committed detestable sins, so I wiped her out, as you have seen.c
> _
> Hmmm that sounds like Greenbean too.
> 
> But Greenbean tells us there is no debating his conclusions. Because he is clearly an expert on all things Biblical and ancient......like Atomic war in Ancient India.....lol....
Click to expand...



Poor attempt at deflecting - Ancient warfare in India is a theory - you do understand the diff. between fact and theory do you not ?

So far as Homosexuality and Sodom & Gomorrah - No its not debatable - not so long as your using the source and not trying to slant facts to suit your Agenda

Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
*Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5 
Genesis 19-5 
Genesis 19-5 
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5 
Genesis 19-5 
Genesis 19-5 
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5 
Genesis 19-5 
Genesis 19-5 
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5 
Genesis 19-5 
Genesis 19-5*
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
*Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5 
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5 
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5 
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5 
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5 
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5 
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5 
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5 
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5 
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5
Genesis 19-5*


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> cause the fundamentalists and evangelicals and Pentecostals and those sects in alliance with them want to tell the other 75% of the country how to run their private lives.  It's modern day Puritanism, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> more horseshit.   Biology is not based on the Bible or some form of puritanism.   Human sexuality is biological, there are males and females for a reason.   Homosexuality is an aberation of the human condition, it is a mental illness, it is not normal.  you cannot declare it normal by court order or executive dictate.  gay marriage is an oxymoron.
Click to expand...


A thoughtful Redfish is an oxymoron.

APA and AMA say that it is not a disorder mentally or biologically.

Get over the importance of yourself.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> cause the fundamentalists and evangelicals and Pentecostals and those sects in alliance with them want to tell the other 75% of the country how to run their private lives.  It's modern day Puritanism, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok, lets see some proof of your 75% claim.   Or you can just admit that you made it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets see some proof of your claim that homosexuality is a mental illness.
Click to expand...


I want the sources from reputable associations, such as AMA or APA.


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> cause the fundamentalists and evangelicals and Pentecostals and those sects in alliance with them want to tell the other 75% of the country how to run their private lives.  It's modern day Puritanism, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more horseshit.   Biology is not based on the Bible or some form of puritanism.   Human sexuality is biological, there are males and females for a reason.   Homosexuality is an aberation of the human condition, it is a mental illness, it is not normal.
> 
> you cannot declare it normal by court order or executive dictate.
> 
> gay marriage is an oxymoron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can declare it normal because I am not a hater. Homosexuality is as 'normal' as being left handed is. You don't have to accept that humans can be attracted to other humans of the same gender- you can continue to hate them as you will.
> 
> But the mentally ill are those who want to discriminate against other human beings simply because of the gender that they are attracted to.
Click to expand...

So I can safely assume you consider fucking chihuahuas up the ass to be perfectly normal also ... gotcha....  why stop there ??? Hey everyone lock up your kids and cover your asses the faggots are running loose !!!


----------



## GreenBean

bodecea said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what the bible says:
> 
> Jeremiah 23 14 And among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers so that not one of them turns from their wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.
> 
> Hmmmm...."adultery" they say?   Adultery?   Not homosexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Slimey - you know nothing of theology or etymology - The tale of Sodom and Gomorrah was about faggots and other assorted perverts - people we today call LGBT .
> 
> Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'" The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver.
> 
> Genesis 19:5
> New International Version
> They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> New Living Translation
> They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!"
> 
> English Standard Version
> And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already given them this info.  What's remarkable is that *EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape those angels*, yet the homosexual Left insists that homosexuality was not the main issue.  People who hate God and God's word will not endure the rightly divided word of truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> For the Umpteenth Time ...
> 
> *Genesis 19-5
> Genesis 19-5
> Genesis 19-5
> Genesis 19-5   *
> 
> Got it  ?  Good - stop trying to pretend it doesn't exist - it destroys your argument slime ball
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stories.....you've got stories.   Shall I pull out Lord of the Rings now?
Click to expand...

Yo fish breath -we're discussing a biblical topic - I would think a biblical story is quite appropriate ...dumbass


----------



## Redfish

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> cause the fundamentalists and evangelicals and Pentecostals and those sects in alliance with them want to tell the other 75% of the country how to run their private lives.  It's modern day Puritanism, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more horseshit.   Biology is not based on the Bible or some form of puritanism.   Human sexuality is biological, there are males and females for a reason.   Homosexuality is an aberation of the human condition, it is a mental illness, it is not normal.
> 
> you cannot declare it normal by court order or executive dictate.
> 
> gay marriage is an oxymoron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can declare it normal because I am not a hater. Homosexuality is as 'normal' as being left handed is. You don't have to accept that humans can be attracted to other humans of the same gender- you can continue to hate them as you will.
> 
> But the mentally ill are those who want to discriminate against other human beings simply because of the gender that they are attracted to.
Click to expand...

 

I don't hate sick people,   I feel sorry for them and want them to be cured.


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> cause the fundamentalists and evangelicals and Pentecostals and those sects in alliance with them want to tell the other 75% of the country how to run their private lives.  It's modern day Puritanism, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok, lets see some proof of your 75% claim.   Or you can just admit that you made it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets see some proof of your claim that homosexuality is a mental illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want the sources from reputable associations, such as AMA or APA.
Click to expand...

 

nope, thats not the way it works.   You made the claim the 75% support gay marriage-------------prove it or admit that you made it up.    Then, I will respond to your question.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Slimey - you know nothing of theology or etymology - The tale of Sodom and Gomorrah was about faggots and other assorted perverts - people we today call LGBT .
> 
> Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'" The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver.
> 
> Genesis 19:5
> New International Version
> They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> New Living Translation
> They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!"
> 
> English Standard Version
> And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already given them this info.  What's remarkable is that *EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape those angels*, yet the homosexual Left insists that homosexuality was not the main issue.  People who hate God and God's word will not endure the rightly divided word of truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> For the Umpteenth Time ...
> 
> *Genesis 19-5
> Genesis 19-5
> Genesis 19-5
> Genesis 19-5   *
> 
> Got it  ?  Good - stop trying to pretend it doesn't exist - it destroys your argument slime ball
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jeremiah 23
> But now I see that the prophets of Jerusalem are even worse!
> 
> *They commit adultery and love dishonesty.*
> 
> They encourage those who are doing evil
> 
> so that no one turns away from their sins.
> 
> These prophets are as wicked
> 
> *as the people of Sodom and Gomorrah once were*.”
> 
> Hmmm that sounds like Greenbean.....
> 
> _
> Ezekial
> Your younger sister was Sodom, who lived with her daughters in the south.
> *47 *But you have not merely sinned as they did. You quickly surpassed them in corruption.
> *48 *As surely as I live, says the Sovereign LORD, Sodom and her daughters were never as wicked as you and your daughters.
> *49 Sodom’s sins were pride, gluttony, and laziness*, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door.
> *50 *She was proud and committed detestable sins, so I wiped her out, as you have seen.c
> _
> Hmmm that sounds like Greenbean too.
> 
> But Greenbean tells us there is no debating his conclusions. Because he is clearly an expert on all things Biblical and ancient......like Atomic war in Ancient India.....lol....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Poor attempt at deflecting - Ancient warfare in India is a theory - you do understand the diff. between fact and theory do you not
> So far as Homosexuality and Sodom & Gomorrah - No its not debatable - not so long as your using the source and not trying to slant facts to suit your Agenda
Click to expand...

_"No its not debatable" _






LOL- I have already shown that it is regularly debated by scholars. 

The entire Jewish tradition disagrees with you. 
The Sin of Sodom and its Impact on Creation - My Jewish Learning
_The Torah did not elaborate on the sin of Sodom, but the underpinnings are expressed later in the prophecy of Ezekiel: "Behold this was the sin of Sodom…She and her daughters had pride, excess bread, and peaceful serenity, but she did not strengthen the hand of the poor and the needy" (16:49).

An opinion in the Mishnah in Avot 5:10 further strengthens this picture of moral depravity when it defines the Sodomite as one who says, "What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours." The Mishnah decries a man who wishes to remove himself from the social responsibility of welfare by closing himself and his wealth from others, even if he makes the claim that he is not taking away from anyone else._
_
The Destruction of Sodom - Jewish History
The Sodomites were notorious for their wickedness. They had no consideration for the poor, nor for the passing stranger to whom they offered no hospitality; nor would they even sell him any food or water. Once they had found out that Plitith, Lot’s daughter, had secretly given food to a stranger who was near starvation, and they burned her in public. Another time, when they discovered that a young girl had fed a starving beggar, they smeared honey all over her and placed her upon the city wall, so that she died from the stings of the bees attracted by the honey.

These and many other similar hideous acts of cruelty by the Sodomites and their neighbors of Gomorrah, had aroused G-d’s anger, and He decided to destroy them completely.
_
Every time from now on that you claim that the issue is not even debatable you just show yourself to be a liar.

And really- 'Atomic Warfare in Ancient India'? LOL......


----------



## Syriusly

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> cause the fundamentalists and evangelicals and Pentecostals and those sects in alliance with them want to tell the other 75% of the country how to run their private lives.  It's modern day Puritanism, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more horseshit.   Biology is not based on the Bible or some form of puritanism.   Human sexuality is biological, there are males and females for a reason.   Homosexuality is an aberation of the human condition, it is a mental illness, it is not normal.
> 
> you cannot declare it normal by court order or executive dictate.
> 
> gay marriage is an oxymoron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can declare it normal because I am not a hater. Homosexuality is as 'normal' as being left handed is. You don't have to accept that humans can be attracted to other humans of the same gender- you can continue to hate them as you will.
> 
> But the mentally ill are those who want to discriminate against other human beings simply because of the gender that they are attracted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate sick people,   I feel sorry for them and want them to be cured.
Click to expand...


I have not seen you offer anything but hatred towards homosexuals.


----------



## Syriusly

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> cause the fundamentalists and evangelicals and Pentecostals and those sects in alliance with them want to tell the other 75% of the country how to run their private lives.  It's modern day Puritanism, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok, lets see some proof of your 75% claim.   Or you can just admit that you made it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets see some proof of your claim that homosexuality is a mental illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want the sources from reputable associations, such as AMA or APA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> nope, thats not the way it works.   You made the claim the 75% support gay marriage-------------prove it or admit that you made it up.    Then, I will respond to your question.
Click to expand...


Wasn't his question- it was mine. You claimed that homosexuality is a mental illness- prove it or admit you made it up.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> cause the fundamentalists and evangelicals and Pentecostals and those sects in alliance with them want to tell the other 75% of the country how to run their private lives.  It's modern day Puritanism, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok, lets see some proof of your 75% claim.   Or you can just admit that you made it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets see some proof of your claim that homosexuality is a mental illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want the sources from reputable associations, such as AMA or APA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> nope, thats not the way it works.   You made the claim the 75% support gay marriage-------------prove it or admit that you made it up.    Then, I will respond to your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't his question- it was mine. You claimed that homosexuality is a mental illness- prove it or admit you made it up.
Click to expand...

The mental disorder is his, Homophobia.  That often goes with being a Mental Defective.  That kind has a hard-on for Jesus.


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've already given them this info.  What's remarkable is that *EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape those angels*, yet the homosexual Left insists that homosexuality was not the main issue.  People who hate God and God's word will not endure the rightly divided word of truth.
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> For the Umpteenth Time ...
> 
> *Genesis 19-5
> Genesis 19-5
> Genesis 19-5
> Genesis 19-5   *
> 
> Got it  ?  Good - stop trying to pretend it doesn't exist - it destroys your argument slime ball
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jeremiah 23
> But now I see that the prophets of Jerusalem are even worse!
> 
> *They commit adultery and love dishonesty.*
> 
> They encourage those who are doing evil
> 
> so that no one turns away from their sins.
> 
> These prophets are as wicked
> 
> *as the people of Sodom and Gomorrah once were*.”
> 
> Hmmm that sounds like Greenbean.....
> 
> _
> Ezekial
> Your younger sister was Sodom, who lived with her daughters in the south.
> *47 *But you have not merely sinned as they did. You quickly surpassed them in corruption.
> *48 *As surely as I live, says the Sovereign LORD, Sodom and her daughters were never as wicked as you and your daughters.
> *49 Sodom’s sins were pride, gluttony, and laziness*, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door.
> *50 *She was proud and committed detestable sins, so I wiped her out, as you have seen.c
> _
> Hmmm that sounds like Greenbean too.
> 
> But Greenbean tells us there is no debating his conclusions. Because he is clearly an expert on all things Biblical and ancient......like Atomic war in Ancient India.....lol....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Poor attempt at deflecting - Ancient warfare in India is a theory - you do understand the diff. between fact and theory do you not
> So far as Homosexuality and Sodom & Gomorrah - No its not debatable - not so long as your using the source and not trying to slant facts to suit your Agenda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"No its not debatable" _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- I have already shown that it is regularly debated by scholars.
> 
> The entire Jewish tradition disagrees with you.
> The Sin of Sodom and its Impact on Creation - My Jewish Learning
> _The Torah did not elaborate on the sin of Sodom, but the underpinnings are expressed later in the prophecy of Ezekiel: "Behold this was the sin of Sodom…She and her daughters had pride, excess bread, and peaceful serenity, but she did not strengthen the hand of the poor and the needy" (16:49).
> 
> An opinion in the Mishnah in Avot 5:10 further strengthens this picture of moral depravity when it defines the Sodomite as one who says, "What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours." The Mishnah decries a man who wishes to remove himself from the social responsibility of welfare by closing himself and his wealth from others, even if he makes the claim that he is not taking away from anyone else.
> 
> The Destruction of Sodom - Jewish History
> The Sodomites were notorious for their wickedness. They had no consideration for the poor, nor for the passing stranger to whom they offered no hospitality; nor would they even sell him any food or water. Once they had found out that Plitith, Lot’s daughter, had secretly given food to a stranger who was near starvation, and they burned her in public. Another time, when they discovered that a young girl had fed a starving beggar, they smeared honey all over her and placed her upon the city wall, so that she died from the stings of the bees attracted by the honey.
> 
> These and many other similar hideous acts of cruelty by the Sodomites and their neighbors of Gomorrah, had aroused G-d’s anger, and He decided to destroy them completely.
> _
> Every time from now on that you claim that the issue is not even debatable you just show yourself to be a liar.
> 
> And really- 'Atomic Warfare in Ancient India'? LOL......
Click to expand...



*Genesis 19-5

 "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."


Genesis 19-5 

 "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."


Genesis 19-5 

 "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."


Genesis 19-5 *

* "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."*


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> cause the fundamentalists and evangelicals and Pentecostals and those sects in alliance with them want to tell the other 75% of the country how to run their private lives.  It's modern day Puritanism, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok, lets see some proof of your 75% claim.   Or you can just admit that you made it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets see some proof of your claim that homosexuality is a mental illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want the sources from reputable associations, such as AMA or APA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> nope, thats not the way it works.   You made the claim the 75% support gay marriage-------------prove it or admit that you made it up.    Then, I will respond to your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't his question- it was mine. You claimed that homosexuality is a mental illness- prove it or admit you made it up.
Click to expand...


The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder after years of political pressure from gay activists and under the limited weight of tainted and poorly implemented studies. The American Psychiatrics association board of trustees passed this decision followed by a statement which listed among the reasons for their decision *as changing social norms and growing gay rights activism* . So basically, a scientific institution was coerced into changing a scientific opinion or classification due to political pressure and false evidence.


Pathology of Homosexuality


The American Psychological Association (APA) has just released its “Task Force Report on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation” (August 2009), a report issued by five psychologists and one psychiatrist who are all activists in gay causes.

Remarkably, the APA rejected, for membership on this committee, every practitioner of sexual-reorientation therapy who applied for inclusion.

APA Task Force Report -- a Mockery of Science - Joseph Nicolosi


----------



## Redfish

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> cause the fundamentalists and evangelicals and Pentecostals and those sects in alliance with them want to tell the other 75% of the country how to run their private lives.  It's modern day Puritanism, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok, lets see some proof of your 75% claim.   Or you can just admit that you made it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets see some proof of your claim that homosexuality is a mental illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want the sources from reputable associations, such as AMA or APA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> nope, thats not the way it works.   You made the claim the 75% support gay marriage-------------prove it or admit that you made it up.    Then, I will respond to your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't his question- it was mine. You claimed that homosexuality is a mental illness- prove it or admit you made it up.
Click to expand...

 



Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> cause the fundamentalists and evangelicals and Pentecostals and those sects in alliance with them want to tell the other 75% of the country how to run their private lives.  It's modern day Puritanism, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more horseshit.   Biology is not based on the Bible or some form of puritanism.   Human sexuality is biological, there are males and females for a reason.   Homosexuality is an aberation of the human condition, it is a mental illness, it is not normal.
> 
> you cannot declare it normal by court order or executive dictate.
> 
> gay marriage is an oxymoron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can declare it normal because I am not a hater. Homosexuality is as 'normal' as being left handed is. You don't have to accept that humans can be attracted to other humans of the same gender- you can continue to hate them as you will.
> 
> But the mentally ill are those who want to discriminate against other human beings simply because of the gender that they are attracted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate sick people,   I feel sorry for them and want them to be cured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not seen you offer anything but hatred towards homosexuals.
Click to expand...

 

wrong again,  I don't hate gays and lesbians.   I feel sorry for them.  I want them to live normal lives.  I want them to have equal rights and not be made fun of.   But that has nothing to do with agreeing that gay marriage should be given equal status with man/woman marriage.


----------



## Syriusly

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok, lets see some proof of your 75% claim.   Or you can just admit that you made it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see some proof of your claim that homosexuality is a mental illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want the sources from reputable associations, such as AMA or APA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> nope, thats not the way it works.   You made the claim the 75% support gay marriage-------------prove it or admit that you made it up.    Then, I will respond to your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't his question- it was mine. You claimed that homosexuality is a mental illness- prove it or admit you made it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> cause the fundamentalists and evangelicals and Pentecostals and those sects in alliance with them want to tell the other 75% of the country how to run their private lives.  It's modern day Puritanism, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> more horseshit.   Biology is not based on the Bible or some form of puritanism.   Human sexuality is biological, there are males and females for a reason.   Homosexuality is an aberation of the human condition, it is a mental illness, it is not normal.
> 
> you cannot declare it normal by court order or executive dictate.
> 
> gay marriage is an oxymoron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can declare it normal because I am not a hater. Homosexuality is as 'normal' as being left handed is. You don't have to accept that humans can be attracted to other humans of the same gender- you can continue to hate them as you will.
> 
> But the mentally ill are those who want to discriminate against other human beings simply because of the gender that they are attracted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate sick people,   I feel sorry for them and want them to be cured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not seen you offer anything but hatred towards homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again,  I don't hate gays and lesbians.   I feel sorry for them.  I want them to live normal lives.  I want them to have equal rights and not be made fun of.   But that has nothing to do with agreeing that gay marriage should be given equal status with man/woman marriage.
Click to expand...


So you just want 'separate- and unequal' for homosexuals?

Myself- I think 'equal' means that a same gender couple who wants to marry- or marries- should be treated exactly equally as my wife and I are legally.

To me- that is equal.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok, lets see some proof of your 75% claim.   Or you can just admit that you made it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see some proof of your claim that homosexuality is a mental illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want the sources from reputable associations, such as AMA or APA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> nope, thats not the way it works.   You made the claim the 75% support gay marriage-------------prove it or admit that you made it up.    Then, I will respond to your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't his question- it was mine. You claimed that homosexuality is a mental illness- prove it or admit you made it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disordersi
Click to expand...


The APA classified homosexuality as a mental order without any scientific evidence to support that conclusion. 20 years later it reversed itself.

Now, not a single major mental health organization considers homosexuality as a mental illness- and hasn't done so for longer than it was classified as one.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the Umpteenth Time ...
> 
> *Genesis 19-5
> Genesis 19-5
> Genesis 19-5
> Genesis 19-5   *
> 
> Got it  ?  Good - stop trying to pretend it doesn't exist - it destroys your argument slime ball
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jeremiah 23
> But now I see that the prophets of Jerusalem are even worse!
> 
> *They commit adultery and love dishonesty.*
> 
> They encourage those who are doing evil
> 
> so that no one turns away from their sins.
> 
> These prophets are as wicked
> 
> *as the people of Sodom and Gomorrah once were*.”
> 
> Hmmm that sounds like Greenbean.....
> 
> _
> Ezekial
> Your younger sister was Sodom, who lived with her daughters in the south.
> *47 *But you have not merely sinned as they did. You quickly surpassed them in corruption.
> *48 *As surely as I live, says the Sovereign LORD, Sodom and her daughters were never as wicked as you and your daughters.
> *49 Sodom’s sins were pride, gluttony, and laziness*, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door.
> *50 *She was proud and committed detestable sins, so I wiped her out, as you have seen.c
> _
> Hmmm that sounds like Greenbean too.
> 
> But Greenbean tells us there is no debating his conclusions. Because he is clearly an expert on all things Biblical and ancient......like Atomic war in Ancient India.....lol....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Poor attempt at deflecting - Ancient warfare in India is a theory - you do understand the diff. between fact and theory do you not
> So far as Homosexuality and Sodom & Gomorrah - No its not debatable - not so long as your using the source and not trying to slant facts to suit your Agenda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"No its not debatable" _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- I have already shown that it is regularly debated by scholars.
> 
> The entire Jewish tradition disagrees with you.
> The Sin of Sodom and its Impact on Creation - My Jewish Learning
> _The Torah did not elaborate on the sin of Sodom, but the underpinnings are expressed later in the prophecy of Ezekiel: "Behold this was the sin of Sodom…She and her daughters had pride, excess bread, and peaceful serenity, but she did not strengthen the hand of the poor and the needy" (16:49).
> 
> An opinion in the Mishnah in Avot 5:10 further strengthens this picture of moral depravity when it defines the Sodomite as one who says, "What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours." The Mishnah decries a man who wishes to remove himself from the social responsibility of welfare by closing himself and his wealth from others, even if he makes the claim that he is not taking away from anyone else.
> 
> The Destruction of Sodom - Jewish History
> The Sodomites were notorious for their wickedness. They had no consideration for the poor, nor for the passing stranger to whom they offered no hospitality; nor would they even sell him any food or water. Once they had found out that Plitith, Lot’s daughter, had secretly given food to a stranger who was near starvation, and they burned her in public. Another time, when they discovered that a young girl had fed a starving beggar, they smeared honey all over her and placed her upon the city wall, so that she died from the stings of the bees attracted by the honey.
> 
> These and many other similar hideous acts of cruelty by the Sodomites and their neighbors of Gomorrah, had aroused G-d’s anger, and He decided to destroy them completely.
> _
> Every time from now on that you claim that the issue is not even debatable you just show yourself to be a liar.
> 
> And really- 'Atomic Warfare in Ancient India'? LOL......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Genesis 19-5
> 
> "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> "*
Click to expand...


_"No its not debatable" _





LOL- I have already shown that it is regularly debated by scholars.

The entire Jewish tradition disagrees with you.
The Sin of Sodom and its Impact on Creation - My Jewish Learning
_The Torah did not elaborate on the sin of Sodom, but the underpinnings are expressed later in the prophecy ofEzekiel: "Behold this was the sin of Sodom…She and her daughters had pride, excess bread, and peaceful serenity, but she did not strengthen the hand of the poor and the needy" (16:49).

An opinion in the Mishnah in Avot 5:10 further strengthens this picture of moral depravity when it defines the Sodomite as one who says, "What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours." The Mishnah decries a man who wishes to remove himself from the social responsibility of welfare by closing himself and his wealth from others, even if he makes the claim that he is not taking away from anyone else.

The Destruction of Sodom - Jewish History
The Sodomites were notorious for their wickedness. They had no consideration for the poor, nor for the passing stranger to whom they offered no hospitality; nor would they even sell him any food or water. Once they had found out that Plitith, Lot’s daughter, had secretly given food to a stranger who was near starvation, and they burned her in public. Another time, when they discovered that a young girl had fed a starving beggar, they smeared honey all over her and placed her upon the city wall, so that she died from the stings of the bees attracted by the honey.

These and many other similar hideous acts of cruelty by the Sodomites and their neighbors of Gomorrah, had aroused G-d’s anger, and He decided to destroy them completely.
Every time from now on that you claim that the issue is not even debatable you just show yourself to be a liar.

And really- 'Atomic Warfare in Ancient India'? LOL......_


----------



## Redfish

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see some proof of your claim that homosexuality is a mental illness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I want the sources from reputable associations, such as AMA or APA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> nope, thats not the way it works.   You made the claim the 75% support gay marriage-------------prove it or admit that you made it up.    Then, I will respond to your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't his question- it was mine. You claimed that homosexuality is a mental illness- prove it or admit you made it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disordersi
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The APA classified homosexuality as a mental order without any scientific evidence to support that conclusion. 20 years later it reversed itself.
> 
> Now, not a single major mental health organization considers homosexuality as a mental illness- and hasn't done so for longer than it was classified as one.
Click to expand...

 

so, is homosexuality a normal human mental condition?   If yes, why are there two sexes of homo sapiens?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want the sources from reputable associations, such as AMA or APA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nope, thats not the way it works.   You made the claim the 75% support gay marriage-------------prove it or admit that you made it up.    Then, I will respond to your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't his question- it was mine. You claimed that homosexuality is a mental illness- prove it or admit you made it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disordersi
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The APA classified homosexuality as a mental order without any scientific evidence to support that conclusion. 20 years later it reversed itself.
> 
> Now, not a single major mental health organization considers homosexuality as a mental illness- and hasn't done so for longer than it was classified as one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so, is homosexuality a normal human mental condition?   If yes, why are there two sexes of homo sapiens?
Click to expand...

There are two sexes because like all primates, there are two sexes (although there are actually many more than two).  And in all primates a small portion of the population fucks the same sex.  It's been that way, as far as we know, forever.

And the faggots won, so why are you continuing this fight?  Did Jesus send you a personal message?  And yes, homosexuality in a population is fully expected.  Nature isn't as simple as you are.


----------



## Syriusly

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want the sources from reputable associations, such as AMA or APA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nope, thats not the way it works.   You made the claim the 75% support gay marriage-------------prove it or admit that you made it up.    Then, I will respond to your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't his question- it was mine. You claimed that homosexuality is a mental illness- prove it or admit you made it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disordersi
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The APA classified homosexuality as a mental order without any scientific evidence to support that conclusion. 20 years later it reversed itself.
> 
> Now, not a single major mental health organization considers homosexuality as a mental illness- and hasn't done so for longer than it was classified as one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so, is homosexuality a normal human mental condition?   If yes, why are there two sexes of homo sapiens?
Click to expand...


LOL- what is 'the normal human mental condition' exactly? 

Why are there two sexes of homo sapiens- and virtually ever species- to reproduce of course. 

Which has nothing to do with  mental illness. A person who refused to reproduce is not assumed to be mentally ill. A heterosexual couple who chose to never reproduce- but enjoy having non-reproductive sex is not considered mentally ill.
Hell- a man who prefers a blow job to vaginal intercourse is not considered mentally ill because that is what he prefers.


----------



## g5000

Redfish said:


> wrong again,  I don't hate gays and lesbians.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> cause the fundamentalists and evangelicals and Pentecostals and those sects in alliance with them want to tell the other 75% of the country how to run their private lives.  It's modern day Puritanism, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more horseshit.   Biology is not based on the Bible or some form of puritanism.   Human sexuality is biological, there are males and females for a reason.   Homosexuality is an aberation of the human condition, it is a mental illness, it is not normal.
> 
> you cannot declare it normal by court order or executive dictate.
> 
> gay marriage is an oxymoron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can declare it normal because I am not a hater. Homosexuality is as 'normal' as being left handed is. You don't have to accept that humans can be attracted to other humans of the same gender- you can continue to hate them as you will.
> 
> But the mentally ill are those who want to discriminate against other human beings simply because of the gender that they are attracted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I can safely assume you consider fucking chihuahuas up the ass to be perfectly normal also ... gotcha....  why stop there ??? Hey everyone lock up your kids and cover your asses the faggots are running loose !!!
Click to expand...


I have never understood why whacko right wingers cannot understand the concept of consent. 

You have so far said that you think that homosexuals- i.e. people who have consensual sex with the same gender are the same as rapists- and the same as serial murderers.

You now speculate that having sex with a dog is the same as two adults of the same gender having consensual sex together. 

What exactly happened to you in your life so that you just assume that all homosexuals want to rape you? 

And your little dog too?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Soooooo, where are the ruins?
> 
> One other point....while you keep saying things like "every historical event that puts on stage the thunderous fall of societies"   you can only list two cities (not societies, btw) that anyone anywhere has any archaeological evidence EVEN EXISTED.   And if you go by the bible, which I assume you are, even that states they were destroyed over the inhospitality of their people....NOT homosexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  The answer to why the cities were destroyed is recorded in Genesis "because the outcry to the Lord against them has become great" (Genesis 19:13)
> 
> Let's review the evidence.  When two angels came to the house of Lot, Genesis records that "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom, young and old, surrounded the house, saying to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight. Bring them out so we can have sex with them."  When Lot offered his daughters, they refused, for they were attracted to the angels who were men, not to women.
> 
> So in summary, EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape the angels who visited Lot.  No wonder the angel reported that all their neighbors decried their oppression.  The city was full of roving gangs of homosexual rapists.
> 
> Now you on the Left who despise God and God's word to begin with have set up a contradiction that doesn't exist. Ezekiel 16 mentions Sodom saying "Now this was the sin of your Sister Sodom, she and her daughters were arrogant and overfed. They were not concerned for the poor and needy and did not help them." This wasn't a refutation to the main reason that the cities were destroyed, but a corollary of its initial sin.  Cities who hold as it's highest value the indulgence of the flesh and the oppression of human decency are utterly bereft of charity.  Selfish people don't take care of the poor and homosexuals are indeed selfish.
> 
> But the Bible is clear on why the cities were destroyed, Jude 7 confirming, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
> 
> There's no doubt what the Bible says about the destruction of those cities and the reason for it.  It only becomes unclear to those who hate God, despise his righteousness, and will twist his words to pervert their meaning.  That's you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what the bible says:
> 
> Jeremiah 23 14 And among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers so that not one of them turns from their wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.
> 
> Hmmmm...."adultery" they say?   Adultery?   Not homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Slimey - you know nothing of theology or etymology - The tale of Sodom and Gomorrah was about faggots and other assorted perverts - people we today call LGBT .
> 
> Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'" The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver.
> 
> Genesis 19:5
> New International Version
> They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> New Living Translation
> They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!"
> 
> English Standard Version
> And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already given them this info.  What's remarkable is that *EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape those angels*, yet the homosexual Left insists that homosexuality was not the main issue.  People who hate God and God's word will not endure the rightly divided word of truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that?
Click to expand...

Already cited the source. Pay attention and stop wasting my time.


----------



## g5000

Syriusly said:


> I have never understood why whacko right wingers cannot understand the concept of consent.
> 
> You have so far said that you think that homosexuals- i.e. people who have consensual sex with the same gender are the same as rapists- and the same as serial murderers.
> 
> You now speculate that having sex with a dog is the same as two adults of the same gender having consensual sex together.
> 
> What exactly happened to you in your life so that you just assume that all homosexuals want to rape you?
> 
> And your little dog too?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what the bible says:
> 
> Jeremiah 23 14 And among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers so that not one of them turns from their wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.
> 
> Hmmmm...."adultery" they say?   Adultery?   Not homosexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Slimey - you know nothing of theology or etymology - The tale of Sodom and Gomorrah was about faggots and other assorted perverts - people we today call LGBT .
> 
> Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'" The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver.
> 
> Genesis 19:5
> New International Version
> They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> New Living Translation
> They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!"
> 
> English Standard Version
> And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already given them this info.  What's remarkable is that EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape those angels, yet the homosexual Left insists that homosexuality was not the main issue.  People who hate God and God's word will not endure the rightly divided word of truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually St.Mike - I am not a Christian or Jew - but do know my scriptures - and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was primarily about Homosexuals - it's not even debatable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet it is a topic that is regularly debated. Are you ignorant or a liar? Well clearly you are both.
> 
> There are whole books that debate the subject.  Here is one discussion of the various theories:
> 
> _The scholar and activist Jay Michaelson proposes a reading of the story of Sodom that emphasizes the violation of hospitality as well as the violence of the Sodomites. "Homosexual rape is the way in which they violate hospitality—not the essence of their transgression. Reading the story of Sodom as being about homosexuality is like reading the story of an ax murderer as being about an ax."[38] Michaelson places the story of Sodom in context with other Genesis stories regarding Abraham's hospitality to strangers, and argues that when other texts in the Hebrew Bible mention Sodom, they do so without commentary on homosexuality. The verses cited by Michaelson include Jeremiah 23:14,[Jeremiah 23:14] where the sins of Jerusalem are compared to Sodom and are listed as adultery, lying, and strengthening the hands of evildoers; Amos 4:1-11 (oppressing the poor and crushing the needy);[Amos 4:1-11] and Ezekiel 16:49-50,[Ezekiel 16:49-50] which defines the sins of Sodom as "pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and did toevah before me, and I took them away as I saw fit." Michaelson uses toevah in place of abomination to emphasize the original Hebrew, which he explains as being more correctly translated as "taboo".[39]
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So those were some of the OTHER perceived sins of the Sin Cities ... uh huh ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> while homosexuality was not the only sin in which the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah indulged, it does appear to be the primary reason for the destruction of the cities.
> 
> 
> *Genesis 19:5
> 
> They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."*
Click to expand...

That's a nice touch. Put it in a font even faggots can understand.


----------



## g5000

I see the wannabe Westboro Baptist contingent is out in force today.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> cause the fundamentalists and evangelicals and Pentecostals and those sects in alliance with them want to tell the other 75% of the country how to run their private lives.  It's modern day Puritanism, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more horseshit.   Biology is not based on the Bible or some form of puritanism.   Human sexuality is biological, there are males and females for a reason.   Homosexuality is an aberation of the human condition, it is a mental illness, it is not normal.
> 
> you cannot declare it normal by court order or executive dictate.
> 
> gay marriage is an oxymoron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can declare it normal because I am not a hater. Homosexuality is as 'normal' as being left handed is. You don't have to accept that humans can be attracted to other humans of the same gender- you can continue to hate them as you will.
> 
> But the mentally ill are those who want to discriminate against other human beings simply because of the gender that they are attracted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate sick people,   I feel sorry for them and want them to be cured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not seen you offer anything but hatred towards homosexuals.
Click to expand...

You people characterize any opposition to the homosexual lifestyle as hate, so your bigotry prevents you from rendering an objective analysis.


----------



## bodecea

GreenBean said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Slimey - you know nothing of theology or etymology - The tale of Sodom and Gomorrah was about faggots and other assorted perverts - people we today call LGBT .
> 
> Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'" The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver.
> 
> Genesis 19:5
> New International Version
> They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> New Living Translation
> They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!"
> 
> English Standard Version
> And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already given them this info.  What's remarkable is that *EVERY MAN in the city wanted to rape those angels*, yet the homosexual Left insists that homosexuality was not the main issue.  People who hate God and God's word will not endure the rightly divided word of truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> For the Umpteenth Time ...
> 
> *Genesis 19-5
> Genesis 19-5
> Genesis 19-5
> Genesis 19-5   *
> 
> Got it  ?  Good - stop trying to pretend it doesn't exist - it destroys your argument slime ball
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stories.....you've got stories.   Shall I pull out Lord of the Rings now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo fish breath -we're discussing a biblical topic - I would think a biblical story is quite appropriate ...dumbass
Click to expand...

"Story" indeed.   "Once upon a time........"


----------



## bodecea

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the Umpteenth Time ...
> 
> *Genesis 19-5
> Genesis 19-5
> Genesis 19-5
> Genesis 19-5   *
> 
> Got it  ?  Good - stop trying to pretend it doesn't exist - it destroys your argument slime ball
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jeremiah 23
> But now I see that the prophets of Jerusalem are even worse!
> 
> *They commit adultery and love dishonesty.*
> 
> They encourage those who are doing evil
> 
> so that no one turns away from their sins.
> 
> These prophets are as wicked
> 
> *as the people of Sodom and Gomorrah once were*.”
> 
> Hmmm that sounds like Greenbean.....
> 
> _
> Ezekial
> Your younger sister was Sodom, who lived with her daughters in the south.
> *47 *But you have not merely sinned as they did. You quickly surpassed them in corruption.
> *48 *As surely as I live, says the Sovereign LORD, Sodom and her daughters were never as wicked as you and your daughters.
> *49 Sodom’s sins were pride, gluttony, and laziness*, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door.
> *50 *She was proud and committed detestable sins, so I wiped her out, as you have seen.c
> _
> Hmmm that sounds like Greenbean too.
> 
> But Greenbean tells us there is no debating his conclusions. Because he is clearly an expert on all things Biblical and ancient......like Atomic war in Ancient India.....lol....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Poor attempt at deflecting - Ancient warfare in India is a theory - you do understand the diff. between fact and theory do you not
> So far as Homosexuality and Sodom & Gomorrah - No its not debatable - not so long as your using the source and not trying to slant facts to suit your Agenda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"No its not debatable" _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- I have already shown that it is regularly debated by scholars.
> 
> The entire Jewish tradition disagrees with you.
> The Sin of Sodom and its Impact on Creation - My Jewish Learning
> _The Torah did not elaborate on the sin of Sodom, but the underpinnings are expressed later in the prophecy of Ezekiel: "Behold this was the sin of Sodom…She and her daughters had pride, excess bread, and peaceful serenity, but she did not strengthen the hand of the poor and the needy" (16:49).
> 
> An opinion in the Mishnah in Avot 5:10 further strengthens this picture of moral depravity when it defines the Sodomite as one who says, "What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours." The Mishnah decries a man who wishes to remove himself from the social responsibility of welfare by closing himself and his wealth from others, even if he makes the claim that he is not taking away from anyone else.
> 
> The Destruction of Sodom - Jewish History
> The Sodomites were notorious for their wickedness. They had no consideration for the poor, nor for the passing stranger to whom they offered no hospitality; nor would they even sell him any food or water. Once they had found out that Plitith, Lot’s daughter, had secretly given food to a stranger who was near starvation, and they burned her in public. Another time, when they discovered that a young girl had fed a starving beggar, they smeared honey all over her and placed her upon the city wall, so that she died from the stings of the bees attracted by the honey.
> 
> These and many other similar hideous acts of cruelty by the Sodomites and their neighbors of Gomorrah, had aroused G-d’s anger, and He decided to destroy them completely.
> _
> Every time from now on that you claim that the issue is not even debatable you just show yourself to be a liar.
> 
> And really- 'Atomic Warfare in Ancient India'? LOL......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Genesis 19-5
> 
> "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> 
> Genesis 19-5
> 
> "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> 
> Genesis 19-5
> 
> "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> 
> Genesis 19-5 *
> 
> * "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."*
Click to expand...

That's a direct translation?   What is the Hebrew (Semetic) word for "have sex with them"?


----------



## g5000

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> You people characterize any opposition to the homosexual lifestyle as hate



Nope, but your opposition certainly is based on hate.



saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> , so your bigotry prevents you from rendering an objective analysis.


The Bible is not objective.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the Umpteenth Time ...
> 
> *Genesis 19-5
> Genesis 19-5
> Genesis 19-5
> Genesis 19-5   *
> 
> Got it  ?  Good - stop trying to pretend it doesn't exist - it destroys your argument slime ball
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah 23
> But now I see that the prophets of Jerusalem are even worse!
> 
> *They commit adultery and love dishonesty.*
> 
> They encourage those who are doing evil
> 
> so that no one turns away from their sins.
> 
> These prophets are as wicked
> 
> *as the people of Sodom and Gomorrah once were*.”
> 
> Hmmm that sounds like Greenbean.....
> 
> _
> Ezekial
> Your younger sister was Sodom, who lived with her daughters in the south.
> *47 *But you have not merely sinned as they did. You quickly surpassed them in corruption.
> *48 *As surely as I live, says the Sovereign LORD, Sodom and her daughters were never as wicked as you and your daughters.
> *49 Sodom’s sins were pride, gluttony, and laziness*, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door.
> *50 *She was proud and committed detestable sins, so I wiped her out, as you have seen.c
> _
> Hmmm that sounds like Greenbean too.
> 
> But Greenbean tells us there is no debating his conclusions. Because he is clearly an expert on all things Biblical and ancient......like Atomic war in Ancient India.....lol....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Poor attempt at deflecting - Ancient warfare in India is a theory - you do understand the diff. between fact and theory do you not
> So far as Homosexuality and Sodom & Gomorrah - No its not debatable - not so long as your using the source and not trying to slant facts to suit your Agenda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"No its not debatable" _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- I have already shown that it is regularly debated by scholars.
> 
> The entire Jewish tradition disagrees with you.
> The Sin of Sodom and its Impact on Creation - My Jewish Learning
> _The Torah did not elaborate on the sin of Sodom, but the underpinnings are expressed later in the prophecy of Ezekiel: "Behold this was the sin of Sodom…She and her daughters had pride, excess bread, and peaceful serenity, but she did not strengthen the hand of the poor and the needy" (16:49).
> 
> An opinion in the Mishnah in Avot 5:10 further strengthens this picture of moral depravity when it defines the Sodomite as one who says, "What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours." The Mishnah decries a man who wishes to remove himself from the social responsibility of welfare by closing himself and his wealth from others, even if he makes the claim that he is not taking away from anyone else.
> 
> The Destruction of Sodom - Jewish History
> The Sodomites were notorious for their wickedness. They had no consideration for the poor, nor for the passing stranger to whom they offered no hospitality; nor would they even sell him any food or water. Once they had found out that Plitith, Lot’s daughter, had secretly given food to a stranger who was near starvation, and they burned her in public. Another time, when they discovered that a young girl had fed a starving beggar, they smeared honey all over her and placed her upon the city wall, so that she died from the stings of the bees attracted by the honey.
> 
> These and many other similar hideous acts of cruelty by the Sodomites and their neighbors of Gomorrah, had aroused G-d’s anger, and He decided to destroy them completely.
> _
> Every time from now on that you claim that the issue is not even debatable you just show yourself to be a liar.
> 
> And really- 'Atomic Warfare in Ancient India'? LOL......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Genesis 19-5
> 
> "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> 
> Genesis 19-5
> 
> "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> 
> Genesis 19-5
> 
> "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> 
> Genesis 19-5 *
> 
> * "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a direct translation?   What is the Hebrew (Semetic) word for "have sex with them"?
Click to expand...

The NIV tries to use the most common vernacular to accommodate people of your intelligence level. Other versions word it differently if you think you're up to the challenge.


----------



## g5000

GreenBean said:


> For the Umpteenth Time ...
> 
> *Genesis 19-5
> Genesis 19-5
> Genesis 19-5
> Genesis 19-5   *
> 
> Got it  ?  Good - stop trying to pretend it doesn't exist - it destroys your argument slime ball



Dear gay folk.  Please allow me translate Greenbean's post:


----------



## g5000

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> You people characterize any opposition to the homosexual lifestyle as hate, so your bigotry prevents you from rendering an objective analysis.


Here is my objective analysis of your posts:


----------



## bodecea

bodecea said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the Umpteenth Time ...
> 
> *Genesis 19-5
> Genesis 19-5
> Genesis 19-5
> Genesis 19-5   *
> 
> Got it  ?  Good - stop trying to pretend it doesn't exist - it destroys your argument slime ball
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah 23
> But now I see that the prophets of Jerusalem are even worse!
> 
> *They commit adultery and love dishonesty.*
> 
> They encourage those who are doing evil
> 
> so that no one turns away from their sins.
> 
> These prophets are as wicked
> 
> *as the people of Sodom and Gomorrah once were*.”
> 
> Hmmm that sounds like Greenbean.....
> 
> _
> Ezekial
> Your younger sister was Sodom, who lived with her daughters in the south.
> *47 *But you have not merely sinned as they did. You quickly surpassed them in corruption.
> *48 *As surely as I live, says the Sovereign LORD, Sodom and her daughters were never as wicked as you and your daughters.
> *49 Sodom’s sins were pride, gluttony, and laziness*, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door.
> *50 *She was proud and committed detestable sins, so I wiped her out, as you have seen.c
> _
> Hmmm that sounds like Greenbean too.
> 
> But Greenbean tells us there is no debating his conclusions. Because he is clearly an expert on all things Biblical and ancient......like Atomic war in Ancient India.....lol....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Poor attempt at deflecting - Ancient warfare in India is a theory - you do understand the diff. between fact and theory do you not
> So far as Homosexuality and Sodom & Gomorrah - No its not debatable - not so long as your using the source and not trying to slant facts to suit your Agenda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"No its not debatable" _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- I have already shown that it is regularly debated by scholars.
> 
> The entire Jewish tradition disagrees with you.
> The Sin of Sodom and its Impact on Creation - My Jewish Learning
> _The Torah did not elaborate on the sin of Sodom, but the underpinnings are expressed later in the prophecy of Ezekiel: "Behold this was the sin of Sodom…She and her daughters had pride, excess bread, and peaceful serenity, but she did not strengthen the hand of the poor and the needy" (16:49).
> 
> An opinion in the Mishnah in Avot 5:10 further strengthens this picture of moral depravity when it defines the Sodomite as one who says, "What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours." The Mishnah decries a man who wishes to remove himself from the social responsibility of welfare by closing himself and his wealth from others, even if he makes the claim that he is not taking away from anyone else.
> 
> The Destruction of Sodom - Jewish History
> The Sodomites were notorious for their wickedness. They had no consideration for the poor, nor for the passing stranger to whom they offered no hospitality; nor would they even sell him any food or water. Once they had found out that Plitith, Lot’s daughter, had secretly given food to a stranger who was near starvation, and they burned her in public. Another time, when they discovered that a young girl had fed a starving beggar, they smeared honey all over her and placed her upon the city wall, so that she died from the stings of the bees attracted by the honey.
> 
> These and many other similar hideous acts of cruelty by the Sodomites and their neighbors of Gomorrah, had aroused G-d’s anger, and He decided to destroy them completely.
> _
> Every time from now on that you claim that the issue is not even debatable you just show yourself to be a liar.
> 
> And really- 'Atomic Warfare in Ancient India'? LOL......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Genesis 19-5
> 
> "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> 
> Genesis 19-5
> 
> "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> 
> Genesis 19-5
> 
> "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> 
> Genesis 19-5 *
> 
> * "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a direct translation?   What is the Hebrew (Semetic) word for "have sex with them"?
Click to expand...


Did some interesting research on this...the word is "yada" which means to know....and is used in the Aramic OT over 900 times.  Only 13-14 times does it mean something sexual....the rest of the time it means to "question".   It isn't til the Christian bibles, particularly the KJV does it take on sexual tones.   What if the men of Sodom just wanted to question the strangers?   Not quite as interesting and evil sounding, is it?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

g5000 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people characterize any opposition to the homosexual lifestyle as hate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, but your opposition certainly is based on hate.
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> , so your bigotry prevents you from rendering an objective analysis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible is not objective.
Click to expand...

You're a moron. Anyone who characterizes any disagreement as hate is not objective. That's not up for debate. Since bigots like you see hate everywhere, you're crippled in being able to perceive the real thing. It would be the same as a conspiracy kook trying to discern a real conspiracy from the random lunacy that occupies his head. That's the kind of logic that escapes people like you.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah 23
> But now I see that the prophets of Jerusalem are even worse!
> 
> *They commit adultery and love dishonesty.*
> 
> They encourage those who are doing evil
> 
> so that no one turns away from their sins.
> 
> These prophets are as wicked
> 
> *as the people of Sodom and Gomorrah once were*.”
> 
> Hmmm that sounds like Greenbean.....
> 
> _
> Ezekial
> Your younger sister was Sodom, who lived with her daughters in the south.
> *47 *But you have not merely sinned as they did. You quickly surpassed them in corruption.
> *48 *As surely as I live, says the Sovereign LORD, Sodom and her daughters were never as wicked as you and your daughters.
> *49 Sodom’s sins were pride, gluttony, and laziness*, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door.
> *50 *She was proud and committed detestable sins, so I wiped her out, as you have seen.c
> _
> Hmmm that sounds like Greenbean too.
> 
> But Greenbean tells us there is no debating his conclusions. Because he is clearly an expert on all things Biblical and ancient......like Atomic war in Ancient India.....lol....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor attempt at deflecting - Ancient warfare in India is a theory - you do understand the diff. between fact and theory do you not
> So far as Homosexuality and Sodom & Gomorrah - No its not debatable - not so long as your using the source and not trying to slant facts to suit your Agenda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"No its not debatable" _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- I have already shown that it is regularly debated by scholars.
> 
> The entire Jewish tradition disagrees with you.
> The Sin of Sodom and its Impact on Creation - My Jewish Learning
> _The Torah did not elaborate on the sin of Sodom, but the underpinnings are expressed later in the prophecy of Ezekiel: "Behold this was the sin of Sodom…She and her daughters had pride, excess bread, and peaceful serenity, but she did not strengthen the hand of the poor and the needy" (16:49).
> 
> An opinion in the Mishnah in Avot 5:10 further strengthens this picture of moral depravity when it defines the Sodomite as one who says, "What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours." The Mishnah decries a man who wishes to remove himself from the social responsibility of welfare by closing himself and his wealth from others, even if he makes the claim that he is not taking away from anyone else.
> 
> The Destruction of Sodom - Jewish History
> The Sodomites were notorious for their wickedness. They had no consideration for the poor, nor for the passing stranger to whom they offered no hospitality; nor would they even sell him any food or water. Once they had found out that Plitith, Lot’s daughter, had secretly given food to a stranger who was near starvation, and they burned her in public. Another time, when they discovered that a young girl had fed a starving beggar, they smeared honey all over her and placed her upon the city wall, so that she died from the stings of the bees attracted by the honey.
> 
> These and many other similar hideous acts of cruelty by the Sodomites and their neighbors of Gomorrah, had aroused G-d’s anger, and He decided to destroy them completely.
> _
> Every time from now on that you claim that the issue is not even debatable you just show yourself to be a liar.
> 
> And really- 'Atomic Warfare in Ancient India'? LOL......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Genesis 19-5
> 
> "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> 
> Genesis 19-5
> 
> "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> 
> Genesis 19-5
> 
> "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> 
> Genesis 19-5 *
> 
> * "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a direct translation?   What is the Hebrew (Semetic) word for "have sex with them"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did some interesting research on this...the word is "yada" which means to know....and is used in the Aramic OT over 900 times.  Only 13-14 times does it mean something sexual....the rest of the time it means to "question".   It isn't til the Christian bibles, particularly the KJV does it take on sexual tones.   What if the men of Sodom just wanted to question the strangers?   Not quite as interesting and evil sounding, is it?
Click to expand...

 Yes, that totally explains why Lot offered his daughters as a substitute. You'll never understand what you refuse to see no matter how clear it's made to be.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor attempt at deflecting - Ancient warfare in India is a theory - you do understand the diff. between fact and theory do you not
> So far as Homosexuality and Sodom & Gomorrah - No its not debatable - not so long as your using the source and not trying to slant facts to suit your Agenda
> 
> 
> 
> _"No its not debatable" _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- I have already shown that it is regularly debated by scholars.
> 
> The entire Jewish tradition disagrees with you.
> The Sin of Sodom and its Impact on Creation - My Jewish Learning
> _The Torah did not elaborate on the sin of Sodom, but the underpinnings are expressed later in the prophecy of Ezekiel: "Behold this was the sin of Sodom…She and her daughters had pride, excess bread, and peaceful serenity, but she did not strengthen the hand of the poor and the needy" (16:49).
> 
> An opinion in the Mishnah in Avot 5:10 further strengthens this picture of moral depravity when it defines the Sodomite as one who says, "What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours." The Mishnah decries a man who wishes to remove himself from the social responsibility of welfare by closing himself and his wealth from others, even if he makes the claim that he is not taking away from anyone else.
> 
> The Destruction of Sodom - Jewish History
> The Sodomites were notorious for their wickedness. They had no consideration for the poor, nor for the passing stranger to whom they offered no hospitality; nor would they even sell him any food or water. Once they had found out that Plitith, Lot’s daughter, had secretly given food to a stranger who was near starvation, and they burned her in public. Another time, when they discovered that a young girl had fed a starving beggar, they smeared honey all over her and placed her upon the city wall, so that she died from the stings of the bees attracted by the honey.
> 
> These and many other similar hideous acts of cruelty by the Sodomites and their neighbors of Gomorrah, had aroused G-d’s anger, and He decided to destroy them completely.
> _
> Every time from now on that you claim that the issue is not even debatable you just show yourself to be a liar.
> 
> And really- 'Atomic Warfare in Ancient India'? LOL......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Genesis 19-5
> 
> "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> 
> Genesis 19-5
> 
> "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> 
> Genesis 19-5
> 
> "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> 
> Genesis 19-5 *
> 
> * "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a direct translation?   What is the Hebrew (Semetic) word for "have sex with them"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did some interesting research on this...the word is "yada" which means to know....and is used in the Aramic OT over 900 times.  Only 13-14 times does it mean something sexual....the rest of the time it means to "question".   It isn't til the Christian bibles, particularly the KJV does it take on sexual tones.   What if the men of Sodom just wanted to question the strangers?   Not quite as interesting and evil sounding, is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that totally explains why Lot offered his daughters as a substitute. You'll never understand what you refuse to see no matter how clear it's made to be.
Click to expand...

Well...aren't you one who thinks it's "logical" to offer so-called homosexual men your..........daughters?


----------



## g5000

Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is *abomination*.

God hates fags.

But before he was harshing on gays, God first said in Leviticus 11:12 - Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an *abomination *unto you.

God hates shrimp eaters.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

g5000 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people characterize any opposition to the homosexual lifestyle as hate, so your bigotry prevents you from rendering an objective analysis.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is my objective analysis of your posts:
Click to expand...

Thanks for demonstrating my point. You proved yourself a bigot.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"No its not debatable" _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- I have already shown that it is regularly debated by scholars.
> 
> The entire Jewish tradition disagrees with you.
> The Sin of Sodom and its Impact on Creation - My Jewish Learning
> _The Torah did not elaborate on the sin of Sodom, but the underpinnings are expressed later in the prophecy of Ezekiel: "Behold this was the sin of Sodom…She and her daughters had pride, excess bread, and peaceful serenity, but she did not strengthen the hand of the poor and the needy" (16:49).
> 
> An opinion in the Mishnah in Avot 5:10 further strengthens this picture of moral depravity when it defines the Sodomite as one who says, "What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours." The Mishnah decries a man who wishes to remove himself from the social responsibility of welfare by closing himself and his wealth from others, even if he makes the claim that he is not taking away from anyone else.
> 
> The Destruction of Sodom - Jewish History
> The Sodomites were notorious for their wickedness. They had no consideration for the poor, nor for the passing stranger to whom they offered no hospitality; nor would they even sell him any food or water. Once they had found out that Plitith, Lot’s daughter, had secretly given food to a stranger who was near starvation, and they burned her in public. Another time, when they discovered that a young girl had fed a starving beggar, they smeared honey all over her and placed her upon the city wall, so that she died from the stings of the bees attracted by the honey.
> 
> These and many other similar hideous acts of cruelty by the Sodomites and their neighbors of Gomorrah, had aroused G-d’s anger, and He decided to destroy them completely.
> _
> Every time from now on that you claim that the issue is not even debatable you just show yourself to be a liar.
> 
> And really- 'Atomic Warfare in Ancient India'? LOL......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Genesis 19-5
> 
> "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> 
> Genesis 19-5
> 
> "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> 
> Genesis 19-5
> 
> "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> 
> Genesis 19-5 *
> 
> * "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a direct translation?   What is the Hebrew (Semetic) word for "have sex with them"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did some interesting research on this...the word is "yada" which means to know....and is used in the Aramic OT over 900 times.  Only 13-14 times does it mean something sexual....the rest of the time it means to "question".   It isn't til the Christian bibles, particularly the KJV does it take on sexual tones.   What if the men of Sodom just wanted to question the strangers?   Not quite as interesting and evil sounding, is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that totally explains why Lot offered his daughters as a substitute. You'll never understand what you refuse to see no matter how clear it's made to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well...aren't you one who thinks it's "logical" to offer so-called homosexual men your..........daughters?
Click to expand...

Not to homosexuals, no. Does that sound intelligent to anyone?


----------



## g5000

*Don't touch!*


----------



## g5000

I think there should be a test given to every Presidential candidate.  Offer them some shrimp.  If they take the bait, then you'll know...

They're gay.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

g5000 said:


> *Don't touch!*


If you want to eat something that spends its life eating shit, then vaya con dios. God told his followers it was foul stuff so they wouldn't eat something bad for them. Oh the audacity!


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Genesis 19-5
> 
> "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> 
> Genesis 19-5
> 
> "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> 
> Genesis 19-5
> 
> "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> 
> Genesis 19-5 *
> 
> * "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."*
> 
> 
> 
> That's a direct translation?   What is the Hebrew (Semetic) word for "have sex with them"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did some interesting research on this...the word is "yada" which means to know....and is used in the Aramic OT over 900 times.  Only 13-14 times does it mean something sexual....the rest of the time it means to "question".   It isn't til the Christian bibles, particularly the KJV does it take on sexual tones.   What if the men of Sodom just wanted to question the strangers?   Not quite as interesting and evil sounding, is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that totally explains why Lot offered his daughters as a substitute. You'll never understand what you refuse to see no matter how clear it's made to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well...aren't you one who thinks it's "logical" to offer so-called homosexual men your..........daughters?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not to homosexuals, no. Does that sound intelligent to anyone?
Click to expand...

Oh.  Tell us more about how logical it is for homosexuals to be interested in someone's daughters.   Share your wisdom in this regard.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a direct translation?   What is the Hebrew (Semetic) word for "have sex with them"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did some interesting research on this...the word is "yada" which means to know....and is used in the Aramic OT over 900 times.  Only 13-14 times does it mean something sexual....the rest of the time it means to "question".   It isn't til the Christian bibles, particularly the KJV does it take on sexual tones.   What if the men of Sodom just wanted to question the strangers?   Not quite as interesting and evil sounding, is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that totally explains why Lot offered his daughters as a substitute. You'll never understand what you refuse to see no matter how clear it's made to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well...aren't you one who thinks it's "logical" to offer so-called homosexual men your..........daughters?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not to homosexuals, no. Does that sound intelligent to anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh.  Tell us more about how logical it is for homosexuals to be interested in someone's daughters.   Share your wisdom in this regard.
Click to expand...

Stupid jackass, that's the opposite of what I said. OMG you're retarded. Goodbye.


----------



## g5000

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> You're a moron. Anyone who characterizes any disagreement as hate is not objective. That's not up for debate. Since bigots like you see hate everywhere, you're crippled in being able to perceive the real thing. It would be the same as a conspiracy kook trying to discern a real conspiracy from the random lunacy that occupies his head. That's the kind of logic that escapes people like you.



I am glad to hear you don't believe homosexuals live a harmful way of life or are a danger to children and that you believe they can be good parents to kids.

This is awesome news.


----------



## JakeStarkey

*Genesis 19:5King James Version (KJV)*
5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> cause the fundamentalists and evangelicals and Pentecostals and those sects in alliance with them want to tell the other 75% of the country how to run their private lives.  It's modern day Puritanism, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more horseshit.   Biology is not based on the Bible or some form of puritanism.   Human sexuality is biological, there are males and females for a reason.   Homosexuality is an aberation of the human condition, it is a mental illness, it is not normal.
> 
> you cannot declare it normal by court order or executive dictate.
> 
> gay marriage is an oxymoron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can declare it normal because I am not a hater. Homosexuality is as 'normal' as being left handed is. You don't have to accept that humans can be attracted to other humans of the same gender- you can continue to hate them as you will.
> 
> But the mentally ill are those who want to discriminate against other human beings simply because of the gender that they are attracted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate sick people,   I feel sorry for them and want them to be cured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not seen you offer anything but hatred towards homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people characterize any opposition to the homosexual lifestyle as hate, so your bigotry prevents you from rendering an objective analysis.
Click to expand...


No- I characterize bigots who are bigots towards homosexuals as haters- I characterize their demonizing of homosexuals as hatred of homosexuals.


----------



## JakeStarkey

StMike: "You're a moron. Anyone who characterizes any disagreement as hate is not objective. That's not up for debate. Since bigots like you see hate everywhere, you're crippled in being able to perceive the real thing. It would be the same as a conspiracy kook trying to discern a real conspiracy from the random lunacy that occupies his head. That's the kind of logic that escapes people like you."

The Bible is written with a confirmation bias, and you read it through the lens of a confirmation bias.  Question that bias is not a conspiracy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No one in a right mind hates heteroes, and only hetero-fascists hate homosexuals.  There is no reason for it

We look to the Constitution and legislation and case law, allsecular, for guidance and direction in our law.

A minority religious group of Puritans are not going to make the law for the rest of us.


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> cause the fundamentalists and evangelicals and Pentecostals and those sects in alliance with them want to tell the other 75% of the country how to run their private lives.  It's modern day Puritanism, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more horseshit.   Biology is not based on the Bible or some form of puritanism.   Human sexuality is biological, there are males and females for a reason.   Homosexuality is an aberation of the human condition, it is a mental illness, it is not normal.
> 
> you cannot declare it normal by court order or executive dictate.
> 
> gay marriage is an oxymoron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can declare it normal because I am not a hater. Homosexuality is as 'normal' as being left handed is. You don't have to accept that humans can be attracted to other humans of the same gender- you can continue to hate them as you will.
> 
> But the mentally ill are those who want to discriminate against other human beings simply because of the gender that they are attracted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate sick people,   I feel sorry for them and want them to be cured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not seen you offer anything but hatred towards homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people characterize any opposition to the homosexual lifestyle as hate, so your bigotry prevents you from rendering an objective analysis.
Click to expand...


There is no objective analysis of discrimination. You either wish to discriminate or you don't. If you do, you're a bigot, plain and simple.


----------



## g5000

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Anyone who characterizes any disagreement as hate is not objective.



You even use the language of a bigot.  "Anyone who",  "any disagreement".

I do not characterize *any *disagreement as hate.   I wait for someone to demonstrate their hate. You have.  Quite plainly.

You are not just in that group of "anyone who".  Your rhetoric has placed you in the sub-class of bigots.


----------



## Lilah

JakeStarkey said:


> *Genesis 19:5King James Version (KJV)*
> 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.



Genesis was written by Moses, who was slow of speech and tongue,  2000 years after  Adam and Eve.  How did he know Lot was morally depraved; i.e., he would rather hand off his two daughters to a mob of men, young and old, rather than hand over two stranger.  Really?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Lilah said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Genesis 19:5King James Version (KJV)*
> 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis was written by Moses, who was slow of speech and tongue,  2000 years after  Adam and Eve.  How did he know Lot was morally depraved; i.e., he would rather hand off his two daughters to a mob of men, young and old, rather than hand over two stranger.  Really?
Click to expand...


I guess they would be safe in a mob of supposed homosexual men?  GreenBean and St.Mike have no explained that bit yet.


----------



## Lilah

JakeStarkey said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Genesis 19:5King James Version (KJV)*
> 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis was written by Moses, who was slow of speech and tongue,  2000 years after  Adam and Eve.  How did he know Lot was morally depraved; i.e., he would rather hand off his two daughters to a mob of men, young and old, rather than hand over two stranger.  Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess they would be safe in a mob of supposed homosexual men?  GreenBean and St.Mike have no explained that bit yet.
Click to expand...


Is it possible for your to explain how Moses knew the story first-hand since he wrote about it 2000 years later?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Lilah said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Genesis 19:5King James Version (KJV)*
> 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis was written by Moses, who was slow of speech and tongue,  2000 years after  Adam and Eve.  How did he know Lot was morally depraved; i.e., he would rather hand off his two daughters to a mob of men, young and old, rather than hand over two stranger.  Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess they would be safe in a mob of supposed homosexual men?  GreenBean and St.Mike have no explained that bit yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it possible for your to explain how Moses knew the story first-hand since he wrote about it 2000 years later?
Click to expand...


Lilah, the story is one of the "timeless" narratives that give the Hebrews then the Jews a root predecessor for mythical and cultural unification.

(1) We don't know if Moses new the SG story.

(2) We don't know if Moses existed.

(3) We are pretty sure that David and more sure that Solomon existed than Moses.

When dealing with the social con far right, be sure they will treat myth as fact.


----------



## Bush92

There is no homosexual dilemma. Either you put another man's unit in your mouth or you don't. Case closed. If you do...please keep it to yourself, don't carry a sign and march in the street that you put another guy's tool in your mug and how proud you are of it.


----------



## Lilah

Bush92 said:


> There is no homosexual dilemma. Either you put another man's unit in your mouth or you don't. Case closed. If you do...please keep it to yourself, don't carry a sign and march in the street that you put another guy's tool in your mug and how proud you are of it.



Mrs. Smith, I believe the story you told to the women's luncheon about what you did to your husband for his birthday present makes you a homosexual.


----------



## Seawytch

Bush92 said:


> There is no homosexual dilemma. Either you put another man's unit in your mouth or you don't. Case closed. If you do...please keep it to yourself, don't carry a sign and march in the street that you put another guy's tool in your mug and how proud you are of it.



Nobody carries signs that say that. 

I've never put a man's unit in my mouth...but I have marched in a Pride Parade. 

You want gays living their lives in secret. Ain't gonna happen. We have lives and families and we don't have to keep them quiet. We aren't ashamed.


----------



## Bush92

Lilah said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no homosexual dilemma. Either you put another man's unit in your mouth or you don't. Case closed. If you do...please keep it to yourself, don't carry a sign and march in the street that you put another guy's tool in your mug and how proud you are of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mrs. Smith, I believe the story you told to the women's luncheon about what you did to your husband for his birthday present makes you a homosexual.
Click to expand...

If Mrs. Smith does it to her husband that's fine...if Mr. Smith does it to another guy...BARF!


----------



## Bush92

Seawytch said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no homosexual dilemma. Either you put another man's unit in your mouth or you don't. Case closed. If you do...please keep it to yourself, don't carry a sign and march in the street that you put another guy's tool in your mug and how proud you are of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody carries signs that say that.
> 
> I've never put a man's unit in my mouth...but I have marched in a Pride Parade.
> 
> You want gays living their lives in secret. Ain't gonna happen. We have lives and families and we don't have to keep them quiet. We aren't ashamed.
Click to expand...

Because your a dyke?


----------



## Lilah

Bush92 said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no homosexual dilemma. Either you put another man's unit in your mouth or you don't. Case closed. If you do...please keep it to yourself, don't carry a sign and march in the street that you put another guy's tool in your mug and how proud you are of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mrs. Smith, I believe the story you told to the women's luncheon about what you did to your husband for his birthday present makes you a homosexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Mrs. Smith does it to her husband that's fine...if Mr. Smith does it to another guy...BARF!
Click to expand...


Whoa!  It's not the act you are bashing, it's the gender?


----------



## Bush92

Lilah said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no homosexual dilemma. Either you put another man's unit in your mouth or you don't. Case closed. If you do...please keep it to yourself, don't carry a sign and march in the street that you put another guy's tool in your mug and how proud you are of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mrs. Smith, I believe the story you told to the women's luncheon about what you did to your husband for his birthday present makes you a homosexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Mrs. Smith does it to her husband that's fine...if Mr. Smith does it to another guy...BARF!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoa!  It's not the act you are bashing, it's the gender?
Click to expand...

You got it baby.


----------



## Syriusly

Bush92 said:


> There is no homosexual dilemma.



I agree- the entire thread is just BS.


----------



## Lilah

Bush92 said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no homosexual dilemma. Either you put another man's unit in your mouth or you don't. Case closed. If you do...please keep it to yourself, don't carry a sign and march in the street that you put another guy's tool in your mug and how proud you are of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mrs. Smith, I believe the story you told to the women's luncheon about what you did to your husband for his birthday present makes you a homosexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Mrs. Smith does it to her husband that's fine...if Mr. Smith does it to another guy...BARF!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoa!  It's not the act you are bashing, it's the gender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got it baby.
Click to expand...


Nobody puts baby in the corner.  Why do you hate men?


----------



## Seawytch

Bush92 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no homosexual dilemma. Either you put another man's unit in your mouth or you don't. Case closed. If you do...please keep it to yourself, don't carry a sign and march in the street that you put another guy's tool in your mug and how proud you are of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody carries signs that say that.
> 
> I've never put a man's unit in my mouth...but I have marched in a Pride Parade.
> 
> You want gays living their lives in secret. Ain't gonna happen. We have lives and families and we don't have to keep them quiet. We aren't ashamed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because your a dyke?
Click to expand...


Yes, that would be why I've never had a man's unit in my mouth. You're quick.


----------



## Bush92

Lilah said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no homosexual dilemma. Either you put another man's unit in your mouth or you don't. Case closed. If you do...please keep it to yourself, don't carry a sign and march in the street that you put another guy's tool in your mug and how proud you are of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mrs. Smith, I believe the story you told to the women's luncheon about what you did to your husband for his birthday present makes you a homosexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Mrs. Smith does it to her husband that's fine...if Mr. Smith does it to another guy...BARF!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoa!  It's not the act you are bashing, it's the gender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got it baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody puts baby in the corner.  Why do you hate men?
Click to expand...

I don't hate men. So long as they keep their tools out of each others mouths and back sides.


----------



## Seawytch

Bush92 said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mrs. Smith, I believe the story you told to the women's luncheon about what you did to your husband for his birthday present makes you a homosexual.
> 
> 
> 
> If Mrs. Smith does it to her husband that's fine...if Mr. Smith does it to another guy...BARF!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoa!  It's not the act you are bashing, it's the gender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got it baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody puts baby in the corner.  Why do you hate men?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't hate men. So long as they keep their tools out of each others mouths and back sides.
Click to expand...


Why do you care what they do with their tools and/or backsides?


----------



## Bush92

Seawytch said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Mrs. Smith does it to her husband that's fine...if Mr. Smith does it to another guy...BARF!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa!  It's not the act you are bashing, it's the gender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got it baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody puts baby in the corner.  Why do you hate men?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't hate men. So long as they keep their tools out of each others mouths and back sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you care what they do with their tools and/or backsides?
Click to expand...

I don't. Just keep it to yourself.


----------



## g5000

It just scares the bejeesus out of some people that two guys could file a married tax return and that one of them could collect Social Security death benefits.

This terrifies them.  When contemplating this, visions of butt humping, dick sucking, and dog fucking deluge their minds. Suffering from this flood of homoerotic and bestiality visions over a joint tax return is what they consider "normal".


----------



## g5000

GAYZ: We would like the exact same marriage benefits that straights get.

BIGOT: Gaaaaaggghhh!  Stop thrusting your big, long, fat, juicy throbbing dick in my face!


----------



## Bush92

g5000 said:


> It just scares the bejeesus out of some people that two guys could file a married tax return and that one of them could collect Social Security death benefits.
> 
> This terrifies them.  When contemplating this, visions of butt humping, dick sucking, and dog fucking deluge their minds. Suffering from this flood of homoerotic and bestiality visions over a joint tax return is what they consider "normal".


Never had such a vision. Man your a sicko.


----------



## Bush92

g5000 said:


> GAYZ: We would like the exact same marriage benefits that straights get.
> 
> BIGOT: Gaaaaaggghhh!  Stop thrusting your big, long, fat dick in my face!


"gay" and "marriage" are mutually exclusive terms.


----------



## g5000

Bush92 said:


> There is no homosexual dilemma. Either you put another man's unit in your mouth or you don't. Case closed. If you do...please keep it to yourself, don't carry a sign and march in the street that you put another guy's tool in your mug and how proud you are of it.


----------



## g5000

Bush92 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> GAYZ: We would like the exact same marriage benefits that straights get.
> 
> BIGOT: Gaaaaaggghhh!  Stop thrusting your big, long, fat dick in my face!
> 
> 
> 
> "gay" and "marriage" are mutually exclusive terms.
Click to expand...

In the same way people like you wanted "negro" and "free"  to be.


----------



## Seawytch

Bush92 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa!  It's not the act you are bashing, it's the gender?
> 
> 
> 
> You got it baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody puts baby in the corner.  Why do you hate men?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't hate men. So long as they keep their tools out of each others mouths and back sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you care what they do with their tools and/or backsides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't. Just keep it to yourself.
Click to expand...


Who tells you about their sex life?

Oh wait...if you find out someone is gay, YOU think of them having sex. Sounds like your problem not theirs.


----------



## GreenBean

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a direct translation?   What is the Hebrew (Semetic) word for "have sex with them"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did some interesting research on this...the word is "yada" which means to know....and is used in the Aramic OT over 900 times.  Only 13-14 times does it mean something sexual....the rest of the time it means to "question".   It isn't til the Christian bibles, particularly the KJV does it take on sexual tones.   What if the men of Sodom just wanted to question the strangers?   Not quite as interesting and evil sounding, is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that totally explains why Lot offered his daughters as a substitute. You'll never understand what you refuse to see no matter how clear it's made to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well...aren't you one who thinks it's "logical" to offer so-called homosexual men your..........daughters?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not to homosexuals, no. Does that sound intelligent to anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh.  Tell us more about how logical it is for homosexuals to be interested in someone's daughters.   Share your wisdom in this regard.
Click to expand...


Perverts in Biblical times would f*ck anything that was warm and had a hole.  However in Modern Times it's no longer a requirement that it be warm - so long as it has a hole .


----------



## GreenBean

Lilah said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Genesis 19:5King James Version (KJV)*
> 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis was written by Moses, who was slow of speech and tongue,  2000 years after  Adam and Eve.  How did he know Lot was morally depraved; i.e., he would rather hand off his two daughters to a mob of men, young and old, rather than hand over two stranger.  Really?
Click to expand...


Most serious scholars do not believe that Moses wrote Genesis or Exodus or Leviticus or Numbers and Deuteronomy .  In fact - there are portions of the Pentateuch he is credited with having written that deal with topics after his demise was chronicled by said books.

Although as per Rabbinic tradition the five books of the Torah were the work of Moses ...  Today,most scholars agree that *the Pentateuch does not have a single author, and that its composition took place over centuries*


----------



## GreenBean

g5000 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who characterizes any disagreement as hate is not objective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You even use the language of a bigot.  "Anyone who",  "any disagreement".
> 
> I do not characterize *any *disagreement as hate.   I wait for someone to demonstrate their hate. You have.  Quite plainly.
> 
> You are not just in that group of "anyone who".  Your rhetoric has placed you in the sub-class of bigots.
Click to expand...

You're much better at  "*jamming*" than most of the douche bags participating in this thread - I make it a point to point out Jamming and Framing as frequently as possible - so don't take it personal when I point out that you are a higher caliber of douche bag - you should consider it a compliment

*


Spoiler: Jamming - Brainwashing Techniques



Jamming The objective of jamming is to force opponents into silence by accusations of homophobia, latent homosexual tendencies and bigotry . The purpose being to create a social stigmatization of anyone whom opposes the Agenda. Jamming is to ridicule the opponent in the eyes of the world and to evoke the "pack mentality" .



Gay Brainwashing Techniques*


----------



## GreenBean

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah 23
> But now I see that the prophets of Jerusalem are even worse!
> 
> *They commit adultery and love dishonesty.*
> 
> They encourage those who are doing evil
> 
> so that no one turns away from their sins.
> 
> These prophets are as wicked
> 
> *as the people of Sodom and Gomorrah once were*.”
> 
> Hmmm that sounds like Greenbean.....
> 
> _
> Ezekial
> Your younger sister was Sodom, who lived with her daughters in the south.
> *47 *But you have not merely sinned as they did. You quickly surpassed them in corruption.
> *48 *As surely as I live, says the Sovereign LORD, Sodom and her daughters were never as wicked as you and your daughters.
> *49 Sodom’s sins were pride, gluttony, and laziness*, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door.
> *50 *She was proud and committed detestable sins, so I wiped her out, as you have seen.c
> _
> Hmmm that sounds like Greenbean too.
> 
> But Greenbean tells us there is no debating his conclusions. Because he is clearly an expert on all things Biblical and ancient......like Atomic war in Ancient India.....lol....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor attempt at deflecting - Ancient warfare in India is a theory - you do understand the diff. between fact and theory do you not
> So far as Homosexuality and Sodom & Gomorrah - No its not debatable - not so long as your using the source and not trying to slant facts to suit your Agenda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"No its not debatable" _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- I have already shown that it is regularly debated by scholars.
> 
> The entire Jewish tradition disagrees with you.
> The Sin of Sodom and its Impact on Creation - My Jewish Learning
> _The Torah did not elaborate on the sin of Sodom, but the underpinnings are expressed later in the prophecy of Ezekiel: "Behold this was the sin of Sodom…She and her daughters had pride, excess bread, and peaceful serenity, but she did not strengthen the hand of the poor and the needy" (16:49).
> 
> An opinion in the Mishnah in Avot 5:10 further strengthens this picture of moral depravity when it defines the Sodomite as one who says, "What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours." The Mishnah decries a man who wishes to remove himself from the social responsibility of welfare by closing himself and his wealth from others, even if he makes the claim that he is not taking away from anyone else.
> 
> The Destruction of Sodom - Jewish History
> The Sodomites were notorious for their wickedness. They had no consideration for the poor, nor for the passing stranger to whom they offered no hospitality; nor would they even sell him any food or water. Once they had found out that Plitith, Lot’s daughter, had secretly given food to a stranger who was near starvation, and they burned her in public. Another time, when they discovered that a young girl had fed a starving beggar, they smeared honey all over her and placed her upon the city wall, so that she died from the stings of the bees attracted by the honey.
> 
> These and many other similar hideous acts of cruelty by the Sodomites and their neighbors of Gomorrah, had aroused G-d’s anger, and He decided to destroy them completely.
> _
> Every time from now on that you claim that the issue is not even debatable you just show yourself to be a liar.
> 
> And really- 'Atomic Warfare in Ancient India'? LOL......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Genesis 19-5
> 
> "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> 
> Genesis 19-5
> 
> "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> 
> Genesis 19-5
> 
> "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> 
> Genesis 19-5 *
> 
> * "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a direct translation?   What is the Hebrew (Semetic) word for "have sex with them"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The NIV tries to use the most common vernacular to accommodate people of your intelligence level. Other versions word it differently if you think you're up to the challenge.
Click to expand...



Here's another passage 

Leviticus 18:22
"'Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

Judges 19:22
While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, *"Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him."*

*bring them out unto us, that we may know them*;
not who they were, and from whence they came, and what their business was; nor did they pretend anything of this kind to hide and cover their design from Lot, but they were open and impudent, and declared their sin without shame and blushing, which is their character, ( Isaiah 3:9 ) ; their meaning was, that they might commit that unnatural sin with them, they were addicted to, and in common used, and which from them to this day bears the name of Sodomy. As lawful copulation with a man's wife is modestly expressed by knowing her, ( Genesis 4:1 Genesis 4:17 Genesis 4:25) ; so this unlawful and shocking copulation of man with man is expressed by this phrase; and that this was their meaning is plain from Lot's answer to them, ( Genesis 19:8 ) .


Genesis 19 5 Commentary - John Gill s Exposition of the Bible


----------



## JakeStarkey

All of those were framed by a culture in the wilderness then in the highlands at war with neighboring tribes and among themselves.

Different time, different way.

What the wild hill tribes of Judea supposedly did 3200 years ago has little or no application to us today.


----------



## GreenBean

Bush92 said:


> If you do...please keep it to yourself, don't carry a sign and march in the street that you put another guy's tool in your mug and how proud you are of it.



*AND 
*
Get you Damn Propaganda out of our schools , entertainment outlets, away from our families, our children, our neighbors and our neighbors children.  Stop trying to present it the younger generation as an "Alternative Lifestyle" - It's not - it's an unnatural sickness.

In private - behind closed doors - you can *GO F*CK YOURSELVES till your balls fall off .*


----------



## GreenBean

g5000 said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> GAYZ: We would like the exact same marriage benefits that straights get.
> 
> BIGOT: Gaaaaaggghhh!  Stop thrusting your big, long, fat dick in my face!
> 
> 
> 
> "gay" and "marriage" are mutually exclusive terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the same way people like you wanted "negro" and "free"  to be.
Click to expand...


There is no correlation between the civil rights of ethnic minorities  and catering to and encouraging mental and sexual depravity that is harmful not only to depraved but society as a whole. [ Mind you - don't start salivating .... I wrote WHOLE with a W - not HOLE as in "You're an Asshole" ]  - Got it ?


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor attempt at deflecting - Ancient warfare in India is a theory - you do understand the diff. between fact and theory do you not
> So far as Homosexuality and Sodom & Gomorrah - No its not debatable - not so long as your using the source and not trying to slant facts to suit your Agenda
> 
> 
> 
> _"No its not debatable" _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- I have already shown that it is regularly debated by scholars.
> 
> The entire Jewish tradition disagrees with you.
> The Sin of Sodom and its Impact on Creation - My Jewish Learning
> _The Torah did not elaborate on the sin of Sodom, but the underpinnings are expressed later in the prophecy of Ezekiel: "Behold this was the sin of Sodom…She and her daughters had pride, excess bread, and peaceful serenity, but she did not strengthen the hand of the poor and the needy" (16:49).
> 
> An opinion in the Mishnah in Avot 5:10 further strengthens this picture of moral depravity when it defines the Sodomite as one who says, "What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours." The Mishnah decries a man who wishes to remove himself from the social responsibility of welfare by closing himself and his wealth from others, even if he makes the claim that he is not taking away from anyone else.
> 
> The Destruction of Sodom - Jewish History
> The Sodomites were notorious for their wickedness. They had no consideration for the poor, nor for the passing stranger to whom they offered no hospitality; nor would they even sell him any food or water. Once they had found out that Plitith, Lot’s daughter, had secretly given food to a stranger who was near starvation, and they burned her in public. Another time, when they discovered that a young girl had fed a starving beggar, they smeared honey all over her and placed her upon the city wall, so that she died from the stings of the bees attracted by the honey.
> 
> These and many other similar hideous acts of cruelty by the Sodomites and their neighbors of Gomorrah, had aroused G-d’s anger, and He decided to destroy them completely.
> _
> Every time from now on that you claim that the issue is not even debatable you just show yourself to be a liar.
> 
> And really- 'Atomic Warfare in Ancient India'? LOL......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Genesis 19-5
> 
> "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> 
> Genesis 19-5
> 
> "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> 
> Genesis 19-5
> 
> "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> 
> Genesis 19-5 *
> 
> * "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a direct translation?   What is the Hebrew (Semetic) word for "have sex with them"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The NIV tries to use the most common vernacular to accommodate people of your intelligence level. Other versions word it differently if you think you're up to the challenge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another passage
> 
> Leviticus 18:22
> "'Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
> 
> Judges 19:22
> While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, *"Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him."*
> 
> *bring them out unto us, that we may know them*;
> not who they were, and from whence they came, and what their business was; nor did they pretend anything of this kind to hide and cover their design from Lot, but they were open and impudent, and declared their sin without shame and blushing, which is their character, ( Isaiah 3:9 ) ; their meaning was, that they might commit that unnatural sin with them, they were addicted to, and in common used, and which from them to this day bears the name of Sodomy. As lawful copulation with a man's wife is modestly expressed by knowing her, ( Genesis 4:1 Genesis 4:17 Genesis 4:25) ; so this unlawful and shocking copulation of man with man is expressed by this phrase; and that this was their meaning is plain from Lot's answer to them, ( Genesis 19:8 ) .
> 
> 
> Genesis 19 5 Commentary - John Gill s Exposition of the Bible
Click to expand...


You said that 'it isn't even debatable'- since I have proven that to be a lie- how do we know what else you are lying about- even your own motivation.

Once again:

Jeremiah 23
But now I see that the prophets of Jerusalem are even worse!

*They commit adultery and love dishonesty.*

They encourage those who are doing evil

so that no one turns away from their sins.

These prophets are as wicked

*as the people of Sodom and Gomorrah once were*.”

Hmmm that sounds like Greenbean.....

_
Ezekial
Your younger sister was Sodom, who lived with her daughters in the south. 
*47 *But you have not merely sinned as they did. You quickly surpassed them in corruption.
*48 *As surely as I live, says the Sovereign LORD, Sodom and her daughters were never as wicked as you and your daughters. 
*49 Sodom’s sins were pride, gluttony, and laziness*, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door.
*50 *She was proud and committed detestable sins, so I wiped her out, as you have seen.c
Hmmm that sounds like Greenbean too.

But Greenbean tells us there is no debating his conclusions. Because he is clearly an expert on all things Biblical and ancient......like Atomic war in Ancient India.....lol...._
_
_


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> GAYZ: We would like the exact same marriage benefits that straights get.
> 
> BIGOT: Gaaaaaggghhh!  Stop thrusting your big, long, fat dick in my face!
> 
> 
> 
> "gay" and "marriage" are mutually exclusive terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the same way people like you wanted "negro" and "free"  to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no correlation between the civil rights of ethnic minorities  and catering to and encouraging mental and sexual depravity that is harmful not only to depraved but society as a whole. [ Mind you - don't start salivating .... I wrote WHOLE with a W - not HOLE as in "You're an Asshole" ]  - Got it ?
Click to expand...


Bigotry is bigotry- the relationship is that bigots like you judge Americans by how you label them- rather than by their own actions. 

To bigots like you a doctor who has saved millions of lives who also is a homosexual is just the same to you as a serial murderer.

Whether it is a bigot yelling 'die N*gger die' or a bigot yelling 'die F*ggot die'- you are both the same.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you do...please keep it to yourself, don't carry a sign and march in the street that you put another guy's tool in your mug and how proud you are of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *AND
> *
> Get you Damn Propaganda out of our schools , entertainment outlets, away from our families, our children, our neighbors and our neighbors children. * .*
Click to expand...


Get your Damn propaganda out of our schools, entertainment outlets, away from our families, our children our neighbors and our neighbors children.

Oh wait- we have mostly done that- and you haters hate that you are no longer able to spew your bile in our schools, and in our movies, and to your neighbors- all that are still the victims of your hate are your own family. 

Nothing we can do to help them other than be here when they get away.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The millennials do not agree with you older far right Christians.

You are the past, they are the future.

The die has been cast.


----------



## Syriusly

Bush92 said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mrs. Smith, I believe the story you told to the women's luncheon about what you did to your husband for his birthday present makes you a homosexual.
> 
> 
> 
> If Mrs. Smith does it to her husband that's fine...if Mr. Smith does it to another guy...BARF!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoa!  It's not the act you are bashing, it's the gender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got it baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody puts baby in the corner.  Why do you hate men?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't hate men. So long as they keep their tools out of each others mouths and back sides.
Click to expand...


Wow- so you hate any Americans who don't have sex the way you approve of? Oh wait- only American men who don't have sex the way you approve of.....


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no homosexual dilemma. Either you put another man's unit in your mouth or you don't. Case closed. If you do...please keep it to yourself, don't carry a sign and march in the street that you put another guy's tool in your mug and how proud you are of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody carries signs that say that.
> 
> I've never put a man's unit in my mouth...but I have marched in a Pride Parade.
> 
> You want gays living their lives in secret. Ain't gonna happen. We have lives and families and we don't have to keep them quiet. We aren't ashamed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because your a dyke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that would be why I've never had a man's unit in my mouth. You're quick.
Click to expand...

We have no way of knowing that to be true. You could be lying. You might be a $10 trick in Las Vegas for all we know.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

g5000 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a moron. Anyone who characterizes any disagreement as hate is not objective. That's not up for debate. Since bigots like you see hate everywhere, you're crippled in being able to perceive the real thing. It would be the same as a conspiracy kook trying to discern a real conspiracy from the random lunacy that occupies his head. That's the kind of logic that escapes people like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am glad to hear you don't believe homosexuals live a harmful way of life or are a danger to children and that you believe they can be good parents to kids.
> 
> This is awesome news.
Click to expand...

Two of my best friends are a lesbian couple that we trust to babysit our kids. They don't hurt anyone and are the most decent people you could know. 

So yes, it's possible.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Lilah said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Genesis 19:5King James Version (KJV)*
> 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis was written by Moses, who was slow of speech and tongue,  2000 years after  Adam and Eve.  How did he know Lot was morally depraved; i.e., he would rather hand off his two daughters to a mob of men, young and old, rather than hand over two stranger.  Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess they would be safe in a mob of supposed homosexual men?  GreenBean and St.Mike have no explained that bit yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it possible for your to explain how Moses knew the story first-hand since he wrote about it 2000 years later?
Click to expand...

Spent a lot of time on Mt. Sinai, so much so that the Israelites felt he abandoned them and forged for themselves a golden calf. 

The reason that Moses is considered the most likely candidate for writing the Pentatuch is because there weren't many candidates for this. In a culture where nearly everyone was illiterate you had Moses, Prince of Egypt, who had a world class education in the most prestigious university on earth. That narrows the field to....just him.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Mrs. Smith does it to her husband that's fine...if Mr. Smith does it to another guy...BARF!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa!  It's not the act you are bashing, it's the gender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got it baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody puts baby in the corner.  Why do you hate men?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't hate men. So long as they keep their tools out of each others mouths and back sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- so you hate any Americans who don't have sex the way you approve of? Oh wait- only American men who don't have sex the way you approve of.....
Click to expand...

Most conservatives don't care what consenting adults do in their own homes, but there are exceptions.


----------



## YoungSmartHasAHeart

So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
Homosexual movement? There are just as many homosexuals now as there were centuries ago. Society has become more comfortable discussing sexuality. 

Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
Gay agenda? Working to increase tolerance should be on everyone's agenda. 

1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.
So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
Clearly, no one has won over your heart/mind. Judicial reform is the ultimate goal for most "movements", right? Uh oh, the homosexuals are winning! 

5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
Watch Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, hilarious! Christians, Jews they have significant TV time too. Not nearly as entertaining. 

They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.
Are you sure? I feel anti-gay sentiment is more frowned upon now than ever. Thanks to the "gay movement".

Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
Because Kenyans and Americans have such similar thought processes.


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no homosexual dilemma. Either you put another man's unit in your mouth or you don't. Case closed. If you do...please keep it to yourself, don't carry a sign and march in the street that you put another guy's tool in your mug and how proud you are of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody carries signs that say that.
> 
> I've never put a man's unit in my mouth...but I have marched in a Pride Parade.
> 
> You want gays living their lives in secret. Ain't gonna happen. We have lives and families and we don't have to keep them quiet. We aren't ashamed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because your a dyke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that would be why I've never had a man's unit in my mouth. You're quick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have no way of knowing that to be true. You could be lying. You might be a $10 trick in Las Vegas for all we know.
Click to expand...


You're right, you have no way of knowing if it is true or not...but you do have your fantasies. Fantasize away!


----------



## Redfish

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa!  It's not the act you are bashing, it's the gender?
> 
> 
> 
> You got it baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody puts baby in the corner.  Why do you hate men?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't hate men. So long as they keep their tools out of each others mouths and back sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- so you hate any Americans who don't have sex the way you approve of? Oh wait- only American men who don't have sex the way you approve of.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most conservatives don't care what consenting adults do in their own homes, but there are exceptions.
Click to expand...

 

thats what the gay agenda is missing.   The truth.   No one cares what two consenting adults do in private.   The objection comes when a small minority in society decide to force their views on the rest of us.   No one wants gays to be punished or discriminated against.   But we do not agree that a gay hook up is equal morally, socially, or ethically to a man/woman marriage.  

Human biology and anatomy support our views, not theirs.


----------



## Redfish

YoungSmartHasAHeart said:


> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> Homosexual movement? There are just as many homosexuals now as there were centuries ago. Society has become more comfortable discussing sexuality.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> Gay agenda? Working to increase tolerance should be on everyone's agenda.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> Clearly, no one has won over your heart/mind. Judicial reform is the ultimate goal for most "movements", right? Uh oh, the homosexuals are winning!
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> Watch Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, hilarious! Christians, Jews they have significant TV time too. Not nearly as entertaining.
> 
> They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.
> Are you sure? I feel anti-gay sentiment is more frowned upon now than ever. Thanks to the "gay movement".
> 
> Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> Because Kenyans and Americans have such similar thought processes.


 

well said,  tolerance and acceptance cannot be mandated or coerced.


----------



## Redfish

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no homosexual dilemma. Either you put another man's unit in your mouth or you don't. Case closed. If you do...please keep it to yourself, don't carry a sign and march in the street that you put another guy's tool in your mug and how proud you are of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody carries signs that say that.
> 
> I've never put a man's unit in my mouth...but I have marched in a Pride Parade.
> 
> You want gays living their lives in secret. Ain't gonna happen. We have lives and families and we don't have to keep them quiet. We aren't ashamed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because your a dyke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that would be why I've never had a man's unit in my mouth. You're quick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have no way of knowing that to be true. You could be lying. You might be a $10 trick in Las Vegas for all we know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, you have no way of knowing if it is true or not...but you do have your fantasies. Fantasize away!
Click to expand...

 

tell the truth, wytch.   you are a lesbian because no male ever showed any interest in you.   Face it,  the truth will set you free.


----------



## Seawytch

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody carries signs that say that.
> 
> I've never put a man's unit in my mouth...but I have marched in a Pride Parade.
> 
> You want gays living their lives in secret. Ain't gonna happen. We have lives and families and we don't have to keep them quiet. We aren't ashamed.
> 
> 
> 
> Because your a dyke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that would be why I've never had a man's unit in my mouth. You're quick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have no way of knowing that to be true. You could be lying. You might be a $10 trick in Las Vegas for all we know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, you have no way of knowing if it is true or not...but you do have your fantasies. Fantasize away!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> tell the truth, wytch.   you are a lesbian because no male ever showed any interest in you.   Face it,  the truth will set you free.
Click to expand...


Fishy, if it makes you feel better about your life to think that...you go right ahead. (It wouldn't be the truth, but you're not so much interested in that, just your fantasies)


----------



## JakeStarkey

Civil rights are not submitted to winning the hearts and minds of the mintory hetero-fascists.


----------



## Seawytch

Redfish said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got it baby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody puts baby in the corner.  Why do you hate men?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't hate men. So long as they keep their tools out of each others mouths and back sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- so you hate any Americans who don't have sex the way you approve of? Oh wait- only American men who don't have sex the way you approve of.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most conservatives don't care what consenting adults do in their own homes, but there are exceptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> thats what the gay agenda is missing.   The truth.   No one cares what two consenting adults do in private.   The objection comes when a small minority in society decide to force their views on the rest of us.   No one wants gays to be punished or discriminated against.   But we do not agree that a gay hook up is equal morally, socially, or ethically to a man/woman marriage.
> 
> Human biology and anatomy support our views, not theirs.
Click to expand...



And we don't care what your opinion is, the law disagrees with how you feel about it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

There is no "rise" in numbers of hetero-fascists, only the death throes of heterofascism are loud.  Like pigs squealing.


----------



## JakeStarkey

1, stmike is not the face of Christianity or its doctrines.

2. the anti-gay movement continues to lose traction.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a moron. Anyone who characterizes any disagreement as hate is not objective. That's not up for debate. Since bigots like you see hate everywhere, you're crippled in being able to perceive the real thing. It would be the same as a conspiracy kook trying to discern a real conspiracy from the random lunacy that occupies his head. That's the kind of logic that escapes people like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am glad to hear you don't believe homosexuals live a harmful way of life or are a danger to children and that you believe they can be good parents to kids.
> 
> This is awesome news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two of my best friends are a lesbian couple that we trust to babysit our kids. They don't hurt anyone and are the most decent people you could know.
> 
> So yes, it's possible.
Click to expand...

Some of my best friends are straights.


----------



## bodecea

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody carries signs that say that.
> 
> I've never put a man's unit in my mouth...but I have marched in a Pride Parade.
> 
> You want gays living their lives in secret. Ain't gonna happen. We have lives and families and we don't have to keep them quiet. We aren't ashamed.
> 
> 
> 
> Because your a dyke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that would be why I've never had a man's unit in my mouth. You're quick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have no way of knowing that to be true. You could be lying. You might be a $10 trick in Las Vegas for all we know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, you have no way of knowing if it is true or not...but you do have your fantasies. Fantasize away!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> tell the truth, wytch.   you are a lesbian because no male ever showed any interest in you.   Face it,  the truth will set you free.
Click to expand...

Ah yes...the "lesbians are women who were rejected by men" schtick.   Because it's a male-centric world out there.  Men are so irresistable.   So are their dicks.


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you do...please keep it to yourself, don't carry a sign and march in the street that you put another guy's tool in your mug and how proud you are of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *AND
> *
> Get you Damn Propaganda out of our schools , entertainment outlets, away from our families, our children, our neighbors and our neighbors children. * .*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get your Damn propaganda out of our schools, entertainment outlets, away from our families, our children our neighbors and our neighbors children.
> 
> Oh wait- we have mostly done that- and you haters hate that you are no longer able to spew your bile in our schools, and in our movies, and to your neighbors- all that are still the victims of your hate are your own family.
> 
> Nothing we can do to help them other than be here when they get away.
Click to expand...





> Get your Damn propaganda out of our schools,



Parents, as well as the general public are generally unaware of the fact that there is a well organized mob, well oiled machine like activist groups vigorously seeking to indoctrinate and promote homosexuality to societies youngest members. .....  

Bullying has been around as long as human beings have, and probably longer. It's basic human nature , part of the 'hardening' process of growing up. It's part of establishing a pecking order amongst a litter of puppies, and there's little difference in a juvenile social order. * Gay agenda groups have seized the opportunity to promote homosexuality and push for acceptance of sexual perversion and promotion of degenerate behavior among adolescents and children.*  Lessons in homosexuality and homosexual glorification are being force fed to children as young as Kindergarten *under the cloak of "anti-bullying programs" "tolerance" and "safe school initiatives" *.

Kevin Jennings, masterminded a scheme of gay infiltration into the classroom using "tolerance" and anti-bullying programs as a perfect path to classroom indoctrination.  In 1995 Jennings made a speech to a Gay Group in which he somewhat outlined the agendas strategy

If the radical right can succeed in portraying us as preying on children, we will lose. Their language .... is laced with subtle and not-so-subtle innuendo that we are after their kids, -   He then went on to propose a strategy of how they could get at our kids. - K. Jennings 

In 2009, Obama nominated homosexual propagandist Kevin Jennings as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Education he was in charge of overseeing the _Safe and Drug-Free Schools program_. Now the drug education programs I personally have no problem with, but the lefts manipulation of the term safe is where the flakiness comes in. *Jennings was in charge of making public schools safe for leftists and homosexuals and to disseminate pro-homosexual propaganda and indoctrination to Americas school children. *

Jennings was appointed during the first Obama administration ,52 members of Congress, wrote to President Obama requesting that he rescind the appointment because Jennings had for more than 20 years, almost exclusively focused on promoting the homosexual agenda. The Obama regime refused to do so.  Jennings only lasted two years before he resigned, but in that 2 years he did possibly irreparable damage.

An important aspect of the Jennings strategy involves linking the Gay Agenda to universal values that all members of society share. Basically to latch onto tolerance, diversity, safety, and peaceful coexistence amongst children of many variations - which is a good thing. It's a tactic referred to as Framing.  From this simple dirt path, they seek to build a super-highway into the minds of our youth. Anybody who objected to the Gay Agendas planned indoctrination would be heretofore be labeled a heartless bully, a homophobic demon with a complete disregard for children and students.



This *framing* short-circuited their arguments [heterosexuals] and left them back-pedaling from day one, .... [N]o one could speak up against our frame and say, Why, yes, I do think students should kill themselves , This allowed us to set the terms for debate. - Kevin Jennings


----------------------------------

''Pederasts, [Pedophiles]  gender-benders, sadomasochists and other minorities in the homosexual community with more extreme peculiarities would keep a low profile until homosexuality is in the tent. *Only strong and favorable images of homosexuals should be displayed*.

Selling Homosexuality Gay Rights Activists use of rhetoric media DIJG

------------------------------------

*Explicit Gay Sex Education*

Gorham Middle School

At Gorham Middle School in Maine students learned about homosexual foreplay during what was supposed to be a Diversity Day presentation. Students in an 8th grade class were molested by a group known as Proud Rainbow Youth of Southern Maine. This pathetic performance involved assaulting students with descriptions and unsolicited advice regarding safe homosexual sex acts and suggested* using saran wrap when giving a blow job if a dental dam was not available.

Teaching The art of Fist F*cking*

During a workshop for 14-21 year olds , these young people were assaulted by a session that presented unsolicited lessons in _fisting_a homosexual  practice where a persons fist is violently thrusted up the partners rectum for sexual pleasure, instead of the penis. A Gay activist also asked students,* Spit or swallow?... Is it rude?*


A New Jersey school district has apologized to parents after requiring high school students to read books that include graphic depictions of lesbian sex and a homosexual orgy.  Lesbian Sex Featured on School Reading List Todd Starnes

Deerfield High School in Deerfield, Illinois, recently assigned the pornographic book Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes






 to students 14 and up as required reading. There is an episode where a gay man in the midst of humping another gay man finds that ha has a broken condom. The humpee screams _Keep it going. Infect me. I dont care. I dont care_. { The U.S. Centers for Disease Control estimates that four percent of the male population is homosexual or bisexual yet they account for 78 percent of new HIV infections }

In another excerpt _suck my dick, Mother Teresa_ can also be found among the sticky pages.a gay man states that his nose is a sex organ and reaches for another mans pants to offer a demonstration. 

entertainment outlets, away from our families, our children our neighbors and our neighbors children.

Homosexuals brainwashing our children in elementary schools

Judge Parents have no right to know what homosexual activist taught their children in school News LifeSite

School children to be taught about homosexuality to celebrate gay community Daily Mail Online

Fired teacher denies trying to turn them gay 

Thank Local School Board for Rejecting SSM...in 1st Grade Math Class NOM Blog


Rios Schools No Longer Teach Reading and Writing Now Just Promote Homosexuality Right Wing Watch

Judge orders 8216 gay 8217 agenda taught to Christian children



> Oh wait- we have mostly done that



Yup - you've done it allright  !


----------



## GreenBean

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Genesis 19:5King James Version (KJV)*
> 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis was written by Moses, who was slow of speech and tongue,  2000 years after  Adam and Eve.  How did he know Lot was morally depraved; i.e., he would rather hand off his two daughters to a mob of men, young and old, rather than hand over two stranger.  Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess they would be safe in a mob of supposed homosexual men?  GreenBean and St.Mike have no explained that bit yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it possible for your to explain how Moses knew the story first-hand since he wrote about it 2000 years later?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spent a lot of time on Mt. Sinai, so much so that the Israelites felt he abandoned them and forged for themselves a golden calf.
> 
> The reason that Moses is considered the most likely candidate for writing the Pentatuch is because there weren't many candidates for this. In a culture where nearly everyone was illiterate you had Moses, Prince of Egypt, who had a world class education in the most prestigious university on earth. That narrows the field to....just him.
Click to expand...



Since the advent of modern biblical scholarship, and its merger with computer science and logistics -  academic researchers now believed the text was *written by a number of different authors whose work could be identified by seemingly different ideological agendas and linguistic styles* .....

Today, scholars generally split the text into two main strands. One is believed to have been written by a figure or group known as the "priestly" author, because of apparent connections to the temple priests in Jerusalem. The rest is "non-priestly." Scholars have meticulously gone over the text to ascertain which parts belong to which strand.

When the new software was run on the Pentateuch, it found the same division, separating the "priestly" and "non-priestly." 

Tech tools tackle Biblical scholarship - USATODAY.com


----------



## GreenBean

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no homosexual dilemma. Either you put another man's unit in your mouth or you don't. Case closed. If you do...please keep it to yourself, don't carry a sign and march in the street that you put another guy's tool in your mug and how proud you are of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody carries signs that say that.
> 
> I've never put a man's unit in my mouth...but I have marched in a Pride Parade.
> 
> You want gays living their lives in secret. Ain't gonna happen. We have lives and families and we don't have to keep them quiet. We aren't ashamed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because your a dyke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that would be why I've never had a man's unit in my mouth. You're quick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have no way of knowing that to be true. You could be lying. You might be a $10 trick in Las Vegas for all we know.
Click to expand...

$10 ... you really think she's worth that much ??


----------



## PaintMyHouse

GreenBean said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no homosexual dilemma. Either you put another man's unit in your mouth or you don't. Case closed. If you do...please keep it to yourself, don't carry a sign and march in the street that you put another guy's tool in your mug and how proud you are of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody carries signs that say that.
> 
> I've never put a man's unit in my mouth...but I have marched in a Pride Parade.
> 
> You want gays living their lives in secret. Ain't gonna happen. We have lives and families and we don't have to keep them quiet. We aren't ashamed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because your a dyke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that would be why I've never had a man's unit in my mouth. You're quick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have no way of knowing that to be true. You could be lying. You might be a $10 trick in Las Vegas for all we know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> $10 ... you really think she's worth that much ??
Click to expand...

She might be but you sure as hell aren't.  Hey GB, the faggots won.  Now you know.


----------



## GreenBean

bodecea said:


> Men are so irresistable. So are their dicks



irresistable= spelling error

irresistible does not have an "A"  in it - I know you like A's because everyone says you're a complete A-hole



> Some of my best friends are straights.



No they're not - they're just being polite - nobody likes you


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> ....and in our movies



James Komack was the producer of many top Television programs of the 60s and 70s Welcome Back Kotter, Chico and the man, Love American Style and others. In **The homosexual revolution: End time abomination





** by David A Noebel , he is credited with the following statement. *"Do you know the most powerful lobby in the entertainment business? Bigger than blacks or women's lib or any nationalist or racist group. It's the gays. If you don't have the approval of the Gay Media Task Force, you don't go on the air."*

_*Chronology of Gay Activism and Terrorism

*

1970  New York Post columnist Pete Hamill refers to gays as slim-waisted freakcreeps  Gay activists picketed the Post and demanded Hamill be fired. The editor apologized, but defended the editorial freedom of his writers.



1970 Gay activists occupied the offices of Harpers Magazine after the magazine ran a cover story â€œHomo/Hetero: The Struggle for Sexual Identity.â€ that described homosexuality as "an affront to our rationality living evidence of our despair of ever finding a sensible, an explainable design to the world."





1972 - The Gay Media Task Force is created by the National Gay Task Force to be an organization to manipulate and control network television programming, theoretically as it addressed gay issues.



1972 ..... the networks tilted against the guardians of morality. They began to send scripts to gay Gay consultants routinely. "Anything that crops up in a script that is even remotely gay"  said the writer Allan Burns , "They get it and they really make themselves heard"  **Inside Prime Time





 ** by Todd Gitlin

1972 Gay activist, turned journalist Mark Segal feigns disdain that he couldnâ€™t dance with a gay partner on a dance show, infiltrates an ABC affiliate in Philadelphia and interrupts the news broadcast. He later pulled similar charades against the Johnny Carson on the Tonight Show when he stormed out of the Audience during a live show, on the Mike Douglas show and Today shows. Variety claimed that the activities of Segal alone, not to mention other gay activities had cost the entertainment industry $750,000 in costs including lost advertising revenue.

1973 - Gay propagandist/activist invades CBS News with Walter Cronkite.

1974  A popular and long-running medical drama on ABC - Marcus Welby MD tells the story of a teen boy who is sexually molested by his gay science teacher. The episode, â€œThe Outrageâ€ aired October 8, 1974. Gays squawked immediately - a campaign against the network ensued, gays bombarded over 200 organizations with hate mail and lobbied vigorously. Many major sponsors pulled out ,17 affiliates dropped the program. Some of the affiliates dropping the program were coerced by threats of reprisal if they failed to pull it from their stations .  ...Like other media activists Loretta Lotman already had established ties with the management of ... local ABC Affiliate.... she warned that if something were not done about the program they would be hit with protests the likes of which thaye had never  seen before..  **Target: Prime Time: Advocacy Groups and the Struggle Over Entertainment Television (Communication and Society)





 ** 

1977 Florida gay rights/privileges ordinance sparks strong opposition .  Former Miss Oklahoma beauty pageant winner, and outspoken critic of homosexuality Anita Bryant led the campaign that successfully had the law repealed and she paid dearly. Her career came to a screeching halt, her credibility and reputation was viciously assaulted . She was at one point physically assaulted with a pie while attempting to exercise her right to Free Speech. Beware all those who oppose the Gay Agenda  Anita Bryant's career was destroyed by her campaign against "militant homosexuality"  She ultimately suffered a divorce, needed counseling, and was bankrupted.

**The Anita Bryant Story





 **

Anita Bryant assaulted - YouTube

Like Satan, Anita Bryant keeps coming back.  2009

Uma Thurman to Play Notorious Anti-Gay Activist in â€˜Anitaâ€™   2013



1978 - A Question of Love, ABC TV movie airs based on a lesbian mother and her struggle for custody of her children. Part of manipulated trend to positive TV images of gays , acknowledged as a result of gay activists.



1980 - CBS Reports Episode â€œGay Power, Gay Politicsâ€  draws strong criticism for what the gay camp referred to as malicious inaccuracies and slanting of the news. The program did heavily focus on the sexual practices of gay males , in particular sadomasochism. The National News Council, stated that CBS had violated journalistic standards through misrepresentation as well as through deceptive editing.  I find it curious that the National News Council never says anything when CBS manipulates in favor of the Left leaning liberals and democrats which it has consistently for decades. **See Dan Rather**



1983  NY Times did not cover a fundraiser for Gay Menâ€™s Health Crisis in Madison Square Garden - leads to protests and eventual apology from the Times for not helping in promoting the Gay Agenda



1985  "....You can handle homosexuality - as long as you handle it a lovely, tolerant fashion that will not upset the gay liberation lobby" - Earnest Kinov writer, screenwriter and playwright.



1987  Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill wrote a strategy series of articles entitled "The Overhauling of Straight America" which appeared in Guide Magazine. They wrote ...  "In the early states of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent -- and only later his unsightly derriere! "



1987 A study by The Center for Media and Public Affairs reported that only 9% of the characters depicted on TV with AIDS are identified as homosexual ,while in actuality, over 70 percent of such persons have AIDS or HIV. This is in accordance with the unwritten homosexual lobby's demand to define AIDS as non-gay disease.



*1988, a conference of 175 gay activist leaders  convened near Washington, D.C. to establish an agenda.  After that meeting, Harvard-trained social scientists and homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen wrote the Gay manifesto After The Ball*



1988 episode of NBC's "Midnight Caller" originally portrayed a homosexual as an AIDS carrier who deliberately infects straight woman, a gaggle of gays gathered and more rapidly flocked to NBC Studios and vigorously protested loudly outside the set. The script was changed to appease the pervs, and the program executives humbly kissed their royal infected derrieres while apologizing profusely.



1988, Cosmopolitan magazine published an article  "Reassuring News About AIDS: A Doctor Tells Why You May Not Be At Risk." which attempted to inform the public that in unprotected vaginal sex between a man and a woman , the risk of HIV transmission was basically nonexistant, even if the man was infected. This did not fit within the narrow confines of the warped reality that the Homosexual agenda was attempting to ram down societies throat. When lobbying and coercion against the Author and Cosmopolitan failed, the gay agendaites decided they "had to shut down Cosmo." They produced a video entitled, "Doctor, Liars, and Women: AIDS Activists Say No To Cosmo." Activists protested vigorously at the Hearst building (parent company of Cosmopolitan) chanting "Say no to Cosmo!"



1989 Andy Rooney states on air that the year had brought recognition â€œof the fact that many of the ills which kill us are self-induced: too much alcohol, too much food, drugs, homosexual unions, cigarettes. Theyâ€™re all known to lead quite often to premature death.â€  shortly thereafter Rooney made a racial comment  â€œIâ€™ve believed all along that most people are born with equal intelligence, but blacks have watered down their genes because the less intelligent ones are the ones that have the most children. They drop out of school early, do drugs, and get pregnant.â€  he is suspended for the racial comment , a Gay uproar follows because he was not disciplined for the Gay comment.


1990 The Sacramento Union publishes several editorials against pro-homosexual activities. Vandals quickly destroyed over a hundred of the newspaper's vending machines. The vandalized machines were plastered with stickers from the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power / ACT UP .

1990  The Wall Street Journal editorialized that it seems to be entirely permissible to discuss homosexuality.....only if you maintain "the approved point of view."



1991 During the height of Operation Desert Storm, ACT UP activist John Weir and two other activists entered the studio of the CBS Evening News at the beginning of the broadcast. They shouted "AIDS is news. Fight AIDS, not Arabs!" Even anchorman Dan Rather, that befuddled bastion of left wing lunacy was not immune to the Gay onslaught. . The same night ACT UP demonstrated at the studios of the MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour. The next day activists displayed banners in Grand Central Terminal that said "Money for AIDS, not for war" and "One AIDS death every 8 minutes." One of the banners was handheld and displayed across the train timetable and the other attached to bundles of balloons that lifted it up to the ceiling of the station's enormous main room. These actions were part of a coordinated protest called "Day of Desperation."[Wikipedia]

1992  Marketing reports indicate that gays have more expendable income than normal people, mainstream advertisers began pouring money into gay publications. Some advertising revenues nearly double.



1994  Roseanne TV episode features a kiss between two females.

1997  Lesbian Television personality Ellen Degenerate .... uh I mean Degeneres, has her TV character also come out, ratings climb.

1996 Los Angeles magazine cover story by gay journalist David Ehrenstein,, argued that gay material was more persuasive than the average viewer might have thought. "You may not have noticed, but your favorite sitcoms are written by gays and lesbians." informed readers with a tongue in cheek nod to the idea of a gay sitcom writer mafia." {Gay TV and Straight America





 Pg. 163}



2012 DC Comics relaunches its Green Lantern character as Gay, the original character was a married father of two who first appeared in 1940



2011 - Gallup poll shows that U.S. adults estimate that 25% of Americans are gay or lesbian.

  52% of American Adults estimate that at least one in five Americans are gay or lesbian

  35% estimate that more than one in four are.

  Few put the figure at less than 15%.



The actual number ???  .... drum roll .... envelope please ..... and the answer is ....... LESS THAN 4%  are Gay !!!!! 

That's correct only 1 - 4% of the U.S. population is Gay or Lesbian.  Why in Gods name would so many allegedly educated {or indoctrinated as the case may be} and supposedly informed  American Adults believe that so very many of their countrymen are  homosexuals ?  .... drum roll ..... the answer is ....Gross over representation and coverage by the Media, both in Entertainment Fiction {Soaps, Sitcoms, Movies..} as well as News coverage.



Almost any show currently airing on television features at least one homosexual. Daytime talk shows, Soaps, and comedies are rampant with out of closet card carrying homosexual characters.  In addition, all these characters are not permitted to display character flaws,  they are either wealthy, educated,  and happy OR depressed and oppressed by perceived mistreatment from normal people.



2013 FemTechNet - A feminist internet group is organizing a program entitled "Storming Wikipedia," and are calling for women to edit the site and add  feminist stories .  Now I see nothing wrong with giving equal representation to the contributions of  Women to science , history, the arts and so on, the problem lies in the adverse and perverted agenda which the controlling agents for this organization espouse. A warped world view, generally completely out of context is what they envision and will attempt to implant within the pages of the most trafficked reference site available.



Yale University, Brown University, Pennsylvania State University  and many others will offer college credits to students who help to impose the feminist view on wikipedia readers. â€˜Storming Wikipediaâ€™: Colleges offer credit to students who enter â€˜feminist thinkingâ€™ into Wikipedia



2014  A Religious group known as Focus on the Family is trying to release a movie in theaters entitled â€œIrreplaceableâ€ which presents their views of the value of the traditional family, and dares to suggest the importance of fathers being involved in the lives of their children. I can't comment reliably on the entertainment value or worthiness of the film , as I haven't seen it, and if the Gay Mafia has their way I will never have the opportunity - nor will you.

LGBT advocates, pawns of the Gay Mafia, have launched an intensive campaign to discredit the movie online. The Campaign to shut the Movie Down are being coordinated on Facebook, Twitter and a Change.org petition begun by a gay teacher from California. They have petitioned against it and are working vigorously to ensure that â€œIrreplaceableâ€ is never seen in local theaters. The President of Focus on Family, Jim Daly reported that some of the more than 700 theaters nationwide scheduled to show the film are backing out under pressure from the Gay Mafia. [See Gay mafia' attacks Focus on the Family movie]

Where was all the righteous indignation when the gay propaganda film broke back mountain came out, Or when pedophile Bryan Singer and his co-conspirators blasted his self admitted subliminal gay propaganda at kids via XMen ? [See : Comic Books and the Gay Agenda] 
_


----------



## JakeStarkey

I have watched "a well organized mob, well oiled machine [far right reactionary Christian] activist groups vigorously seeking to indoctrinate and promote [reactionary far right Christianity] to societies youngest members."  They have failed.


----------



## GreenBean

YoungSmartHasAHeart said:


> Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.*Because Kenyans and Americans have such similar thought processes.*


SLIGHTLY OFF TOPIC - But you are aware that our "de-Facto" President was born in Kenya


----------



## YoungSmartHasAHeart

GreenBean said:


> YoungSmartHasAHeart said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.*Because Kenyans and Americans have such similar thought processes.*
> 
> 
> 
> SLIGHTLY OFF TOPIC - But you are aware that our "de-Facto" President was born in Kenya
Click to expand...


Yes, but you get the point.


----------



## Seawytch

PaintMyHouse said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody carries signs that say that.
> 
> I've never put a man's unit in my mouth...but I have marched in a Pride Parade.
> 
> You want gays living their lives in secret. Ain't gonna happen. We have lives and families and we don't have to keep them quiet. We aren't ashamed.
> 
> 
> 
> Because your a dyke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that would be why I've never had a man's unit in my mouth. You're quick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have no way of knowing that to be true. You could be lying. You might be a $10 trick in Las Vegas for all we know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> $10 ... you really think she's worth that much ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She might be but you sure as hell aren't.  Hey GB, the faggots won.  Now you know.
Click to expand...


:lol; Thanks...and I'd think my lack of a gag reflex alone is worth at least that much no matter what I look like.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kenyans?  Are you two birfers?  Explains much.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....and in our movies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Chronology of Gay Activism and Terrorism*_
Click to expand...


Cutting and pasting from your own looney website of bigotry and hate?

This is how deluded you are-  you think that a kiss between two women on Roseanne is 'gay terrorism'.

America is rejecting your bigotry- and that just makes you hate more.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> YoungSmartHasAHeart said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.*Because Kenyans and Americans have such similar thought processes.*
> 
> 
> 
> SLIGHTLY OFF TOPIC - But you are aware that our "de-Facto" President was born in Kenya
Click to expand...


Well that makes as much sense as your claim of the Atomic War in Ancient India.......lol....not a surprise that a bigot is a Birther.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> No they're not - they're just being polite - nobody likes you



Says the bigot posting from his mom's basement.........


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you do...please keep it to yourself, don't carry a sign and march in the street that you put another guy's tool in your mug and how proud you are of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *AND
> *
> Get you Damn Propaganda out of our schools , entertainment outlets, away from our families, our children, our neighbors and our neighbors children. * .*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get your Damn propaganda out of our schools, entertainment outlets, away from our families, our children our neighbors and our neighbors children.
> 
> Oh wait- we have mostly done that- and you haters hate that you are no longer able to spew your bile in our schools, and in our movies, and to your neighbors- all that are still the victims of your hate are your own family.
> 
> Nothing we can do to help them other than be here when they get away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get your Damn propaganda out of our schools,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Parents, as well as the general public are generally unaware of the fact that there is a well organized mob,
> 
> Yup - you've done it allright  !
Click to expand...


Yup- America has progressed- bigots like you are seen for the backward hate mongering conspiracy theory hacks that you are.

Children now look at bigots like you like we looked at bigots yelling 'Kill the n*ggers' 20 years ago- with revulsion.


----------



## Syriusly

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody carries signs that say that.
> 
> I've never put a man's unit in my mouth...but I have marched in a Pride Parade.
> 
> You want gays living their lives in secret. Ain't gonna happen. We have lives and families and we don't have to keep them quiet. We aren't ashamed.
> 
> 
> 
> Because your a dyke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that would be why I've never had a man's unit in my mouth. You're quick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have no way of knowing that to be true. You could be lying. You might be a $10 trick in Las Vegas for all we know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, you have no way of knowing if it is true or not...but you do have your fantasies. Fantasize away!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> tell the truth, wytch.   you are a lesbian because no male ever showed any interest in you.   Face it,  the truth will set you free.
Click to expand...


Does that explain why you have never had sex with anyone other than your right hand?


----------



## Syriusly

Redfish said:


> YoungSmartHasAHeart said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> Homosexual movement? There are just as many homosexuals now as there were centuries ago. Society has become more comfortable discussing sexuality.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> Gay agenda? Working to increase tolerance should be on everyone's agenda.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> Clearly, no one has won over your heart/mind. Judicial reform is the ultimate goal for most "movements", right? Uh oh, the homosexuals are winning!
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> Watch Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, hilarious! Christians, Jews they have significant TV time too. Not nearly as entertaining.
> 
> They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.
> Are you sure? I feel anti-gay sentiment is more frowned upon now than ever. Thanks to the "gay movement".
> 
> Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> Because Kenyans and Americans have such similar thought processes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well said,  tolerance and acceptance cannot be mandated or coerced.
Click to expand...


But we can- and are evolving. 

A mere 20 years ago most Americans opposed mixed race marriages. In a little over 50 years, opinion went from 4% approval to 87% approval. 






Now let us compare this to American's views on 'gay marriage'





Gay marriage now is about where Mixed Race marriage was (in terms of Acceptance by Americans) in 1996. 

Change can't be forced but it can be encouraged- and the trends show that encouragement is working.


----------



## GreenBean

YoungSmartHasAHeart said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungSmartHasAHeart said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.*Because Kenyans and Americans have such similar thought processes.*
> 
> 
> 
> SLIGHTLY OFF TOPIC - But you are aware that our "de-Facto" President was born in Kenya
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but you get the point.
Click to expand...

Yes - well put - Thank You


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because your a dyke?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that would be why I've never had a man's unit in my mouth. You're quick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have no way of knowing that to be true. You could be lying. You might be a $10 trick in Las Vegas for all we know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, you have no way of knowing if it is true or not...but you do have your fantasies. Fantasize away!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> tell the truth, wytch.   you are a lesbian because no male ever showed any interest in you.   Face it,  the truth will set you free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that explain why you have never had sex with anyone other than your right hand?
Click to expand...


That's called Jerking Off
Just as having "Sex" with another mans ass is called sodomy

The only true "sex"  is with a penis and vegina


Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungSmartHasAHeart said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> Homosexual movement? There are just as many homosexuals now as there were centuries ago. Society has become more comfortable discussing sexuality.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> Gay agenda? Working to increase tolerance should be on everyone's agenda.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> Clearly, no one has won over your heart/mind. Judicial reform is the ultimate goal for most "movements", right? Uh oh, the homosexuals are winning!
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> Watch Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, hilarious! Christians, Jews they have significant TV time too. Not nearly as entertaining.
> 
> They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.
> Are you sure? I feel anti-gay sentiment is more frowned upon now than ever. Thanks to the "gay movement".
> 
> Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> Because Kenyans and Americans have such similar thought processes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well said,  tolerance and acceptance cannot be mandated or coerced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we can- and are evolving.
> 
> A mere 20 years ago most Americans opposed mixed race marriages. In a little over 50 years, opinion went from 4% approval to 87% approval.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now let us compare this to American's views on 'gay marriage'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage now is about where Mixed Race marriage was (in terms of Acceptance by Americans) in 1996.
> 
> Change can't be forced but it can be encouraged- and the trends show that encouragement is working.
Click to expand...


Once again you silly little turd burglar trying to Frame the enabling of perverts as a Civil Rights movement is one of the most laughable facets of your agenda .  Instead of Gay "Rights" lets just  call a spade a spade and label it Degenerate Dignification .


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungSmartHasAHeart said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> Homosexual movement? There are just as many homosexuals now as there were centuries ago. Society has become more comfortable discussing sexuality.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> Gay agenda? Working to increase tolerance should be on everyone's agenda.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> Clearly, no one has won over your heart/mind. Judicial reform is the ultimate goal for most "movements", right? Uh oh, the homosexuals are winning!
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> Watch Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, hilarious! Christians, Jews they have significant TV time too. Not nearly as entertaining.
> 
> They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.
> Are you sure? I feel anti-gay sentiment is more frowned upon now than ever. Thanks to the "gay movement".
> 
> Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> Because Kenyans and Americans have such similar thought processes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well said,  tolerance and acceptance cannot be mandated or coerced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we can- and are evolving.
> 
> A mere 20 years ago most Americans opposed mixed race marriages. In a little over 50 years, opinion went from 4% approval to 87% approval.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now let us compare this to American's views on 'gay marriage'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage now is about where Mixed Race marriage was (in terms of Acceptance by Americans) in 1996.
> 
> Change can't be forced but it can be encouraged- and the trends show that encouragement is working.
Click to expand...







IT only climbed *ONE PERCENTAGE POINT* in a year , and actually fell *THREE PERCENTAGE POINTS*  in 2011 - 2012.  

From 2010 till 2015 it has  risen by 2%  

If you know anything whatsoever about probability and statistics , you should be well aware that those numbers are statistically insignificant .

For a null hypothesis to be rejected as false, the result has to be identified as being statistically significant, ---- unlikely to have occurred by chance alone.  Effect size quantifies the strength of an effect, such as the distance between two means or the correlation between two variables - In this case it is the time frame vs. the statistical value - another variable that should also be considered is the tremendous amount of energy Big Brother has been expending pushing the Degenerate Agenda - when you factor in the energy expended the remaining and most obvious question should be *WHY ONLY A 3% CLIMB IN NEARLY  5 YEARS ?*


----------



## Syriusly

Redfish said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got it baby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody puts baby in the corner.  Why do you hate men?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't hate men. So long as they keep their tools out of each others mouths and back sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- so you hate any Americans who don't have sex the way you approve of? Oh wait- only American men who don't have sex the way you approve of.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most conservatives don't care what consenting adults do in their own homes, but there are exceptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> thats what the gay agenda is missing.   The truth.   No one cares what two consenting adults do in private.   The objection comes when a small minority in society decide to force their views on the rest of us.   No one wants gays to be punished or discriminated against.   But we do not agree that a gay hook up is equal morally, socially, or ethically to a man/woman marriage.
> 
> Human biology and anatomy support our views, not theirs.
Click to expand...


What BS.

There are posters right here in this thread that are horrified that men have sex with men- and object to the very thought of it. Greenbean has variously suggested that homosexuals be 'bitch smacked' back into the closet and subject to electroshock. 

Louisiana as recently as last year was arresting homosexuals in sting operations- for being homosexuals- even though the Supreme Court has ruled that such arrests are unconstitutional. And the State of Louisiana refused to repeal its anti-sodomy law(which targets homosexual sex) 

Yes- there are lots of 'you' who do want gays to be punished and discriminated against. 

I would argue that no 'hook up' is equal morally, socially, or ethically to marriage. 

Regardless of the genders of any of the persons involved.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that would be why I've never had a man's unit in my mouth. You're quick.
> 
> 
> 
> We have no way of knowing that to be true. You could be lying. You might be a $10 trick in Las Vegas for all we know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, you have no way of knowing if it is true or not...but you do have your fantasies. Fantasize away!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> tell the truth, wytch.   you are a lesbian because no male ever showed any interest in you.   Face it,  the truth will set you free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that explain why you have never had sex with anyone other than your right hand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called Jerking Off .
Click to expand...


I wasn't talking about all of your posts.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungSmartHasAHeart said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> Homosexual movement? There are just as many homosexuals now as there were centuries ago. Society has become more comfortable discussing sexuality.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> Gay agenda? Working to increase tolerance should be on everyone's agenda.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> Clearly, no one has won over your heart/mind. Judicial reform is the ultimate goal for most "movements", right? Uh oh, the homosexuals are winning!
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> Watch Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, hilarious! Christians, Jews they have significant TV time too. Not nearly as entertaining.
> 
> They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.
> Are you sure? I feel anti-gay sentiment is more frowned upon now than ever. Thanks to the "gay movement".
> 
> Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> Because Kenyans and Americans have such similar thought processes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well said,  tolerance and acceptance cannot be mandated or coerced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we can- and are evolving.
> 
> A mere 20 years ago most Americans opposed mixed race marriages. In a little over 50 years, opinion went from 4% approval to 87% approval.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now let us compare this to American's views on 'gay marriage'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage now is about where Mixed Race marriage was (in terms of Acceptance by Americans) in 1996.
> 
> Change can't be forced but it can be encouraged- and the trends show that encouragement is working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IT only climbed *ONE PERCENTAGE POINT* in a year , and actually fell *THREE PERCENTAGE POINTS*  in 2011 - 2012.
> 
> From 2010 till 2015 it has  risen by 2%
Click to expand...


I actually do know about statistics- which puts me above your third grade math skills.

From 1996 to 2014- acceptance rose 28%

Roughly the percentage that acceptance of mixed race marriage rose from 1968 to 1990. 

In the last 5 years acceptance has risen 2%. In the last 28 years it has risen 28%

And you hate that. 

And I find your bigotry both sad and amusing.


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> From 1996 to 2014- acceptance rose 28%



  See my post to which you responded re: additional variables - big brother yada yada yada and kindly stop trying to convince everyone that black is white


----------



## pillars

GreenBean said:


> For a null hypothesis to be rejected as false, the result has to be identified as being statistically significant, ---- unlikely to have occurred by chance alone.  Effect size quantifies the strength of an effect, such as the distance between two means or the correlation between two variables - In this case it is the time frame vs. the statistical value - another variable that should also be considered is the tremendous amount of energy Big Brother has been expending pushing the Degenerate Agenda - when you factor in the energy expended the remaining and most obvious question should be *WHY ONLY A 3% CLIMB IN NEARLY  5 YEARS ?*



A 3% climb in 5 years isn't surprising.  Public opinion changes slowly.  When you break these views down by generation, you see that a lot of the transition is occurring as older people die off.  Young people in the U.S. overwhelmingly support the right for gays to marry.  But, opinions have changed within every age group, with the level of support highest amongst 18-29 year olds (78%).  The best trend line to examine is the one from 1996 to present.  That trend line has changed by around 30% in the past 20 years, in every age group.

http://content.gallup.com/origin/ga...roduction/Cms/POLL/tbpelkodp0spw8exj7rmuw.png


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> From 1996 to 2014- acceptance rose 28%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See my post to which you responded re: additional variables - big brother yada yada yada and kindly stop trying to convince everyone that black is white
Click to expand...


28% increase in 18 years- that averages out to 1.5% a year- almost exactly the average percentage change per year from 1959 to 2014 for acceptance of  mixed race marriages. 

In 15 years homophobic bigots like yourself will be held with the same contempt by most Americans as the bigots who were yelling 'die n*gger d*e'.


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> From 1996 to 2014- acceptance rose 28%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See my post to which you responded re: additional variables - big brother yada yada yada and kindly stop trying to convince everyone that black is white
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 28% increase in 18 years- that averages out to 1.5% a year- almost exactly the average percentage change per year from 1959 to 2014 for acceptance of  mixed race marriages.
> 
> In 15 years homophobic bigots like yourself will be held with the same contempt by most Americans as the bigots who were yelling 'die n*gger d*e'.
Click to expand...



Once again douche bag - ethnicity is not related to mental illness and your continuous racial slurs against blacks and other minorities in attempting to equate them with mental deviants and degenerates is disgusting.

You are Racist and a Pervert


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungSmartHasAHeart said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> Homosexual movement? There are just as many homosexuals now as there were centuries ago. Society has become more comfortable discussing sexuality.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> Gay agenda? Working to increase tolerance should be on everyone's agenda.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> Clearly, no one has won over your heart/mind. Judicial reform is the ultimate goal for most "movements", right? Uh oh, the homosexuals are winning!
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> Watch Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, hilarious! Christians, Jews they have significant TV time too. Not nearly as entertaining.
> 
> They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.
> Are you sure? I feel anti-gay sentiment is more frowned upon now than ever. Thanks to the "gay movement".
> 
> Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> Because Kenyans and Americans have such similar thought processes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well said,  tolerance and acceptance cannot be mandated or coerced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we can- and are evolving.
> 
> A mere 20 years ago most Americans opposed mixed race marriages. In a little over 50 years, opinion went from 4% approval to 87% approval.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now let us compare this to American's views on 'gay marriage'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage now is about where Mixed Race marriage was (in terms of Acceptance by Americans) in 1996.
> 
> Change can't be forced but it can be encouraged- and the trends show that encouragement is working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IT only climbed *ONE PERCENTAGE POINT* in a year , and actually fell *THREE PERCENTAGE POINTS*  in 2011 - 2012.
> 
> From 2010 till 2015 it has  risen by 2%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually do know about statistics- which puts me above your third grade math skills.
> 
> From 1996 to 2014- acceptance rose 28%
> 
> Roughly the percentage that acceptance of mixed race marriage rose from 1968 to 1990.
> 
> In the last 5 years acceptance has risen 2%. In the last 28 years it has risen 28%
> 
> And you hate that.
> 
> And I find your bigotry both sad and amusing.
Click to expand...


Yes... and it was around 1996 Clinton signed the "Dont Ask, Don't tell" allowing homosexuals to serve in the US Military, thus 'normalizing sexual abnormality'.  

That did NOT 'make' homosexuality normal, it only made it APPEAR NORMAL... 

Clinton also built a wall of separation between US intelligence and US Law enforcement that made Terrorist only interested learning how to FLY jumbo jets, with a decided lack of interests in LANDING THOSE JETS... _*APPEAR *NORMAL._

We saw why THAT was a bad idea almost immediately after Clinton left office.  It took another decade and a half to see the idiocy of making abnormal sexuality APPEAR Normal.


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungSmartHasAHeart said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?Homosexual movement? There are just as many homosexuals now as there were centuries ago. Society has become more comfortable discussing sexuality.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.Gay agenda? Working to increase tolerance should be on everyone's agenda.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.Clearly, no one has won over your heart/mind. Judicial reform is the ultimate goal for most "movements", right? Uh oh, the homosexuals are winning!
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?Watch Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, hilarious! Christians, Jews they have significant TV time too. Not nearly as entertaining.
> 
> They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.Are you sure? I feel anti-gay sentiment is more frowned upon now than ever. Thanks to the "gay movement".
> 
> Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.Because Kenyans and Americans have such similar thought processes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well said,  tolerance and acceptance cannot be mandated or coerced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we can- and are evolving.
> 
> A mere 20 years ago most Americans opposed mixed race marriages. In a little over 50 years, opinion went from 4% approval to 87% approval.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now let us compare this to American's views on 'gay marriage'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage now is about where Mixed Race marriage was (in terms of Acceptance by Americans) in 1996.
> 
> Change can't be forced but it can be encouraged- and the trends show that encouragement is working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IT only climbed *ONE PERCENTAGE POINT* in a year , and actually fell *THREE PERCENTAGE POINTS*  in 2011 - 2012.
> 
> From 2010 till 2015 it has  risen by 2%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually do know about statistics- which puts me above your third grade math skills.
> 
> From 1996 to 2014- acceptance rose 28%
> 
> Roughly the percentage that acceptance of mixed race marriage rose from 1968 to 1990.
> 
> In the last 5 years acceptance has risen 2%. In the last 28 years it has risen 28%
> 
> And you hate that.
> 
> And I find your bigotry both sad and amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes... and it was around 1996 Clinton signed the "Dont Ask, Don't tell" allowing homosexuals to serve in the US Military, thus 'normalizing sexual abnormality'.
> 
> That did NOT 'make' homosexuality normal, it only made it APPEAR NORMAL...
> 
> Clinton also built a wall of separation between US intelligence and US Law enforcement that made Terrorist only interested learning how to FLY jumbo jets, with a decided lack of interests in LANDING THOSE JETS... _*APPEAR *NORMAL._
> 
> We saw why THAT was a bad idea almost immediately after Clinton left office.  It took another decade and a half to see the idiocy of making abnormal sexuality APPEAR Normal.
Click to expand...


The audacity of a homosexual volunteering to fight for his country, knowing that he may be killed in the process.  Shame!


----------



## ProgressivePatriot

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.




*Well, well! I saw this on another board. Posted by a John Marston. The Homosexual Movement*

*At first I thought that you and he might be the same person The poster there, like you presented as his own writing with no link or credit. So assuming that you are in fact different people, either you lifted it from him, or he lifted from you, or you both lifted it from a third party without giving credit. Just saying. It goes to credibility*

*In any case, this all wreaks of hate. The whole post is nothing more than an appeal to ignorance and slippery slope fallacies, and reflects a profound and pathetic ignorance of how our system of laws and government work. *

Marston and you: If you ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.

*Who is rubbing what in your face? Are gay people doing anything in front of your face that others are not doing?  Stay out of the gay bars and away from the gay pride parades. And for God’s sake, stay off of those gay porn sites.*

Marston and you:What has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?

1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism. Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.

*Actually, the majority of Americans, especially younger Americans are in fact persuaded*. *Some states have gay marriage as the result of legislation or popular referendum. *

*Yes, in some backward states, there is still opposition to gay rights. Hell, there is still opposition to integration and interracial marriage. And we would still not have interracial marriage if it were not for judicial activism. Why is judicial activism bad when a progressive cause advances, but good, according to conservatives when they rule as they did Citizens United, Hobby Lobby and the voting rights act. *

*And you think that there will be a war over gay marriage? That is about as stupid as stupid gets. *
Marston and you:2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgender are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells

*Oh Christ, there is that special rights horseshit as usual.* *What special rights? The right to not be fired based on sexual orientation? And the political correctness that you whine about is nothing more than being respectful and considerate of those who are different. The “workplace” is increasingly diverse and it’s not just about gays. The only people who have to walk on eggs are those who are prone to say and do stupid, inappropriate and insensitive things.
Marstonand you :3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.

If he thinks that he’s a girl, he is a girl. He will be dressed as a girl. And the girls won’t care. They will probably think it’s pretty cool, if they even know. Transgenderism is real. It is out like homosexuality is out. By the way, a lesbian girl might also share that bathroom, and again, the other kids are not likely to care. Kids are pretty advanced these days. Most do not have a problem with this.  What would your solution be? To pretend that homosexuality and transgenderism does not exist? And you know what, there will still be LGBT kids in the school. 


Marston and you:4. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life. Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?

Heterosexuality pervades the media a whole lot more that homosexuality and no one is forcing anyone to watch homosexuality in the media or anywhere else. Why do these people think they're so important? Why the hell do you think that you’re so damned important? Every human being is important and deserve to be allowed to be who they are. I don’t know about Jews, but Christians certainly pervade, or try to pervade every facet of life  including politics where they don’t belong and clearly have an outsized sense of importance and entitlement.  



Marston and you:Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia. They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement. When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.

Yup, just like there was a rise in racism in response to a black president. Whatever doesn’t kill them makes them crazier. If you want to say that demanding equality it “shoving it in your face” go right ahead. But don’t blame the victims of bigotry for the backlash that results in a minority making gains. I suppose that you think that those seeking rights and advancement should just shut up and wait for the racist and homophobes to grant them those rights-which will be never-to avoid the wrath of the bigots

As far as belligerence goes, gays have been building organizations, raising funds and taking legal actions. That is their right. It’s not belligerence.  The belligerence has been on the part of organizations like the National Organization for Marriage and the Family Research Council that spread lies and disparage gays, and cry prophesies of doom  are the belligerent ones.

If you were deprived of something that you perceived as a right, I don’t doubt that you would be belligerent about it. 

Marston and you:So I have something to say to you: fuck you!

So I have something to say to you: This is just a big stinking load of equine excrement

PS: I only hope that Marston is also reading this. I’ve come across his type before, those who post inflammatory crap and sit back and enjoy the fallout: Submissive Masochists.  They take pleasure in getting beaten up. It’s a self-loathing thing.  Makes sense. Those who hate others are not real comfortable in their own skin either.









*


----------



## deltex1

After all these posts, the only dilemma I see is how Jake is gonna knock Howey up.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungSmartHasAHeart said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?Homosexual movement? There are just as many homosexuals now as there were centuries ago. Society has become more comfortable discussing sexuality.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.Gay agenda? Working to increase tolerance should be on everyone's agenda.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.Clearly, no one has won over your heart/mind. Judicial reform is the ultimate goal for most "movements", right? Uh oh, the homosexuals are winning!
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?Watch Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, hilarious! Christians, Jews they have significant TV time too. Not nearly as entertaining.
> 
> They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.Are you sure? I feel anti-gay sentiment is more frowned upon now than ever. Thanks to the "gay movement".
> 
> Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.Because Kenyans and Americans have such similar thought processes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well said,  tolerance and acceptance cannot be mandated or coerced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we can- and are evolving.
> 
> A mere 20 years ago most Americans opposed mixed race marriages. In a little over 50 years, opinion went from 4% approval to 87% approval.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now let us compare this to American's views on 'gay marriage'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage now is about where Mixed Race marriage was (in terms of Acceptance by Americans) in 1996.
> 
> Change can't be forced but it can be encouraged- and the trends show that encouragement is working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IT only climbed *ONE PERCENTAGE POINT* in a year , and actually fell *THREE PERCENTAGE POINTS*  in 2011 - 2012.
> 
> From 2010 till 2015 it has  risen by 2%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually do know about statistics- which puts me above your third grade math skills.
> 
> From 1996 to 2014- acceptance rose 28%
> 
> Roughly the percentage that acceptance of mixed race marriage rose from 1968 to 1990.
> 
> In the last 5 years acceptance has risen 2%. In the last 28 years it has risen 28%
> 
> And you hate that.
> 
> And I find your bigotry both sad and amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes... and it was around 1996 Clinton signed the "Dont Ask, Don't tell" allowing homosexuals to serve in the US Military, thus 'normalizing sexual abnormality'. l.
Click to expand...


Reminds me again of how homophobic bigots like yourself treated treat homosexuals who want to help defend their country

Like how bigots like you treated Allan Turing:  

During the Second World War, Turing worked for the Government Code and Cypher School (GC&CS) at Bletchley Park, Britain'scodebreaking centre. For a time he led Hut 8, the section responsible for German naval cryptanalysis. He devised a number of techniques for breaking German ciphers, including improvements to the pre-war Polish bombe method, an electromechanicalmachine that could find settings for the Enigma machine*. Turing's pivotal role in cracking intercepted coded messages enabled the Allies to defeat the Nazis in many crucial engagements, including the Battle of the Atlantic;* it has been estimated that the work at Bletchley Park shortened the war in Europe by as many as two to four years.[7]

Bigots like you rewarded Turing by prosecuting him

_Turing was prosecuted in 1952 for homosexual acts, when such behaviour was still criminalised in the UK. He accepted treatment with oestrogen injections (chemical castration) as an alternative to prison_

Bigots like you would rather that innocent lives are lost than to treat homosexuals like humans.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> From 1996 to 2014- acceptance rose 28%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See my post to which you responded re: additional variables - big brother yada yada yada and kindly stop trying to convince everyone that black is white
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 28% increase in 18 years- that averages out to 1.5% a year- almost exactly the average percentage change per year from 1959 to 2014 for acceptance of  mixed race marriages.
> 
> In 15 years homophobic bigots like yourself will be held with the same contempt by most Americans as the bigots who were yelling 'die n*gger d*e'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Once again douche bag - ethnicity is not related to mental illness t
Click to expand...


Yet mentally ill bigots like yourself attack people based upon their race or their sexual preference.

In 15 years homophobic bigots like yourself will be held with the same contempt by most Americans as the bigots who were yelling 'die n*gger d*e'


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> From 1996 to 2014- acceptance rose 28%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See my post to which you responded re: additional variables - big brother yada yada yada and kindly stop trying to convince everyone that black is white
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 28% increase in 18 years- that averages out to 1.5% a year- almost exactly the average percentage change per year from 1959 to 2014 for acceptance of  mixed race marriages.
> 
> In 15 years homophobic bigots like yourself will be held with the same contempt by most Americans as the bigots who were yelling 'die n*gger d*e'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Once again douche bag - ethnicity is not related to mental illness t
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet mentally ill bigots like yourself attack people based upon their race or their sexual preference.
> 
> In 15 years homophobic bigots like yourself will be held with the same contempt by most Americans as the bigots who were yelling 'die n*gger d*e'
Click to expand...



There is no Racial Issue involved in this thread - merely degenerates such as yourself attempting to* frame[*]* the enabling , perpetuation and dissemination of sexually dysphoric, physically and mentally unhealthy and unnatural degenerate behavior.

--------------------------------------------------------------
*  Framing -

Framing is a psychological theory which suggests that people will have a different reaction to an idea when it is given a positive spin than they would if it was given a negative spin. Advertising professionals, public relations people and propagandists must possess a clear and concise knowledge and understanding of this concept to successfully spin their spiel. The implications of framing is that our decisions and opinions are based more on our predetermined attitudes rather than factual evidence. 

*Framing, when properly executed in social discourse short-circuits counter arguments . *No one can speak up against an effective frame and say, Why, yes, I do think women should be raped and I do think women should be sex objects. when discussing the Feminist "rape culture" frame .  And no one can speak out against the Gay intrusion into public schools under the guise of tolerance and diversity  and state I do think students should kill themselves, or I do think gay kids should be beat up. 

Gay Brainwashing Techniques


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> treat homosexuals who want to help defend their country



There you go trying to "Frame" the argument again - it wasn't about the fags who wanted into the military - it was about the protecting the normal guys who didn't want these perverts around - got it ?


----------



## ProgressivePatriot

deltex1 said:


> After all these posts, the only dilemma I see is how Jake is gonna knock Howey up.


Do all couples have children now [emoji38]


----------



## Conservative65

ProgressivePatriot said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> After all these posts, the only dilemma I see is how Jake is gonna knock Howey up.
> 
> 
> 
> Do all couples have children now [emoji38]
Click to expand...


No they don't.  A friend and his wife don't have kids because neither can.  Their inability to do so is because of a medical condition not a choice to be with someone of the same gender.  Big difference.


----------



## GreenBean

Anyway - After 308 pages - thoroughly laced with interference and deflection by the Fag Militia - I would say that St.Michael has proven his point  - Like a roller coaster barrelling to the peak - it's about to start its downward treck - hold onto your seats faggots - because the trip down hill ain't gonna be pretty - well ...not from your vantage point anyway . The Gay Agenda is running out of steam and people are wising up to the shenanigans - bout time .


----------



## ProgressivePatriot

Conservative65 said:


> ProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> After all these posts, the only dilemma I see is how Jake is gonna knock Howey up.
> 
> 
> 
> Do all couples have children now [emoji38]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don't.  A friend and his wife don't have kids because neither can.  Their inability to do so is because of a medical condition not a choice to be with someone of the same gender.  Big difference.
Click to expand...

And your point is what exactly. They have a right to choose who they wish to be with just as you and I. And just like you and I, their sexuality is what it is. So gays have less worth because they may not have children in exactly the same way as heterosexuals? They do have children you know.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a moron. Anyone who characterizes any disagreement as hate is not objective. That's not up for debate. Since bigots like you see hate everywhere, you're crippled in being able to perceive the real thing. It would be the same as a conspiracy kook trying to discern a real conspiracy from the random lunacy that occupies his head. That's the kind of logic that escapes people like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am glad to hear you don't believe homosexuals live a harmful way of life or are a danger to children and that you believe they can be good parents to kids.
> 
> This is awesome news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two of my best friends are a lesbian couple that we trust to babysit our kids. They don't hurt anyone and are the most decent people you could know.
> 
> So yes, it's possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some of my best friends are straights.
Click to expand...

Truce then. Why don't we start assuming the best about one another instead of calling each other liars when sharing details about our personal lives. In truth I have no reason to believe you're lying about anything and presume you're being truthful. All I ask is for the same courtesy in return.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

GreenBean said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no homosexual dilemma. Either you put another man's unit in your mouth or you don't. Case closed. If you do...please keep it to yourself, don't carry a sign and march in the street that you put another guy's tool in your mug and how proud you are of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody carries signs that say that.
> 
> I've never put a man's unit in my mouth...but I have marched in a Pride Parade.
> 
> You want gays living their lives in secret. Ain't gonna happen. We have lives and families and we don't have to keep them quiet. We aren't ashamed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because your a dyke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that would be why I've never had a man's unit in my mouth. You're quick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have no way of knowing that to be true. You could be lying. You might be a $10 trick in Las Vegas for all we know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> $10 ... you really think she's worth that much ??
Click to expand...

I was trying to be polite.


----------



## GreenBean

ProgressivePatriot said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> After all these posts, the only dilemma I see is how Jake is gonna knock Howey up.
> 
> 
> 
> Do all couples have children now [emoji38]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don't.  A friend and his wife don't have kids because neither can.  Their inability to do so is because of a medical condition not a choice to be with someone of the same gender.  Big difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point is what exactly. They have a right to choose who they wish to be with just as you and I. And just like you and I, their sexuality is what it is. So gays have less worth because they may not have children in exactly the same way as heterosexuals? They do have children you know.
Click to expand...



Miss Beatrice, the church organist, was in her eighties and had never been married. She was admired for sweetness and kindness to all. One afternoon the pastor came to call on her and she showed him into her quaint sitting room. She invited him to have a seat while she prepared tea.

As he sat facing her old pump organ, the young minister noticed a cut-glass bowl sitting on top of it. The bowl was filled with water. In the water floated, of all things, a condom! When she returned with tea and scones, they began to chat. The pastor tried to stifle his curiosity about the bowl of water and its strange floater, but soon it got the better of him and he could no longer resist. "Miss Beatrice", he said, "I wonder if you would tell me about this?" pointing to the bowl. "Oh, yes" she replied, "isn't it wonderful?

I was walking through the park a few months ago and I found this little package on the ground. The directions said to place it on the organ, keep it wet and that it would prevent the spread of disease. Do you know I haven't had the flu all winter!" The pastor fainted.


----------



## Conservative65

ProgressivePatriot said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> After all these posts, the only dilemma I see is how Jake is gonna knock Howey up.
> 
> 
> 
> Do all couples have children now [emoji38]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don't.  A friend and his wife don't have kids because neither can.  Their inability to do so is because of a medical condition not a choice to be with someone of the same gender.  Big difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point is what exactly. They have a right to choose who they wish to be with just as you and I. And just like you and I, their sexuality is what it is. So gays have less worth because they may not have children in exactly the same way as heterosexuals? They do have children you know.
Click to expand...


A question of "do all couple have children now" was asked and the one to which I responded.  

One of the counters the same sex marriage supporters use when someone says marriage is for procreation is that not all heterosexual couples have children, therefore, the procreation argument is invalid.  Thinking that was what the question I referenced was about, I responded that there is a difference between someone making a decision of who they marry and because the person is of the same sex they can't have kids and two people of the opposite sex not being able to have kids due to a medical condition.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

GreenBean said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Genesis 19:5King James Version (KJV)*
> 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis was written by Moses, who was slow of speech and tongue,  2000 years after  Adam and Eve.  How did he know Lot was morally depraved; i.e., he would rather hand off his two daughters to a mob of men, young and old, rather than hand over two stranger.  Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess they would be safe in a mob of supposed homosexual men?  GreenBean and St.Mike have no explained that bit yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it possible for your to explain how Moses knew the story first-hand since he wrote about it 2000 years later?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spent a lot of time on Mt. Sinai, so much so that the Israelites felt he abandoned them and forged for themselves a golden calf.
> 
> The reason that Moses is considered the most likely candidate for writing the Pentatuch is because there weren't many candidates for this. In a culture where nearly everyone was illiterate you had Moses, Prince of Egypt, who had a world class education in the most prestigious university on earth. That narrows the field to....just him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since the advent of modern biblical scholarship, and its merger with computer science and logistics -  academic researchers now believed the text was *written by a number of different authors whose work could be identified by seemingly different ideological agendas and linguistic styles* .....
> 
> Today, scholars generally split the text into two main strands. One is believed to have been written by a figure or group known as the "priestly" author, because of apparent connections to the temple priests in Jerusalem. The rest is "non-priestly." Scholars have meticulously gone over the text to ascertain which parts belong to which strand.
> 
> When the new software was run on the Pentateuch, it found the same division, separating the "priestly" and "non-priestly."
> 
> Tech tools tackle Biblical scholarship - USATODAY.com
Click to expand...

The consensus seems to be Moses, though there are competing theories and with good reason. Genesis alone looks to be a graft of several different works. On the other side, there are literary similarities that point strongly to a Moses authorship. And though scholars generally agree Moses wrote much of the Pentatuch, a chronicler might have written a portion of Numbers. Much of how we view this depends on our faith in God. As the previous poster said, how did Moses know the events of Genesis if he wasn't there? For a person of faith, it's an easy conclusion that God revealed that history directly to Moses. When you read how, verbatim, Moses orated the law given to him by God, it becomes more credible that Moses had a phenomenal memory and keen sense of detail. It's also understandable that those without faith would look for another explanation.


----------



## GreenBean

ProgressivePatriot said:


> So gays have less worth because they may not have children in exactly the same way as heterosexuals? They do have children you know.




Procreation is a lesser issue in the debacle of  "The Gay Dilemma"  -   The primary axe to grind against the "Gay Agenda"  is their incessant hounding of normal people and in particular the Children and the underhanded tactics they use in their efforts to promote an unhealthy and un-natural lifestyle - both physically and mentally


----------



## GreenBean

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis was written by Moses, who was slow of speech and tongue,  2000 years after  Adam and Eve.  How did he know Lot was morally depraved; i.e., he would rather hand off his two daughters to a mob of men, young and old, rather than hand over two stranger.  Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess they would be safe in a mob of supposed homosexual men?  GreenBean and St.Mike have no explained that bit yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it possible for your to explain how Moses knew the story first-hand since he wrote about it 2000 years later?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spent a lot of time on Mt. Sinai, so much so that the Israelites felt he abandoned them and forged for themselves a golden calf.
> 
> The reason that Moses is considered the most likely candidate for writing the Pentatuch is because there weren't many candidates for this. In a culture where nearly everyone was illiterate you had Moses, Prince of Egypt, who had a world class education in the most prestigious university on earth. That narrows the field to....just him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since the advent of modern biblical scholarship, and its merger with computer science and logistics -  academic researchers now believed the text was *written by a number of different authors whose work could be identified by seemingly different ideological agendas and linguistic styles* .....
> 
> Today, scholars generally split the text into two main strands. One is believed to have been written by a figure or group known as the "priestly" author, because of apparent connections to the temple priests in Jerusalem. The rest is "non-priestly." Scholars have meticulously gone over the text to ascertain which parts belong to which strand.
> 
> When the new software was run on the Pentateuch, it found the same division, separating the "priestly" and "non-priestly."
> 
> Tech tools tackle Biblical scholarship - USATODAY.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The consensus seems to be Moses, though there are competing theories and with good reason. Genesis alone looks to be a graft of several different works. On the other side, there are literary similarities that point strongly to a Moses authorship. And though scholars generally agree Moses wrote much of the Pentatuch, a chronicler might have written a portion of Numbers. Much of how we view this depends on our faith in God. As the previous poster said, how did Moses know the events of Genesis if he wasn't there? For a person of faith, it's an easy conclusion that God revealed that history directly to Moses. When you read how, verbatim, Moses orated the law given to him by God, it becomes more credible that Moses had a phenomenal memory and keen sense of detail. It's also understandable that those without faith would look for another explanation.
Click to expand...



Genesis - there are other versions of Genesis and old test. tales which are not of Hebrew origin at all - but bear the same stories in slightly different formats . ... such as Lillith in the Garden of Eden ... the Gilgamesh epic ... did Moses have a hand in those also ?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because your a dyke?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that would be why I've never had a man's unit in my mouth. You're quick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have no way of knowing that to be true. You could be lying. You might be a $10 trick in Las Vegas for all we know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, you have no way of knowing if it is true or not...but you do have your fantasies. Fantasize away!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> tell the truth, wytch.   you are a lesbian because no male ever showed any interest in you.   Face it,  the truth will set you free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that explain why you have never had sex with anyone other than your right hand?
Click to expand...

Rosy Palm is quite a gal. She will never ask for a commitment, demand where we were tonight, abort our babies, divorce us and take our homes, withhold sex because she's not in the mood or is giving the silent treatment, cheat on us, or fake an orgasm. If women could be more like Rosy, there would be no battle of the sexes.


----------



## deltex1

*tp://**www.youtube.com/embed/OOgd9hitEAE?rel=0*

The real dilemma.....


----------



## GreenBean

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that would be why I've never had a man's unit in my mouth. You're quick.
> 
> 
> 
> We have no way of knowing that to be true. You could be lying. You might be a $10 trick in Las Vegas for all we know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, you have no way of knowing if it is true or not...but you do have your fantasies. Fantasize away!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> tell the truth, wytch.   you are a lesbian because no male ever showed any interest in you.   Face it,  the truth will set you free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that explain why you have never had sex with anyone other than your right hand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rosy Palm is quite a gal. She will never ask for a commitment, demand where we were tonight, abort our babies, divorce us and take our homes, withhold sex because she's not in the mood or is giving the silent treatment, cheat on us, or fake an orgasm. If women could be more like Rosy, there would be no battle of the sexes.
Click to expand...



I haven't fooled around with Rosy Palm or her evil twin Lucy Lefty in quite some time -  I heard that Helen Keller used to do it with one hand - so she could moan with the other ...

College roommates are about to go to bed. The guy in the top bunk has his girlfriend sleeping over. To try and keep quiet, they devise a code. His girlfriend will say "tomato" if she wants him to go slower and "lettuce" for him to go faster. As they begin to have sex, the girl starts to moan, "Lettuce, lettuce, tomato, tomato!" The roommate on the bottom bunk wakes up the next morning and says, "Stop making sandwiches at night. You got mayonnaise in my eye!"


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

GreenBean said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess they would be safe in a mob of supposed homosexual men?  GreenBean and St.Mike have no explained that bit yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible for your to explain how Moses knew the story first-hand since he wrote about it 2000 years later?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spent a lot of time on Mt. Sinai, so much so that the Israelites felt he abandoned them and forged for themselves a golden calf.
> 
> The reason that Moses is considered the most likely candidate for writing the Pentatuch is because there weren't many candidates for this. In a culture where nearly everyone was illiterate you had Moses, Prince of Egypt, who had a world class education in the most prestigious university on earth. That narrows the field to....just him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since the advent of modern biblical scholarship, and its merger with computer science and logistics -  academic researchers now believed the text was *written by a number of different authors whose work could be identified by seemingly different ideological agendas and linguistic styles* .....
> 
> Today, scholars generally split the text into two main strands. One is believed to have been written by a figure or group known as the "priestly" author, because of apparent connections to the temple priests in Jerusalem. The rest is "non-priestly." Scholars have meticulously gone over the text to ascertain which parts belong to which strand.
> 
> When the new software was run on the Pentateuch, it found the same division, separating the "priestly" and "non-priestly."
> 
> Tech tools tackle Biblical scholarship - USATODAY.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The consensus seems to be Moses, though there are competing theories and with good reason. Genesis alone looks to be a graft of several different works. On the other side, there are literary similarities that point strongly to a Moses authorship. And though scholars generally agree Moses wrote much of the Pentatuch, a chronicler might have written a portion of Numbers. Much of how we view this depends on our faith in God. As the previous poster said, how did Moses know the events of Genesis if he wasn't there? For a person of faith, it's an easy conclusion that God revealed that history directly to Moses. When you read how, verbatim, Moses orated the law given to him by God, it becomes more credible that Moses had a phenomenal memory and keen sense of detail. It's also understandable that those without faith would look for another explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis - there are other versions of Genesis and old test. tales which are not of Hebrew origin at all - but bear the same stories in slightly different formats . ... such as Lillith in the Garden of Eden ... the Gilgamesh epic ... did Moses have a hand in those also ?
Click to expand...

It's a fun debate to have, but nobody knows for sure. I piss off a lot of fundamentalists when I suggest that Job was written as a play to be acted out on stage and the man didn't exist, or there was a man from Ur named Job the story was based on, but the story is a dramatization of his life.  Such a suggestion is anathema to them.


----------



## GreenBean

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible for your to explain how Moses knew the story first-hand since he wrote about it 2000 years later?
> 
> 
> 
> Spent a lot of time on Mt. Sinai, so much so that the Israelites felt he abandoned them and forged for themselves a golden calf.
> 
> The reason that Moses is considered the most likely candidate for writing the Pentatuch is because there weren't many candidates for this. In a culture where nearly everyone was illiterate you had Moses, Prince of Egypt, who had a world class education in the most prestigious university on earth. That narrows the field to....just him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since the advent of modern biblical scholarship, and its merger with computer science and logistics -  academic researchers now believed the text was *written by a number of different authors whose work could be identified by seemingly different ideological agendas and linguistic styles* .....
> 
> Today, scholars generally split the text into two main strands. One is believed to have been written by a figure or group known as the "priestly" author, because of apparent connections to the temple priests in Jerusalem. The rest is "non-priestly." Scholars have meticulously gone over the text to ascertain which parts belong to which strand.
> 
> When the new software was run on the Pentateuch, it found the same division, separating the "priestly" and "non-priestly."
> 
> Tech tools tackle Biblical scholarship - USATODAY.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The consensus seems to be Moses, though there are competing theories and with good reason. Genesis alone looks to be a graft of several different works. On the other side, there are literary similarities that point strongly to a Moses authorship. And though scholars generally agree Moses wrote much of the Pentatuch, a chronicler might have written a portion of Numbers. Much of how we view this depends on our faith in God. As the previous poster said, how did Moses know the events of Genesis if he wasn't there? For a person of faith, it's an easy conclusion that God revealed that history directly to Moses. When you read how, verbatim, Moses orated the law given to him by God, it becomes more credible that Moses had a phenomenal memory and keen sense of detail. It's also understandable that those without faith would look for another explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis - there are other versions of Genesis and old test. tales which are not of Hebrew origin at all - but bear the same stories in slightly different formats . ... such as Lillith in the Garden of Eden ... the Gilgamesh epic ... did Moses have a hand in those also ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a fun debate to have, but nobody knows for sure. I piss off a lot of fundamentalists when I suggest that Job was written as a play to be acted out on stage and the man didn't exist, or there was a man from Ur named Job the story was based on, but the story is a dramatization of his life.  Such a suggestion is anathema to them.
Click to expand...


I am not familiar with that one  - A man from Ur named Job  - do you have any references / links


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

GreenBean said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spent a lot of time on Mt. Sinai, so much so that the Israelites felt he abandoned them and forged for themselves a golden calf.
> 
> The reason that Moses is considered the most likely candidate for writing the Pentatuch is because there weren't many candidates for this. In a culture where nearly everyone was illiterate you had Moses, Prince of Egypt, who had a world class education in the most prestigious university on earth. That narrows the field to....just him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the advent of modern biblical scholarship, and its merger with computer science and logistics -  academic researchers now believed the text was *written by a number of different authors whose work could be identified by seemingly different ideological agendas and linguistic styles* .....
> 
> Today, scholars generally split the text into two main strands. One is believed to have been written by a figure or group known as the "priestly" author, because of apparent connections to the temple priests in Jerusalem. The rest is "non-priestly." Scholars have meticulously gone over the text to ascertain which parts belong to which strand.
> 
> When the new software was run on the Pentateuch, it found the same division, separating the "priestly" and "non-priestly."
> 
> Tech tools tackle Biblical scholarship - USATODAY.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The consensus seems to be Moses, though there are competing theories and with good reason. Genesis alone looks to be a graft of several different works. On the other side, there are literary similarities that point strongly to a Moses authorship. And though scholars generally agree Moses wrote much of the Pentatuch, a chronicler might have written a portion of Numbers. Much of how we view this depends on our faith in God. As the previous poster said, how did Moses know the events of Genesis if he wasn't there? For a person of faith, it's an easy conclusion that God revealed that history directly to Moses. When you read how, verbatim, Moses orated the law given to him by God, it becomes more credible that Moses had a phenomenal memory and keen sense of detail. It's also understandable that those without faith would look for another explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis - there are other versions of Genesis and old test. tales which are not of Hebrew origin at all - but bear the same stories in slightly different formats . ... such as Lillith in the Garden of Eden ... the Gilgamesh epic ... did Moses have a hand in those also ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a fun debate to have, but nobody knows for sure. I piss off a lot of fundamentalists when I suggest that Job was written as a play to be acted out on stage and the man didn't exist, or there was a man from Ur named Job the story was based on, but the story is a dramatization of his life.  Such a suggestion is anathema to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not familiar with that one  - A man from Ur named Job  - do you have any references / links
Click to expand...

It's in the opening chapters right after the wager between God and Satan, I believe. I'm away from home right now typing this all out on my phone, no Bible in reach, but it's not hard to find.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Or it might have been Og


----------



## JimBowie1958

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.



Where is the controversy in simply observing that fags are a bunch of cock-sucking bitches that like to take it up the ass?

What's controversial about that? Hell, everyone knows it.


----------



## GreenBean

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the advent of modern biblical scholarship, and its merger with computer science and logistics -  academic researchers now believed the text was *written by a number of different authors whose work could be identified by seemingly different ideological agendas and linguistic styles* .....
> 
> Today, scholars generally split the text into two main strands. One is believed to have been written by a figure or group known as the "priestly" author, because of apparent connections to the temple priests in Jerusalem. The rest is "non-priestly." Scholars have meticulously gone over the text to ascertain which parts belong to which strand.
> 
> When the new software was run on the Pentateuch, it found the same division, separating the "priestly" and "non-priestly."
> 
> Tech tools tackle Biblical scholarship - USATODAY.com
> 
> 
> 
> The consensus seems to be Moses, though there are competing theories and with good reason. Genesis alone looks to be a graft of several different works. On the other side, there are literary similarities that point strongly to a Moses authorship. And though scholars generally agree Moses wrote much of the Pentatuch, a chronicler might have written a portion of Numbers. Much of how we view this depends on our faith in God. As the previous poster said, how did Moses know the events of Genesis if he wasn't there? For a person of faith, it's an easy conclusion that God revealed that history directly to Moses. When you read how, verbatim, Moses orated the law given to him by God, it becomes more credible that Moses had a phenomenal memory and keen sense of detail. It's also understandable that those without faith would look for another explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis - there are other versions of Genesis and old test. tales which are not of Hebrew origin at all - but bear the same stories in slightly different formats . ... such as Lillith in the Garden of Eden ... the Gilgamesh epic ... did Moses have a hand in those also ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a fun debate to have, but nobody knows for sure. I piss off a lot of fundamentalists when I suggest that Job was written as a play to be acted out on stage and the man didn't exist, or there was a man from Ur named Job the story was based on, but the story is a dramatization of his life.  Such a suggestion is anathema to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not familiar with that one  - A man from Ur named Job  - do you have any references / links
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's in the opening chapters right after the wager between God and Satan, I believe. I'm away from home right now typing this all out on my phone, no Bible in reach, but it's not hard to find.
Click to expand...

Sorry Mike - yes I know the story of Job - when I saw "UR" - I was thinking of something else -


----------



## GreenBean

JimBowie1958 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the controversy in simply observing that fags are a bunch of cock-sucking bitches that like to take it up the ass?
> 
> What's controversial about that? Hell, everyone knows it.
Click to expand...


Don't really care all that much about what they do to themselves - some people are beyond help.  It's the dissemination of their disease  as an "Alternative Lifestyle" and the enabling of it .


----------



## bodecea

JimBowie1958 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the controversy in simply observing that fags are a bunch of cock-sucking bitches that like to take it up the ass?
> 
> What's controversial about that? Hell, everyone knows it.
Click to expand...

We can tell you think about that aspect.....a lot....and this is one of the odd differences between people like you and gays like me.
When you meet or see a person you think or know is gay, your mind immediately defaults to the sex act.

When I meet or see a person I think or know is straight, my mind doesn't seem to go there. 

Isn't that odd?


----------



## bodecea

GreenBean said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> The consensus seems to be Moses, though there are competing theories and with good reason. Genesis alone looks to be a graft of several different works. On the other side, there are literary similarities that point strongly to a Moses authorship. And though scholars generally agree Moses wrote much of the Pentatuch, a chronicler might have written a portion of Numbers. Much of how we view this depends on our faith in God. As the previous poster said, how did Moses know the events of Genesis if he wasn't there? For a person of faith, it's an easy conclusion that God revealed that history directly to Moses. When you read how, verbatim, Moses orated the law given to him by God, it becomes more credible that Moses had a phenomenal memory and keen sense of detail. It's also understandable that those without faith would look for another explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis - there are other versions of Genesis and old test. tales which are not of Hebrew origin at all - but bear the same stories in slightly different formats . ... such as Lillith in the Garden of Eden ... the Gilgamesh epic ... did Moses have a hand in those also ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a fun debate to have, but nobody knows for sure. I piss off a lot of fundamentalists when I suggest that Job was written as a play to be acted out on stage and the man didn't exist, or there was a man from Ur named Job the story was based on, but the story is a dramatization of his life.  Such a suggestion is anathema to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not familiar with that one  - A man from Ur named Job  - do you have any references / links
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's in the opening chapters right after the wager between God and Satan, I believe. I'm away from home right now typing this all out on my phone, no Bible in reach, but it's not hard to find.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry Mike - yes I know the story of Job - when I saw "UR" - I was thinking of something else -
Click to expand...

UR...that Mesopotamian city real close to the Indus Valley, right?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

JimBowie1958 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the controversy in simply observing that fags are a bunch of cock-sucking bitches that like to take it up the ass?
> 
> What's controversial about that? Hell, everyone knows it.
Click to expand...

 
When they have to walk around with a colostomy bag because nature does not provide for large objects to traverse the wrong way through the colon with repeated, violent thrusts, I don't want to pay for their medical care. That's the controversy.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the controversy in simply observing that fags are a bunch of cock-sucking bitches that like to take it up the ass?
> 
> What's controversial about that? Hell, everyone knows it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When they have to walk around with a colostomy bag because nature does not provide for large objects to traverse the wrong way through the colon with repeated, violent thrusts, I don't want to pay for their medical care. That's the controversy.
Click to expand...

So...that's why some people have to wear those things.


----------



## Seawytch

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the controversy in simply observing that fags are a bunch of cock-sucking bitches that like to take it up the ass?
> 
> What's controversial about that? Hell, everyone knows it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When they have to walk around with a colostomy bag because nature does not provide for large objects to traverse the wrong way through the colon with repeated, violent thrusts, I don't want to pay for their medical care. That's the controversy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...that's why some people have to wear those things.
Click to expand...


No.

*The 10 Biggest Misconceptions About Anal Sex
*
*The myth: *It will cause you physical damage.
*The truth: *Having any sort of sex the "wrong way" could cause damage. Think about it: If you are vaginally dry and don't use additional lube, you can cause micro-tears in the vagina. The same thing can happen in anal sex. Granted the vagina does create it's own lubrication usually (depending on hormones etc.) and the anus does not but that just means* real lube* (not saliva) needs to be used for a healthy experience.

*The myth: *Your anus will get all stretched out.
*The truth*: Just like the myth that the vagina gets irreparably stretched out from childbirth, this is also a misconception. There were rumors in the late seventies of groups of men who engaged in so much anal activity that they actually lost control of bowel movements. Regular, healthy use of anal sex will not lead to this outcome. Through regular anal sex, your anus does learn to become more relaxed but much of that has to do with your ability to relax yourself mentally for the act. And we all know that the vagina accommodates a wide range of penises, the anus can too — with the right introduction.​
And just as an aside:

Roughly half of all men and women have attempted anal sex, according to a national sexual health survey from Indiana University’s Kinsey Institute.


----------



## JakeStarkey

And the far right "Christians" continue to whine.


----------



## GreenBean

Seawytch said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the controversy in simply observing that fags are a bunch of cock-sucking bitches that like to take it up the ass?
> 
> What's controversial about that? Hell, everyone knows it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When they have to walk around with a colostomy bag because nature does not provide for large objects to traverse the wrong way through the colon with repeated, violent thrusts, I don't want to pay for their medical care. That's the controversy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...that's why some people have to wear those things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> *The 10 Biggest Misconceptions About Anal Sex
> *
> *The myth: *It will cause you physical damage.
> *The truth: *Having any sort of sex the "wrong way" could cause damage. Think about it: If you are vaginally dry and don't use additional lube, you can cause micro-tears in the vagina. The same thing can happen in anal sex. Granted the vagina does create it's own lubrication usually (depending on hormones etc.) and the anus does not but that just means* real lube* (not saliva) needs to be used for a healthy experience.
> 
> *The myth: *Your anus will get all stretched out.
> *The truth*: Just like the myth that the vagina gets irreparably stretched out from childbirth, this is also a misconception. There were rumors in the late seventies of groups of men who engaged in so much anal activity that they actually lost control of bowel movements. Regular, healthy use of anal sex will not lead to this outcome. Through regular anal sex, your anus does learn to become more relaxed but much of that has to do with your ability to relax yourself mentally for the act. And we all know that the vagina accommodates a wide range of penises, the anus can too — with the right introduction.​
> And just as an aside:
> 
> Roughly half of all men and women have attempted anal sex, according to a national sexual health survey from Indiana University’s Kinsey Institute.
Click to expand...


*The anus lacks the natural lubrication the vagina has. *Penetration can tear the tissue inside the anus, allowing bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream. This can result in the spread of sexually transmitted infections including HIV. Studies have suggested that anal exposure to HIV poses 30 times more risk for the receptive partner than vaginal exposure.

*The anus was designed to hold in feces.* The anus is surrounded with a ring-like muscle, called the anal sphincter, which tightens after we defecate. When the muscle is tight, anal penetration can be painful and difficult. Repetitive anal sex may lead to weakening of the anal sphincter, making it difficult to hold in feces until you can get to the toilet

*The anus is full of bacteria. *Even if both partners do not have a sexually-transmitted infection or disease, bacteria normally in the anus can potentially infect the giving partner. 

Anal sex can carry other risks as well. Oral contact with the anus can put both partners at risk for hepatitis,herpes, HPV, shigelosis and other infections. 

Anal Sex Safety and Health Concerns


----------



## PaintMyHouse

GreenBean said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the controversy in simply observing that fags are a bunch of cock-sucking bitches that like to take it up the ass?
> 
> What's controversial about that? Hell, everyone knows it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When they have to walk around with a colostomy bag because nature does not provide for large objects to traverse the wrong way through the colon with repeated, violent thrusts, I don't want to pay for their medical care. That's the controversy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...that's why some people have to wear those things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> *The 10 Biggest Misconceptions About Anal Sex
> *
> *The myth: *It will cause you physical damage.
> *The truth: *Having any sort of sex the "wrong way" could cause damage. Think about it: If you are vaginally dry and don't use additional lube, you can cause micro-tears in the vagina. The same thing can happen in anal sex. Granted the vagina does create it's own lubrication usually (depending on hormones etc.) and the anus does not but that just means* real lube* (not saliva) needs to be used for a healthy experience.
> 
> *The myth: *Your anus will get all stretched out.
> *The truth*: Just like the myth that the vagina gets irreparably stretched out from childbirth, this is also a misconception. There were rumors in the late seventies of groups of men who engaged in so much anal activity that they actually lost control of bowel movements. Regular, healthy use of anal sex will not lead to this outcome. Through regular anal sex, your anus does learn to become more relaxed but much of that has to do with your ability to relax yourself mentally for the act. And we all know that the vagina accommodates a wide range of penises, the anus can too — with the right introduction.​
> And just as an aside:
> 
> Roughly half of all men and women have attempted anal sex, according to a national sexual health survey from Indiana University’s Kinsey Institute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The anus lacks the natural lubrication the vagina has. *Penetration can tear the tissue inside the anus, allowing bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream. This can result in the spread of sexually transmitted infections including HIV. Studies have suggested that anal exposure to HIV poses 30 times more risk for the receptive partner than vaginal exposure.
> 
> *The anus was designed to hold in feces.* The anus is surrounded with a ring-like muscle, called the anal sphincter, which tightens after we defecate. When the muscle is tight, anal penetration can be painful and difficult. Repetitive anal sex may lead to weakening of the anal sphincter, making it difficult to hold in feces until you can get to the toilet
> 
> *The anus is full of bacteria. *Even if both partners do not have a sexually-transmitted infection or disease, bacteria normally in the anus can potentially infect the giving partner.
> 
> Anal sex can carry other risks as well. Oral contact with the anus can put both partners at risk for hepatitis,herpes, HPV, shigelosis and other infections.
> 
> Anal Sex Safety and Health Concerns
Click to expand...

I'll keep all of that in mind, which I already know, the next time I'm fucking the wife's ass.

Next please post for us the dangers of fucking her mouth, my favorite normal sex act...


----------



## GreenBean

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the controversy in simply observing that fags are a bunch of cock-sucking bitches that like to take it up the ass?
> 
> What's controversial about that? Hell, everyone knows it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When they have to walk around with a colostomy bag because nature does not provide for large objects to traverse the wrong way through the colon with repeated, violent thrusts, I don't want to pay for their medical care. That's the controversy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...that's why some people have to wear those things.
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Greenbean and the other social cons can't grasp that their opinion about anal sex (which heterosexuals loves as much as homosexuals), their opinions about the Bible, and the Bible itself has no standing in federal courts.

All of their above whining is . . . unhappy whining.


----------



## Conservative65

JakeStarkey said:


> Greenbean and the other social cons can't grasp that their opinion about anal sex (which heterosexuals loves as much as homosexuals), their opinions about the Bible, and the Bible itself has no standing in federal courts.
> 
> All of their above whining is . . . unhappy whining.


 
You can't stand that your belief about fags being normal is accepted by everyone.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> From 1996 to 2014- acceptance rose 28%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See my post to which you responded re: additional variables - big brother yada yada yada and kindly stop trying to convince everyone that black is white
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 28% increase in 18 years- that averages out to 1.5% a year- almost exactly the average percentage change per year from 1959 to 2014 for acceptance of  mixed race marriages.
> 
> In 15 years homophobic bigots like yourself will be held with the same contempt by most Americans as the bigots who were yelling 'die n*gger d*e'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Once again douche bag - ethnicity is not related to mental illness t
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet mentally ill bigots like yourself attack people based upon their race or their sexual preference.
> 
> In 15 years homophobic bigots like yourself will be held with the same contempt by most Americans as the bigots who were yelling 'die n*gger d*e'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Racial Issue involved in this thread - merely degenerates s
Click to expand...


Yet mentally ill bigots like yourself attack people based upon their race or their sexual preference.

In 15 years homophobic bigots like yourself will be held with the same contempt by most Americans as the bigots who were yelling 'die n*gger d*e'


----------



## JakeStarkey

Conservative65 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Greenbean and the other social cons can't grasp that their opinion about anal sex (which heterosexuals loves as much as homosexuals), their opinions about the Bible, and the Bible itself has no standing in federal courts.
> 
> All of their above whining is . . . unhappy whining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't stand that your belief about fags being normal is accepted by everyone.
Click to expand...

I wish it were accepted by everyone.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Greenbean and the other social cons can't grasp that their opinion about anal sex (which heterosexuals loves as much as homosexuals), their opinions about the Bible, and the Bible itself has no standing in federal courts.
> 
> All of their above whining is . . . unhappy whining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't stand that your belief about fags being normal is accepted by everyone.
Click to expand...


I think he can.

Certainly I can stand that my belief that homosexuals are normal is being  accepted by everyone everyone other than a few bigots like yourself.


----------



## Conservative65

JakeStarkey said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Greenbean and the other social cons can't grasp that their opinion about anal sex (which heterosexuals loves as much as homosexuals), their opinions about the Bible, and the Bible itself has no standing in federal courts.
> 
> All of their above whining is . . . unhappy whining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't stand that your belief about fags being normal is accepted by everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wish it were accepted by everyone.
Click to expand...

 
Not gonna happen.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I believe they are so held now by a majority of Americans.

Their dissent is not a rational part of American political activity but one of a viciousness not seen since the CR era.

Not everyone will accept marriage equality as right.

We have fools who don't accept racial equality yet.

They are the exceptions that prove the rule.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Greenbean and the other social cons can't grasp that their opinion about anal sex (which heterosexuals loves as much as homosexuals), their opinions about the Bible, and the Bible itself has no standing in federal courts.
> 
> All of their above whining is . . . unhappy whining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't stand that your belief about fags being normal is accepted by everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think he can.
> 
> Certainly I can stand that my belief that homosexuals are normal is being  accepted by everyone everyone other than a few bigots like yourself.
Click to expand...

 Only by faggots and you faggot lovers.


----------



## Conservative65

JakeStarkey said:


> I believe they are so held now by a majority of Americans.
> 
> Their dissent is not a rational part of American political activity but one of a viciousness not seen since the CR era.


Just by faggots and faggot lovers like you.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> ProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So gays have less worth because they may not have children in exactly the same way as heterosexuals? They do have children you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Procreation is a lesser issue in the debacle of  "The Gay Dilemma"  -   The primary axe to grind against the "Gay Agenda"  is their incessant hounding of normal people and in particular the Children and the underhanded tactics they use in their efforts to promote an unhealthy and un-natural lifestyle - both physically and mentally
Click to expand...


Yeah- asking for people to not prosecute them for having sex, not beat them up for appearing gay and not to fire them for loving someone in the same gender- that kind of hounding really upsets the bigots- and then using the underhanded tactic of being treated like everyone else- well that really throws bigots like yourself into a frenzy.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Greenbean and the other social cons can't grasp that their opinion about anal sex (which heterosexuals loves as much as homosexuals), their opinions about the Bible, and the Bible itself has no standing in federal courts.
> 
> All of their above whining is . . . unhappy whining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't stand that your belief about fags being normal is accepted by everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think he can.
> 
> Certainly I can stand that my belief that homosexuals are normal is being  accepted by everyone everyone other than a few bigots like yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only by faggots and you faggot lovers.
Click to expand...


f*ggot, n*gger, c*nt, k*ke- all the same kinds of words, used by the same kinds of people, for the exact same purpose.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Conservative65 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe they are so held now by a majority of Americans.
> 
> Their dissent is not a rational part of American political activity but one of a viciousness not seen since the CR era.
> 
> 
> 
> Just by faggots and faggot lovers like you.
Click to expand...

Your hatred and self loathing is an example of the exception that proves the rule.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Greenbean and the other social cons can't grasp that their opinion about anal sex (which heterosexuals loves as much as homosexuals), their opinions about the Bible, and the Bible itself has no standing in federal courts.
> 
> All of their above whining is . . . unhappy whining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't stand that your belief about fags being normal is accepted by everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think he can.
> 
> Certainly I can stand that my belief that homosexuals are normal is being  accepted by everyone everyone other than a few bigots like yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only by faggots and you faggot lovers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> f*ggot, n*gger, c*nt, k*ke- all the same kinds of words, used by the same kinds of people, for the exact same purpose.
Click to expand...

 
To clear up what someone is.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the controversy in simply observing that fags are a bunch of cock-sucking bitches that like to take it up the ass?
> 
> What's controversial about that? Hell, everyone knows it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When they have to walk around with a colostomy bag because nature does not provide for large objects to traverse the wrong way through the colon with repeated, violent thrusts, I don't want to pay for their medical care. That's the controversy.
Click to expand...

THanks to this post...whenever I see someone with a colostomy bag, I will think of them having anal sex which caused it.   Ugh.


----------



## Conservative65

JakeStarkey said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe they are so held now by a majority of Americans.
> 
> Their dissent is not a rational part of American political activity but one of a viciousness not seen since the CR era.
> 
> 
> 
> Just by faggots and faggot lovers like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your hatred and self loathing is an example of the exception that proves the rule.
Click to expand...

 
I don't loathe anyone except people like you.  I am perfectly fine with myself. 

Your mindset that because a majority believe something that makes it correct isn't true.  I may look at thing differently than you but that doesn't make me wrong.


----------



## bodecea

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Greenbean and the other social cons can't grasp that their opinion about anal sex (which heterosexuals loves as much as homosexuals), their opinions about the Bible, and the Bible itself has no standing in federal courts.
> 
> All of their above whining is . . . unhappy whining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't stand that your belief about fags being normal is accepted by everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think he can.
> 
> Certainly I can stand that my belief that homosexuals are normal is being  accepted by everyone everyone other than a few bigots like yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only by faggots and you faggot lovers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> f*ggot, n*gger, c*nt, k*ke- all the same kinds of words, used by the same kinds of people, for the exact same purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To clear up what someone is.
Click to expand...


Well....yes.   Using such words certainly clears up what the speaker is.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Anyway - After 308 pages - thoroughly laced with interference and deflection by the Fag Militia -.



308 pages of steaming piles of homophobic lies and bigotry- showing the homophobes to be no different from those who yell 'die N*gger die"


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe they are so held now by a majority of Americans.
> 
> Their dissent is not a rational part of American political activity but one of a viciousness not seen since the CR era.
> 
> 
> 
> Just by faggots and faggot lovers like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your hatred and self loathing is an example of the exception that proves the rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't loathe anyone except people like you.  I am perfectly fine with myself.
> 
> Your mindset that because a majority believe something that makes it correct isn't true.  I may look at thing differently than you but that doesn't make me wrong.
Click to expand...


Which of course makes you a hateful bigot- just like the bigots who hated 'people like you' who happen to be Jewish or happen to be black. 

You are all consumed with hating Americans because you identify them as those 'people'.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> From 1996 to 2014- acceptance rose 28%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See my post to which you responded re: additional variables - big brother yada yada yada and kindly stop trying to convince everyone that black is white
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 28% increase in 18 years- that averages out to 1.5% a year- almost exactly the average percentage change per year from 1959 to 2014 for acceptance of  mixed race marriages.
> 
> In 15 years homophobic bigots like yourself will be held with the same contempt by most Americans as the bigots who were yelling 'die n*gger d*e'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Once again douche bag - ethnicity is not related to mental illness and your continuous racial slurs against blacks and other minorities in attempting to equate them with mental deviants and degenerates is disgusting.
> 
> You are Racist and a Pervert
Click to expand...


I haven't mentioned mental illness- not being discussed anywhere in this thread. 

Meanwhile

28% increase in 18 years- that averages out to 1.5% a year- almost exactly the average percentage change per year from 1959 to 2014 for acceptance of mixed race marriages.

In 15 years homophobic bigots like yourself will be held with the same contempt by most Americans as the bigots who were yelling 'die n*gger d*e'.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The _italicized _from the once Jackson majoritarian side once they lost the majority: "_Your mindset that because a majority believe something that makes it correct isn't true_." Before that they were yelling because they were the majority, their way should be the law.  It's about the Constitution, not majorities.

_"I may look at thing differently than you but that doesn't make me wrong." _ What makes you wrong is that marriage equality is right.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> From 1996 to 2014- acceptance rose 28%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See my post to which you responded re: additional variables - big brother yada yada yada and kindly stop trying to convince everyone that black is white
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 28% increase in 18 years- that averages out to 1.5% a year- almost exactly the average percentage change per year from 1959 to 2014 for acceptance of  mixed race marriages.
> 
> In 15 years homophobic bigots like yourself will be held with the same contempt by most Americans as the bigots who were yelling 'die n*gger d*e'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Once again douche bag - ethnicity is not related to mental illness t
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet mentally ill bigots like yourself attack people based upon their race or their sexual preference.
> 
> In 15 years homophobic bigots like yourself will be held with the same contempt by most Americans as the bigots who were yelling 'die n*gger d*e'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Racial Issue involved in this thread -
Click to expand...


I never said there was a racial issue involved in this thread.

I am saying homophobic bigots like yourself  who proclaim that you want to 'bitch slap' f*ggots are indistinguishable from racist bigots who proclaim that they would like to 'bitch slap' n*ggers. 

For them its race. For you its sexual identity. But your mindset is exactly the same- just look at your choice of words.






Wouldn't be any different than  "God hates N*ggers" in 1960


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the controversy in simply observing that fags are a bunch of cock-sucking bitches that like to take it up the ass?
> 
> What's controversial about that? Hell, everyone knows it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When they have to walk around with a colostomy bag because nature does not provide for large objects to traverse the wrong way through the colon with repeated, violent thrusts, I don't want to pay for their medical care. That's the controversy.
Click to expand...


Well I am glad we finally got to the root of your homophobia.......


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the controversy in simply observing that fags are a bunch of cock-sucking bitches that like to take it up the ass?
> 
> What's controversial about that? Hell, everyone knows it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When they have to walk around with a colostomy bag because nature does not provide for large objects to traverse the wrong way through the colon with repeated, violent thrusts, I don't want to pay for their medical care. That's the controversy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...that's why some people have to wear those things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> *The 10 Biggest Misconceptions About Anal Sex
> *
> *The myth: *It will cause you physical damage.
> *The truth: *Having any sort of sex the "wrong way" could cause damage. Think about it: If you are vaginally dry and don't use additional lube, you can cause micro-tears in the vagina. The same thing can happen in anal sex. Granted the vagina does create it's own lubrication usually (depending on hormones etc.) and the anus does not but that just means* real lube* (not saliva) needs to be used for a healthy experience.
> 
> *The myth: *Your anus will get all stretched out.
> *The truth*: Just like the myth that the vagina gets irreparably stretched out from childbirth, this is also a misconception. There were rumors in the late seventies of groups of men who engaged in so much anal activity that they actually lost control of bowel movements. Regular, healthy use of anal sex will not lead to this outcome. Through regular anal sex, your anus does learn to become more relaxed but much of that has to do with your ability to relax yourself mentally for the act. And we all know that the vagina accommodates a wide range of penises, the anus can too — with the right introduction.​
> And just as an aside:
> 
> Roughly half of all men and women have attempted anal sex, according to a national sexual health survey from Indiana University’s Kinsey Institute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The anus lacks the natural lubrication the vagina has. *Penetration can tear the tissue inside the anus, allowing bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream. This can result in the spread of sexually transmitted infections including HIV. Studies have suggested that anal exposure to HIV poses 30 times more risk for the receptive partner than vaginal exposure.
> 
> *The anus was designed to hold in feces.* The anus is surrounded with a ring-like muscle, called the anal sphincter, which tightens after we defecate. When the muscle is tight, anal penetration can be painful and difficult. Repetitive anal sex may lead to weakening of the anal sphincter, making it difficult to hold in feces until you can get to the toilet
> 
> *The anus is full of bacteria. *Even if both partners do not have a sexually-transmitted infection or disease, bacteria normally in the anus can potentially infect the giving partner.
> 
> Anal sex can carry other risks as well. Oral contact with the anus can put both partners at risk for hepatitis,herpes, HPV, shigelosis and other infections.
> 
> Anal Sex Safety and Health Concerns
Click to expand...


Thanks for the information. I absolutely agree that no one should have anal sex unless they want to.


----------



## jasonnfree

Best way to catch a few of these  republicans, start a thread about gays.  They will flock to the thread in droves.


----------



## JakeStarkey

"A few" is the right descriptor.

Most Republicans no more care about sexual nonsense than most Democrats.

But . . . make an issue political . . . but sides will come winging it for points instead of the right thing.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe they are so held now by a majority of Americans.
> 
> Their dissent is not a rational part of American political activity but one of a viciousness not seen since the CR era.
> 
> 
> 
> Just by faggots and faggot lovers like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your hatred and self loathing is an example of the exception that proves the rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't loathe anyone except people like you.  I am perfectly fine with myself.
> 
> Your mindset that because a majority believe something that makes it correct isn't true.  I may look at thing differently than you but that doesn't make me wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which of course makes you a hateful bigot- just like the bigots who hated 'people like you' who happen to be Jewish or happen to be black.
> 
> You are all consumed with hating Americans because you identify them as those 'people'.
Click to expand...

 
It means I look at things differently and you equate that with bigotry.  Typical Lib mentality of he doesn't believe like me so he's a bigot. 

I despise people who think that because they like something a I should like it, too.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe they are so held now by a majority of Americans.
> 
> Their dissent is not a rational part of American political activity but one of a viciousness not seen since the CR era.
> 
> 
> 
> Just by faggots and faggot lovers like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your hatred and self loathing is an example of the exception that proves the rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't loathe anyone except people like you.  I am perfectly fine with myself.
> 
> Your mindset that because a majority believe something that makes it correct isn't true.  I may look at thing differently than you but that doesn't make me wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which of course makes you a hateful bigot- just like the bigots who hated 'people like you' who happen to be Jewish or happen to be black.
> 
> You are all consumed with hating Americans because you identify them as those 'people'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means I look at things differently and you equate that with bigotry.  Typical Lib mentality of he doesn't believe like me so he's a bigot.
> 
> I despise people who think that because they like something a I should like it, too.
Click to expand...


You are describing yourself.

No one cares whether you like it, but act the butt and it will get kicked.  Move along.


----------



## bodecea

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe they are so held now by a majority of Americans.
> 
> Their dissent is not a rational part of American political activity but one of a viciousness not seen since the CR era.
> 
> 
> 
> Just by faggots and faggot lovers like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your hatred and self loathing is an example of the exception that proves the rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't loathe anyone except people like you.  I am perfectly fine with myself.
> 
> Your mindset that because a majority believe something that makes it correct isn't true.  I may look at thing differently than you but that doesn't make me wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which of course makes you a hateful bigot- just like the bigots who hated 'people like you' who happen to be Jewish or happen to be black.
> 
> You are all consumed with hating Americans because you identify them as those 'people'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means I look at things differently and you equate that with bigotry.  Typical Lib mentality of he doesn't believe like me so he's a bigot.
> 
> I despise people who think that because they like something a I should like it, too.
Click to expand...

Who said you need to like something?    YOu don't have to like me, but don't think it's acceptable to keep me a second class citizen.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe they are so held now by a majority of Americans.
> 
> Their dissent is not a rational part of American political activity but one of a viciousness not seen since the CR era.
> 
> 
> 
> Just by faggots and faggot lovers like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your hatred and self loathing is an example of the exception that proves the rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't loathe anyone except people like you.  I am perfectly fine with myself.
> 
> Your mindset that because a majority believe something that makes it correct isn't true.  I may look at thing differently than you but that doesn't make me wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which of course makes you a hateful bigot- just like the bigots who hated 'people like you' who happen to be Jewish or happen to be black.
> 
> You are all consumed with hating Americans because you identify them as those 'people'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means I look at things differently and you equate that with bigotry.  Typical Lib mentality of he doesn't believe like me so he's a bigot.
> 
> I despise people who think that because they like something a I should like it, too.
Click to expand...


Your words: _Just by faggots and faggot lovers like you.
_
You are no different from the bigot who says "Just by N*ggers and N*gger lovers like you"

You just hate a different flavor of humans.


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the controversy in simply observing that fags are a bunch of cock-sucking bitches that like to take it up the ass?
> 
> What's controversial about that? Hell, everyone knows it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When they have to walk around with a colostomy bag because nature does not provide for large objects to traverse the wrong way through the colon with repeated, violent thrusts, I don't want to pay for their medical care. That's the controversy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...that's why some people have to wear those things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> *The 10 Biggest Misconceptions About Anal Sex
> *
> *The myth: *It will cause you physical damage.
> *The truth: *Having any sort of sex the "wrong way" could cause damage. Think about it: If you are vaginally dry and don't use additional lube, you can cause micro-tears in the vagina. The same thing can happen in anal sex. Granted the vagina does create it's own lubrication usually (depending on hormones etc.) and the anus does not but that just means* real lube* (not saliva) needs to be used for a healthy experience.
> 
> *The myth: *Your anus will get all stretched out.
> *The truth*: Just like the myth that the vagina gets irreparably stretched out from childbirth, this is also a misconception. There were rumors in the late seventies of groups of men who engaged in so much anal activity that they actually lost control of bowel movements. Regular, healthy use of anal sex will not lead to this outcome. Through regular anal sex, your anus does learn to become more relaxed but much of that has to do with your ability to relax yourself mentally for the act. And we all know that the vagina accommodates a wide range of penises, the anus can too — with the right introduction.​
> And just as an aside:
> 
> Roughly half of all men and women have attempted anal sex, according to a national sexual health survey from Indiana University’s Kinsey Institute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The anus lacks the natural lubrication the vagina has. *Penetration can tear the tissue inside the anus, allowing bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream. This can result in the spread of sexually transmitted infections including HIV. Studies have suggested that anal exposure to HIV poses 30 times more risk for the receptive partner than vaginal exposure.
> 
> *The anus was designed to hold in feces.* The anus is surrounded with a ring-like muscle, called the anal sphincter, which tightens after we defecate. When the muscle is tight, anal penetration can be painful and difficult. Repetitive anal sex may lead to weakening of the anal sphincter, making it difficult to hold in feces until you can get to the toilet
> 
> *The anus is full of bacteria. *Even if both partners do not have a sexually-transmitted infection or disease, bacteria normally in the anus can potentially infect the giving partner.
> 
> Anal sex can carry other risks as well. Oral contact with the anus can put both partners at risk for hepatitis,herpes, HPV, shigelosis and other infections.
> 
> Anal Sex Safety and Health Concerns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the information. I absolutely agree that no one should have anal sex unless they want to.
Click to expand...

Yup - and attempted suicide should be punishable by Death !


----------



## GreenBean

bodecea said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just by faggots and faggot lovers like you.
> 
> 
> 
> Your hatred and self loathing is an example of the exception that proves the rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't loathe anyone except people like you.  I am perfectly fine with myself.
> 
> Your mindset that because a majority believe something that makes it correct isn't true.  I may look at thing differently than you but that doesn't make me wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which of course makes you a hateful bigot- just like the bigots who hated 'people like you' who happen to be Jewish or happen to be black.
> 
> You are all consumed with hating Americans because you identify them as those 'people'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means I look at things differently and you equate that with bigotry.  Typical Lib mentality of he doesn't believe like me so he's a bigot.
> 
> I despise people who think that because they like something a I should like it, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said you need to like something?    YOu don't have to like me, but don't think it's acceptable to keep me a second class citizen.
Click to expand...



No one is making you a second class citizen , or even an inferior human being - you did that all by yourself.


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the controversy in simply observing that fags are a bunch of cock-sucking bitches that like to take it up the ass?
> 
> What's controversial about that? Hell, everyone knows it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When they have to walk around with a colostomy bag because nature does not provide for large objects to traverse the wrong way through the colon with repeated, violent thrusts, I don't want to pay for their medical care. That's the controversy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I am glad we finally got to the root of your homophobia.......
Click to expand...



*JAMMING* AGAIN !? Can't you find something New - what a loser !

The objective of jamming is to force opponents into silence by accusations of homophobia, latent homosexual tendencies and bigotry . The purpose being to create a social stigmatization of anyone whom opposes the Agenda. Jamming is to ridicule the opponent in the eyes of the world and to evoke the "pack mentality" .




> Mentally healthy human beings will naturally feel a sense of shame and exclusion when they perceive that they are not part of the the pack, both in their thoughts and actions. The Jammimg tactic is to evoke a sense of shame in the opponent when his opposition to the gay movement and sexual perversion surfaces. Gay propaganda will depict opponents as homophobic and queer hating redneck bigots, as crude obnoxious loudmouths. It can depict them being isolated from the pack, shunned criticized, and despised. Most importantly however, it must depict gays as experiencing horrific persecution and suffering as a result of the "homophobic - queer hating red necks" . The opponent must be made the villain, both in the eyes of the uninvolved, and when possible in their own eyes also.
> 
> Jamming is basically psychological terrorism intended to silence expression of or support for any dissenting opinion.
> Jamming employs the science of Direct Emotional Modeling and Associative Conditioning.
> 
> Jamming makes use of the rules of Associative Conditioning ... and Direct Emotional Modeling. [After The Ball pg. 152-53 ] the bigot ..made to believe ... that others will now despise him .[the]effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof .whether he is conscious of the attack or not....the more he [the bigot] is distracted ... the less conscious he will be of the true nature of the process .
> 
> Dr. Laura is a prime example of this facet of the campaign at work, a visible victim of this new assault on freedom of speech and free thought. The LGBT machine mobilized and launched a vicious campaign against Dr. Laura following comments on her shows which accurately described gays as deviant, biological errors and a mistake of nature.  Talk show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger was forced to issue an apology to gays.
> 
> I deeply regret the hurt this situation has caused the gay and lesbian community..
> ..While I express my opinions from the perspective of an Orthodox Jew and a staunch defender of the traditional family, in talking about gays and lesbians, some of my words have been poorly chosen. Many people perceive them as hate speech. This fact has been personally and professionally devastating to me as well as to many others...
> 
> In 2000 she attempted to launch a Television program and was beaten down by gay agendaites. The show aired only briefly but advertisers largely shunned the program due to harassment and manipulation from the Gay machine. While other shows such as the several early failed attempts by the gay machine to get Ellen [Degennaris] into the public eye met with a number of failures due to poor quality, Dr. Laura, having ample quality, failed due to leftist censorship and manipulation induced by Jamming and Associative conditioning   Gay Brainwashing Techniques


----------



## bodecea

GreenBean said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your hatred and self loathing is an example of the exception that proves the rule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't loathe anyone except people like you.  I am perfectly fine with myself.
> 
> Your mindset that because a majority believe something that makes it correct isn't true.  I may look at thing differently than you but that doesn't make me wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which of course makes you a hateful bigot- just like the bigots who hated 'people like you' who happen to be Jewish or happen to be black.
> 
> You are all consumed with hating Americans because you identify them as those 'people'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means I look at things differently and you equate that with bigotry.  Typical Lib mentality of he doesn't believe like me so he's a bigot.
> 
> I despise people who think that because they like something a I should like it, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said you need to like something?    YOu don't have to like me, but don't think it's acceptable to keep me a second class citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one is making you a second class citizen , or even an inferior human being - you did that all by yourself.
Click to expand...

How so?


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> I haven't mentioned mental illness- not being discussed anywhere in this thread.


So you are saying this thread isn't about homosexuals ?

If there were a thread pertaining to Mongoilism we would be discussing mental retardation - this thread pertains to homosexuals so hence we are discussing Mental Illness - Capice MF ?


----------



## GreenBean

bodecea said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't loathe anyone except people like you.  I am perfectly fine with myself.
> 
> Your mindset that because a majority believe something that makes it correct isn't true.  I may look at thing differently than you but that doesn't make me wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which of course makes you a hateful bigot- just like the bigots who hated 'people like you' who happen to be Jewish or happen to be black.
> 
> You are all consumed with hating Americans because you identify them as those 'people'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means I look at things differently and you equate that with bigotry.  Typical Lib mentality of he doesn't believe like me so he's a bigot.
> 
> I despise people who think that because they like something a I should like it, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said you need to like something?    YOu don't have to like me, but don't think it's acceptable to keep me a second class citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one is making you a second class citizen , or even an inferior human being - you did that all by yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?
Click to expand...

Inferior Intellect
Inferior Logic processing abilities
Probable motor inadequacies
Probable ugly / Low Hygiene slob
Mentally diseased Pervert

etc... and so forth

And you obviously don't have much a life, as you are here day and night - seriously Fish Breath -Get a Life !


----------



## JakeStarkey

Greenbean's "objective of jamming" and framing "is to force opponents into silence by accusations of" homosexuality . . .  and bigotry" by proponents of marriage equality.

The homophobic hetero-fascists know they have lost their battle legally and historically.  No amount of jamming or framing by them can save the today.


----------



## Seawytch

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Greenbean and the other social cons can't grasp that their opinion about anal sex (which heterosexuals loves as much as homosexuals), their opinions about the Bible, and the Bible itself has no standing in federal courts.
> 
> All of their above whining is . . . unhappy whining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't stand that your belief about fags being normal is accepted by everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think he can.
> 
> Certainly I can stand that my belief that homosexuals are normal is being  accepted by everyone everyone other than a few bigots like yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only by faggots and you faggot lovers.
Click to expand...


Seems there are more lovers than haters. You poor dear...

U.S. Acceptance of Gay Lesbian Relations Is the New Normal


----------



## bodecea

GreenBean said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which of course makes you a hateful bigot- just like the bigots who hated 'people like you' who happen to be Jewish or happen to be black.
> 
> You are all consumed with hating Americans because you identify them as those 'people'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means I look at things differently and you equate that with bigotry.  Typical Lib mentality of he doesn't believe like me so he's a bigot.
> 
> I despise people who think that because they like something a I should like it, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said you need to like something?    YOu don't have to like me, but don't think it's acceptable to keep me a second class citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one is making you a second class citizen , or even an inferior human being - you did that all by yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Inferior Intellect
> Inferior Logic processing abilities
> Probable motor inadequacies
> Probable ugly / Low Hygiene slob
> Mentally diseased Pervert
> 
> etc... and so forth
> 
> And you obviously don't have much a life, as you are here day and night - seriously Fish Breath -Get a Life !
Click to expand...

   

You worked really hard to convince yourself that list is true, didn't you?   *chuckle


----------



## bodecea

Seawytch said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Greenbean and the other social cons can't grasp that their opinion about anal sex (which heterosexuals loves as much as homosexuals), their opinions about the Bible, and the Bible itself has no standing in federal courts.
> 
> All of their above whining is . . . unhappy whining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't stand that your belief about fags being normal is accepted by everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think he can.
> 
> Certainly I can stand that my belief that homosexuals are normal is being  accepted by everyone everyone other than a few bigots like yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only by faggots and you faggot lovers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems there are more lovers than haters. You poor dear...
> 
> U.S. Acceptance of Gay Lesbian Relations Is the New Normal
Click to expand...

Oh, did you see Green Bean's list?  What a hoot!


----------



## Jarhead

bodecea said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It means I look at things differently and you equate that with bigotry.  Typical Lib mentality of he doesn't believe like me so he's a bigot.
> 
> I despise people who think that because they like something a I should like it, too.
> 
> 
> 
> Who said you need to like something?    YOu don't have to like me, but don't think it's acceptable to keep me a second class citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one is making you a second class citizen , or even an inferior human being - you did that all by yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Inferior Intellect
> Inferior Logic processing abilities
> Probable motor inadequacies
> Probable ugly / Low Hygiene slob
> Mentally diseased Pervert
> 
> etc... and so forth
> 
> And you obviously don't have much a life, as you are here day and night - seriously Fish Breath -Get a Life !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You worked really hard to convince yourself that list is true, didn't you?   *chuckle
Click to expand...

Fish breath? He called you Fish Breath and he questions YOUR intellect?
Wow. You cant make this stuff up.


----------



## GreenBean

bodecea said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It means I look at things differently and you equate that with bigotry.  Typical Lib mentality of he doesn't believe like me so he's a bigot.
> 
> I despise people who think that because they like something a I should like it, too.
> 
> 
> 
> Who said you need to like something?    YOu don't have to like me, but don't think it's acceptable to keep me a second class citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one is making you a second class citizen , or even an inferior human being - you did that all by yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Inferior Intellect
> Inferior Logic processing abilities
> Probable motor inadequacies
> Probable ugly / Low Hygiene slob
> Mentally diseased Pervert
> 
> etc... and so forth
> 
> And you obviously don't have much a life, as you are here day and night - seriously Fish Breath -Get a Life !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You worked really hard to convince yourself that list is true, didn't you?   *chuckle
Click to expand...

You could start by trying to disprove the first accusation... which is truly a no-brainer  .


----------



## bodecea

GreenBean said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said you need to like something?    YOu don't have to like me, but don't think it's acceptable to keep me a second class citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is making you a second class citizen , or even an inferior human being - you did that all by yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Inferior Intellect
> Inferior Logic processing abilities
> Probable motor inadequacies
> Probable ugly / Low Hygiene slob
> Mentally diseased Pervert
> 
> etc... and so forth
> 
> And you obviously don't have much a life, as you are here day and night - seriously Fish Breath -Get a Life !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WYou worked really hard to convince yourself that list is true, didn't you?   *chuckle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You could start by trying to disprove the first accusation... which is truly a no-brainer  .
Click to expand...

Wait....you were serious?    

YOU?   stating that someone else has "inferior intellect"?      BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


----------



## GreenBean

Jarhead said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said you need to like something?    YOu don't have to like me, but don't think it's acceptable to keep me a second class citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is making you a second class citizen , or even an inferior human being - you did that all by yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Inferior Intellect
> Inferior Logic processing abilities
> Probable motor inadequacies
> Probable ugly / Low Hygiene slob
> Mentally diseased Pervert
> 
> etc... and so forth
> 
> And you obviously don't have much a life, as you are here day and night - seriously Fish Breath -Get a Life !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You worked really hard to convince yourself that list is true, didn't you?   *chuckle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fish breath? He called you Fish Breath and he questions YOUR intellect?
> Wow. You cant make this stuff up.
Click to expand...



Oh so now we have a make believe devil dog -


----------



## GreenBean

bodecea said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is making you a second class citizen , or even an inferior human being - you did that all by yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Inferior Intellect
> Inferior Logic processing abilities
> Probable motor inadequacies
> Probable ugly / Low Hygiene slob
> Mentally diseased Pervert
> 
> etc... and so forth
> 
> And you obviously don't have much a life, as you are here day and night - seriously Fish Breath -Get a Life !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WYou worked really hard to convince yourself that list is true, didn't you?   *chuckle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You could start by trying to disprove the first accusation... which is truly a no-brainer  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait....you were serious?
> 
> YOU?   stating that someone else has "inferior intellect"?      BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Click to expand...

Inferior Logic processing abilities .....


----------



## Jarhead

GreenBean said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is making you a second class citizen , or even an inferior human being - you did that all by yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Inferior Intellect
> Inferior Logic processing abilities
> Probable motor inadequacies
> Probable ugly / Low Hygiene slob
> Mentally diseased Pervert
> 
> etc... and so forth
> 
> And you obviously don't have much a life, as you are here day and night - seriously Fish Breath -Get a Life !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You worked really hard to convince yourself that list is true, didn't you?   *chuckle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fish breath? He called you Fish Breath and he questions YOUR intellect?
> Wow. You cant make this stuff up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so now we have a make believe devil dog -
Click to expand...

yep. Deal with it, homophobe.


----------



## bodecea

Jarhead said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said you need to like something?    YOu don't have to like me, but don't think it's acceptable to keep me a second class citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is making you a second class citizen , or even an inferior human being - you did that all by yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Inferior Intellect
> Inferior Logic processing abilities
> Probable motor inadequacies
> Probable ugly / Low Hygiene slob
> Mentally diseased Pervert
> 
> etc... and so forth
> 
> And you obviously don't have much a life, as you are here day and night - seriously Fish Breath -Get a Life !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You worked really hard to convince yourself that list is true, didn't you?   *chuckle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fish breath? He called you Fish Breath and he questions YOUR intellect?
> Wow. You cant make this stuff up.
Click to expand...

And then....as icing on the cake, he makes a claim (several, actually) and then thinks it's my job to prove a negative rather than it being up to him to prove his assertions.

Can't make this stuff up.


----------



## bodecea

GreenBean said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> 
> 
> Inferior Intellect
> Inferior Logic processing abilities
> Probable motor inadequacies
> Probable ugly / Low Hygiene slob
> Mentally diseased Pervert
> 
> etc... and so forth
> 
> And you obviously don't have much a life, as you are here day and night - seriously Fish Breath -Get a Life !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WYou worked really hard to convince yourself that list is true, didn't you?   *chuckle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You could start by trying to disprove the first accusation... which is truly a no-brainer  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait....you were serious?
> 
> YOU?   stating that someone else has "inferior intellect"?      BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Inferior Logic processing abilities .....
Click to expand...

Well, yes........it comes through loud and clear in your posts.   But no one will try to take away your rights for it.  Be comforted.


----------



## Jarhead

bodecea said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is making you a second class citizen , or even an inferior human being - you did that all by yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Inferior Intellect
> Inferior Logic processing abilities
> Probable motor inadequacies
> Probable ugly / Low Hygiene slob
> Mentally diseased Pervert
> 
> etc... and so forth
> 
> And you obviously don't have much a life, as you are here day and night - seriously Fish Breath -Get a Life !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You worked really hard to convince yourself that list is true, didn't you?   *chuckle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fish breath? He called you Fish Breath and he questions YOUR intellect?
> Wow. You cant make this stuff up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And then....as icing on the cake, he makes a claim (several, actually) and then thinks it's my job to prove a negative rather than it being up to him to prove his assertions.
> 
> Can't make this stuff up.
Click to expand...

"cant make this stuff up" is owned by me. I said it first. Find your own catch phrase.

And no, you truly cant make this stuff up.


----------



## GreenBean

Jarhead said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> 
> 
> Inferior Intellect
> Inferior Logic processing abilities
> Probable motor inadequacies
> Probable ugly / Low Hygiene slob
> Mentally diseased Pervert
> 
> etc... and so forth
> 
> And you obviously don't have much a life, as you are here day and night - seriously Fish Breath -Get a Life !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You worked really hard to convince yourself that list is true, didn't you?   *chuckle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fish breath? He called you Fish Breath and he questions YOUR intellect?
> Wow. You cant make this stuff up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so now we have a make believe devil dog -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yep. Deal with it, homophobe.
Click to expand...



You have anything of substance to add Penis Breath ?


----------



## GreenBean

Jarhead said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> 
> 
> Inferior Intellect
> Inferior Logic processing abilities
> Probable motor inadequacies
> Probable ugly / Low Hygiene slob
> Mentally diseased Pervert
> 
> etc... and so forth
> 
> And you obviously don't have much a life, as you are here day and night - seriously Fish Breath -Get a Life !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You worked really hard to convince yourself that list is true, didn't you?   *chuckle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fish breath? He called you Fish Breath and he questions YOUR intellect?
> Wow. You cant make this stuff up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And then....as icing on the cake, he makes a claim (several, actually) and then thinks it's my job to prove a negative rather than it being up to him to prove his assertions.
> 
> Can't make this stuff up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "cant make this stuff up" is owned by me. I said it first. Find your own catch phrase.
> 
> And no, you truly cant make this stuff up.
Click to expand...


Thanks for proving my point Ducky Boy -  "cant make this stuff up" is owned by me. I said it first. Find your own catch phrase.

She can't - inferior intellectual capacities ...... care to stick your other foot in your mouth, or perhaps I can stick mine up your ass ... then again you'd probably "*get a kick out of that *"


----------



## GreenBean

Jarhead said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> 
> 
> Inferior Intellect
> Inferior Logic processing abilities
> Probable motor inadequacies
> Probable ugly / Low Hygiene slob
> Mentally diseased Pervert
> 
> etc... and so forth
> 
> And you obviously don't have much a life, as you are here day and night - seriously Fish Breath -Get a Life !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You worked really hard to convince yourself that list is true, didn't you?   *chuckle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fish breath? He called you Fish Breath and he questions YOUR intellect?
> Wow. You cant make this stuff up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so now we have a make believe devil dog -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yep. Deal with it, homophobe.
Click to expand...



And you admit you're "Make Believe" 

 yep - really can't make this shity up can ya ?  LOL ........


----------



## Jarhead

GreenBean said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Inferior Intellect
> Inferior Logic processing abilities
> Probable motor inadequacies
> Probable ugly / Low Hygiene slob
> Mentally diseased Pervert
> 
> etc... and so forth
> 
> And you obviously don't have much a life, as you are here day and night - seriously Fish Breath -Get a Life !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You worked really hard to convince yourself that list is true, didn't you?   *chuckle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fish breath? He called you Fish Breath and he questions YOUR intellect?
> Wow. You cant make this stuff up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so now we have a make believe devil dog -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yep. Deal with it, homophobe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And you admit you're "Make Believe"
> 
> yep - really can't make this shity up can ya ?  LOL ........
Click to expand...

Sure. If that works for you. I don't need your "belief" in me, your "approval of me" or your "confidence" in me. It makes absolutely no difference to me......So whatever you feel is fine with me.

Deal with it.


----------



## GreenBean

Jarhead said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You worked really hard to convince yourself that list is true, didn't you?   *chuckle
> 
> 
> 
> Fish breath? He called you Fish Breath and he questions YOUR intellect?
> Wow. You cant make this stuff up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so now we have a make believe devil dog
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yep. Deal with it, homophobe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And you admit you're "Make Believe"
> 
> yep - really can't make this shity up can ya ?  LOL ........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure. If that works for you. I don't need your "belief" in me, your "approval of me" or your "confidence" in me. It makes absolutely no difference to me......So whatever you feel is fine with me.
> 
> Deal with it.
Click to expand...

You obviously do - you seek to garner credibility by latching onto something you may have no right to - I'm calling you out faggot - you say were a Marine ... maybe - but I doubt it .

[Hows my foot feel ? - should I twist it a tad deeper]


----------



## Jarhead

GreenBean said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fish breath? He called you Fish Breath and he questions YOUR intellect?
> Wow. You cant make this stuff up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so now we have a make believe devil dog
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yep. Deal with it, homophobe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And you admit you're "Make Believe"
> 
> yep - really can't make this shity up can ya ?  LOL ........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure. If that works for you. I don't need your "belief" in me, your "approval of me" or your "confidence" in me. It makes absolutely no difference to me......So whatever you feel is fine with me.
> 
> Deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You obviously do - you seek to garner credibility by latching onto something you may have no right to - I'm calling you out faggot - you say were a Marine ... maybe - but I doubt it .
> 
> [Hows my foot feel ? - should I twist it a tad deeper]
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Thanks.


----------



## Conservative65

Seawytch said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Greenbean and the other social cons can't grasp that their opinion about anal sex (which heterosexuals loves as much as homosexuals), their opinions about the Bible, and the Bible itself has no standing in federal courts.
> 
> All of their above whining is . . . unhappy whining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't stand that your belief about fags being normal is accepted by everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think he can.
> 
> Certainly I can stand that my belief that homosexuals are normal is being  accepted by everyone everyone other than a few bigots like yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only by faggots and you faggot lovers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems there are more lovers than haters. You poor dear...
> 
> U.S. Acceptance of Gay Lesbian Relations Is the New Normal
Click to expand...


You can't call accepting something abnormal normal based on numbers.


----------



## JimBowie1958

bodecea said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the controversy in simply observing that fags are a bunch of cock-sucking bitches that like to take it up the ass?
> 
> What's controversial about that? Hell, everyone knows it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can tell you think about that aspect.....a lot....and this is one of the odd differences between people like you and gays like me.
> When you meet or see a person you think or know is gay, your mind immediately defaults to the sex act.
> 
> When I meet or see a person I think or know is straight, my mind doesn't seem to go there.
> 
> Isn't that odd?
Click to expand...


Oh, whahhhhhh, the libtard tries to do a counter-accusation that those opposed to militant homosexuals are therefore secretly homosexual themselves.

That tired old bullshit never gets old to you crusty shit munchers is it?


----------



## GreenBean

bodecea said:


> When you meet or see a person you think or know is gay, your mind immediately defaults to the sex act.



Your polluted and perverted mind works differently than that of normal sane heterosexuals - actually when I meet a faggot or dyke my first thought is one of Pity


----------



## JimBowie1958

JakeStarkey said:


> Greenbean and the other social cons can't grasp that their opinion about anal sex (which heterosexuals loves as much as homosexuals), their opinions about the Bible, and the Bible itself has no standing in federal courts.
> 
> All of their above whining is . . . unhappy whining.



Another one of your lies, Jake the Fake Retardsky.

Most heterosexuals do not like anal sex. When one walks down the side walk and sees a pile of shit, one doesn't step in it even with shoes on. IF one were barefoot that would be something I think 99% of us can agree is not going to be set in that shit.

Why would any guy with an IQ above room temperature put his DICK into shit?

ITs pretty damned stupid, you cocksucking ape.


----------



## GreenBean

JimBowie1958 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the controversy in simply observing that fags are a bunch of cock-sucking bitches that like to take it up the ass?
> 
> What's controversial about that? Hell, everyone knows it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can tell you think about that aspect.....a lot....and this is one of the odd differences between people like you and gays like me.
> When you meet or see a person you think or know is gay, your mind immediately defaults to the sex act.
> 
> When I meet or see a person I think or know is straight, my mind doesn't seem to go there.
> 
> Isn't that odd?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, whahhhhhh, the libtard tries to do a counter-accusation that those opposed to militant homosexuals are therefore secretly homosexual themselves.
> 
> That tired old bullshit never gets old to you crusty shit munchers is it?
Click to expand...

It's called *JAMMING* - and they actually have the technique outlined on paper - really - you can't make this shit up !


----------



## bodecea

GreenBean said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Inferior Intellect
> Inferior Logic processing abilities
> Probable motor inadequacies
> Probable ugly / Low Hygiene slob
> Mentally diseased Pervert
> 
> etc... and so forth
> 
> And you obviously don't have much a life, as you are here day and night - seriously Fish Breath -Get a Life !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You worked really hard to convince yourself that list is true, didn't you?   *chuckle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fish breath? He called you Fish Breath and he questions YOUR intellect?
> Wow. You cant make this stuff up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so now we have a make believe devil dog -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yep. Deal with it, homophobe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have anything of substance to add Penis Breath ?
Click to expand...

Well, let's see....first it's "fish breath"...then it's "penis breath".


Conservative65 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Greenbean and the other social cons can't grasp that their opinion about anal sex (which heterosexuals loves as much as homosexuals), their opinions about the Bible, and the Bible itself has no standing in federal courts.
> 
> All of their above whining is . . . unhappy whining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't stand that your belief about fags being normal is accepted by everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think he can.
> 
> Certainly I can stand that my belief that homosexuals are normal is being  accepted by everyone everyone other than a few bigots like yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only by faggots and you faggot lovers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems there are more lovers than haters. You poor dear...
> 
> U.S. Acceptance of Gay Lesbian Relations Is the New Normal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't call accepting something abnormal normal based on numbers.
Click to expand...

Right......lefthandedness is abnormal.


----------



## bodecea

GreenBean said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the controversy in simply observing that fags are a bunch of cock-sucking bitches that like to take it up the ass?
> 
> What's controversial about that? Hell, everyone knows it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can tell you think about that aspect.....a lot....and this is one of the odd differences between people like you and gays like me.
> When you meet or see a person you think or know is gay, your mind immediately defaults to the sex act.
> 
> When I meet or see a person I think or know is straight, my mind doesn't seem to go there.
> 
> Isn't that odd?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, whahhhhhh, the libtard tries to do a counter-accusation that those opposed to militant homosexuals are therefore secretly homosexual themselves.
> 
> That tired old bullshit never gets old to you crusty shit munchers is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called *JAMMING* - and they actually have the technique outlined on paper - really - you can't make this shit up !
Click to expand...

It's called *WHINING*  and you have the technique outlined on paper.   Tissue Paper.


----------



## bodecea

JimBowie1958 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Greenbean and the other social cons can't grasp that their opinion about anal sex (which heterosexuals loves as much as homosexuals), their opinions about the Bible, and the Bible itself has no standing in federal courts.
> 
> All of their above whining is . . . unhappy whining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another one of your lies, Jake the Fake Retardsky.
> 
> *Most heterosexuals do not like anal sex*. When one walks down the side walk and sees a pile of shit, one doesn't step in it even with shoes on. IF one were barefoot that would be something I think 99% of us can agree is not going to be set in that shit.
> 
> Why would any guy with an IQ above room temperature put his DICK into shit?
> 
> ITs pretty damned stupid, you cocksucking ape.
Click to expand...

You did a poll, did you?  What did that look like?


----------



## JakeStarkey

JimBowie1958 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Greenbean and the other social cons can't grasp that their opinion about anal sex (which heterosexuals loves as much as homosexuals), their opinions about the Bible, and the Bible itself has no standing in federal courts.
> 
> All of their above whining is . . . unhappy whining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another one of your lies, Jake the Fake Retardsky.
> 
> Most heterosexuals do not like anal sex. When one walks down the side walk and sees a pile of shit, one doesn't step in it even with shoes on. IF one were barefoot that would be something I think 99% of us can agree is not going to be set in that shit.
> 
> Why would any guy with an IQ above room temperature put his DICK into shit?
> 
> ITs pretty damned stupid, you cocksucking ape.
Click to expand...


Typical name calling when you have nothing of worth to offer, pretend pastor.  You never change. 

And whether or not the enjoyability of the act, it has nothing to do with marriage equality.  You are wrong of course, as you most always are.

Please post, jimbowie, it's good to see you around.


----------



## Syriusly

JimBowie1958 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Greenbean and the other social cons can't grasp that their opinion about anal sex (which heterosexuals loves as much as homosexuals), their opinions about the Bible, and the Bible itself has no standing in federal courts.
> 
> All of their above whining is . . . unhappy whining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another one of your lies, Jake the Fake Retardsky.
> 
> Most heterosexuals do not like anal sex.
Click to expand...


Yet a large proportion of heterosexuals have had anal sex- 44% of men, 36% of women. 
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf

Survey reveals US sex habits - NHS Choices - Health News

21% of the women in the 25-29 and 30-39 age groups had experienced anal sex in the last year.
About 20% of girls aged 18-19 had had anal sex at least once.
And its the third most common male sexual fantasy, right after threesomes and oral sex. 

Top 10 Sexual Fantasies for Men - Men s Health - Everyday Health


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you meet or see a person you think or know is gay, your mind immediately defaults to the sex act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your polluted and perverted mind works differently than that of normal sane heterosexuals - actually when I meet a faggot or dyke my first thought is one of Pity
Click to expand...


Oh come on- you know your first thought is whether you can get away with 'bitch slapping' them into the closet- first you size them up and see if you outweigh them by at least 50 and then whether anyone can see you and your three buddies.


----------



## Seawytch

Conservative65 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Greenbean and the other social cons can't grasp that their opinion about anal sex (which heterosexuals loves as much as homosexuals), their opinions about the Bible, and the Bible itself has no standing in federal courts.
> 
> All of their above whining is . . . unhappy whining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't stand that your belief about fags being normal is accepted by everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think he can.
> 
> Certainly I can stand that my belief that homosexuals are normal is being  accepted by everyone everyone other than a few bigots like yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only by faggots and you faggot lovers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems there are more lovers than haters. You poor dear...
> 
> U.S. Acceptance of Gay Lesbian Relations Is the New Normal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't call accepting something abnormal normal based on numbers.
Click to expand...


Right...we go by how you _feel_ about it.


----------



## Conservative65

Seawytch said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't stand that your belief about fags being normal is accepted by everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think he can.
> 
> Certainly I can stand that my belief that homosexuals are normal is being  accepted by everyone everyone other than a few bigots like yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only by faggots and you faggot lovers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems there are more lovers than haters. You poor dear...
> 
> U.S. Acceptance of Gay Lesbian Relations Is the New Normal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't call accepting something abnormal normal based on numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right...we go by how you _feel_ about it.
Click to expand...


You expect the rest of us to accept how you feel about it.


----------



## Seawytch

Conservative65 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he can.
> 
> Certainly I can stand that my belief that homosexuals are normal is being  accepted by everyone everyone other than a few bigots like yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Only by faggots and you faggot lovers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems there are more lovers than haters. You poor dear...
> 
> U.S. Acceptance of Gay Lesbian Relations Is the New Normal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't call accepting something abnormal normal based on numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right...we go by how you _feel_ about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You expect the rest of us to accept how you feel about it.
Click to expand...


Not in the least. You're free to feel any way you like. You simply cannot discriminate based on animus...as you are wont to do.


----------



## bodecea

GreenBean said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you meet or see a person you think or know is gay, your mind immediately defaults to the sex act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your polluted and perverted mind works differently than that of normal sane heterosexuals - actually when I meet a faggot or dyke my first thought is one of Pity
Click to expand...

Oh my yes....It certainly shows thru your postings.  I guess if you can't be FABULOUS, you can be pity-full.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Anyone can feel as they wish about marriage equality, but they can't stop it.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Inferior Intellect
> Inferior Logic processing abilities
> Probable motor inadequacies
> Probable ugly / Low Hygiene slob
> Mentally diseased Pervert
> 
> etc... and so forth
> 
> And you obviously don't have much a life, as you are here day and night - seriously Fish Breath -Get a Life !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You worked really hard to convince yourself that list is true, didn't you?   *chuckle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fish breath? He called you Fish Breath and he questions YOUR intellect?
> Wow. You cant make this stuff up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And then....as icing on the cake, he makes a claim (several, actually) and then thinks it's my job to prove a negative rather than it being up to him to prove his assertions.
> 
> Can't make this stuff up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "cant make this stuff up" is owned by me. I said it first. Find your own catch phrase.
> 
> And no, you truly cant make this stuff up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my point Ducky Boy -  "cant make this stuff up" is owned by me. I said it first. Find your own catch phrase.
> 
> She can't - inferior intellectual capacities ...... care to stick your other foot in your mouth, or perhaps I can stick mine up your ass ... then again you'd probably "*get a kick out of that *"
Click to expand...


Wow.....you really are delusional.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Inferior Intellect
> Inferior Logic processing abilities
> Probable motor inadequacies
> Probable ugly / Low Hygiene slob
> Mentally diseased Pervert
> 
> etc... and so forth
> 
> And you obviously don't have much a life, as you are here day and night - seriously Fish Breath -Get a Life !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You worked really hard to convince yourself that list is true, didn't you?   *chuckle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fish breath? He called you Fish Breath and he questions YOUR intellect?
> Wow. You cant make this stuff up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so now we have a make believe devil dog -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yep. Deal with it, homophobe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have anything of substance to add Penis Breath ?
Click to expand...


Says the person who thinks 'substance' is calling someone 'fish breath'


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which of course makes you a hateful bigot- just like the bigots who hated 'people like you' who happen to be Jewish or happen to be black.
> 
> You are all consumed with hating Americans because you identify them as those 'people'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means I look at things differently and you equate that with bigotry.  Typical Lib mentality of he doesn't believe like me so he's a bigot.
> 
> I despise people who think that because they like something a I should like it, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said you need to like something?    YOu don't have to like me, but don't think it's acceptable to keep me a second class citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one is making you a second class citizen , or even an inferior human being - you did that all by yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Inferior Intellect
> Inferior Logic processing abilities
> Probable motor inadequacies
> Probable ugly / Low Hygiene slob
> Mentally diseased Pervert
> !
Click to expand...


We don't openly hold any of those attributes of yours against you. 

We leave that to your mom.


----------



## Redfish

Seawytch said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody puts baby in the corner.  Why do you hate men?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate men. So long as they keep their tools out of each others mouths and back sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- so you hate any Americans who don't have sex the way you approve of? Oh wait- only American men who don't have sex the way you approve of.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most conservatives don't care what consenting adults do in their own homes, but there are exceptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> thats what the gay agenda is missing.   The truth.   No one cares what two consenting adults do in private.   The objection comes when a small minority in society decide to force their views on the rest of us.   No one wants gays to be punished or discriminated against.   But we do not agree that a gay hook up is equal morally, socially, or ethically to a man/woman marriage.
> 
> Human biology and anatomy support our views, not theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't care what your opinion is, the law disagrees with how you feel about it.
Click to expand...

 

its not my opinion, its biological fact.,


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> Civil rights are not submitted to winning the hearts and minds of the mintory hetero-fascists.


 

but thats exactly what you want.  you want a minority to dictate to the majority.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate men. So long as they keep their tools out of each others mouths and back sides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow- so you hate any Americans who don't have sex the way you approve of? Oh wait- only American men who don't have sex the way you approve of.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most conservatives don't care what consenting adults do in their own homes, but there are exceptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> thats what the gay agenda is missing.   The truth.   No one cares what two consenting adults do in private.   The objection comes when a small minority in society decide to force their views on the rest of us.   No one wants gays to be punished or discriminated against.   But we do not agree that a gay hook up is equal morally, socially, or ethically to a man/woman marriage.
> 
> Human biology and anatomy support our views, not theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't care what your opinion is, the law disagrees with how you feel about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its not my opinion, its biological fact.,
Click to expand...

The biological fact is most people are straight but some are not.  As far as we know it has always been that way.  Biology does not support your position, don't go there.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate men. So long as they keep their tools out of each others mouths and back sides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow- so you hate any Americans who don't have sex the way you approve of? Oh wait- only American men who don't have sex the way you approve of.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most conservatives don't care what consenting adults do in their own homes, but there are exceptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> thats what the gay agenda is missing.   The truth.   No one cares what two consenting adults do in private.   The objection comes when a small minority in society decide to force their views on the rest of us.   No one wants gays to be punished or discriminated against.   But we do not agree that a gay hook up is equal morally, socially, or ethically to a man/woman marriage.
> 
> Human biology and anatomy support our views, not theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't care what your opinion is, the law disagrees with how you feel about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its not my opinion, its biological fact.,
Click to expand...


So we are the Biological Republic of the USA.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civil rights are not submitted to winning the hearts and minds of the mintory hetero-fascists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but thats exactly what you want.  you want a minority to dictate to the majority.
Click to expand...

The minority is protected from the whims of the majority here.  If that didn't happen it would be mob rule.

If they were dictating then they would have said we can't get married so neither can you.


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> 1, stmike is not the face of Christianity or its doctrines.
> 
> 2. the anti-gay movement continues to lose traction.


 

you and wytch just don't get it.   Being anti-gay marriage is not being anti-gay.  

there is no anti-gay "movement".   GRow the fuck up.


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow- so you hate any Americans who don't have sex the way you approve of? Oh wait- only American men who don't have sex the way you approve of.....
> 
> 
> 
> Most conservatives don't care what consenting adults do in their own homes, but there are exceptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> thats what the gay agenda is missing.   The truth.   No one cares what two consenting adults do in private.   The objection comes when a small minority in society decide to force their views on the rest of us.   No one wants gays to be punished or discriminated against.   But we do not agree that a gay hook up is equal morally, socially, or ethically to a man/woman marriage.
> 
> Human biology and anatomy support our views, not theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't care what your opinion is, the law disagrees with how you feel about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its not my opinion, its biological fact.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we are the Biological Republic of the USA.
Click to expand...

 

what the hell does that mean?   Biology has always dictated how societies function.   The roles of males and females are very clear in all species.


----------



## Redfish

Seawytch said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't stand that your belief about fags being normal is accepted by everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think he can.
> 
> Certainly I can stand that my belief that homosexuals are normal is being  accepted by everyone everyone other than a few bigots like yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only by faggots and you faggot lovers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems there are more lovers than haters. You poor dear...
> 
> U.S. Acceptance of Gay Lesbian Relations Is the New Normal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't call accepting something abnormal normal based on numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right...we go by how you _feel_ about it.
Click to expand...

 

funny,  you want our entire society to function based on the way you feeeeeeeeeeeel about it.  You are a bigotted, confused idiot.


----------



## bodecea

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1, stmike is not the face of Christianity or its doctrines.
> 
> 2. the anti-gay movement continues to lose traction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you and wytch just don't get it.   Being anti-gay marriage is not being anti-gay.
> 
> there is no anti-gay "movement".   GRow the fuck up.
Click to expand...

If you are anti-gay marriage...don't have a gay marriage, don't go to a gay marriage.


----------



## bodecea

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most conservatives don't care what consenting adults do in their own homes, but there are exceptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thats what the gay agenda is missing.   The truth.   No one cares what two consenting adults do in private.   The objection comes when a small minority in society decide to force their views on the rest of us.   No one wants gays to be punished or discriminated against.   But we do not agree that a gay hook up is equal morally, socially, or ethically to a man/woman marriage.
> 
> Human biology and anatomy support our views, not theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't care what your opinion is, the law disagrees with how you feel about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its not my opinion, its biological fact.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we are the Biological Republic of the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what the hell does that mean?   Biology has always dictated how societies function.   The roles of males and females are very clear in all species.
Click to expand...

Really?


----------



## Redfish

bodecea said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1, stmike is not the face of Christianity or its doctrines.
> 
> 2. the anti-gay movement continues to lose traction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you and wytch just don't get it.   Being anti-gay marriage is not being anti-gay.
> 
> there is no anti-gay "movement".   GRow the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are anti-gay marriage...don't have a gay marriage, don't go to a gay marriage.
Click to expand...

 

gay marriage is an oxymoron.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most conservatives don't care what consenting adults do in their own homes, but there are exceptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thats what the gay agenda is missing.   The truth.   No one cares what two consenting adults do in private.   The objection comes when a small minority in society decide to force their views on the rest of us.   No one wants gays to be punished or discriminated against.   But we do not agree that a gay hook up is equal morally, socially, or ethically to a man/woman marriage.
> 
> Human biology and anatomy support our views, not theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't care what your opinion is, the law disagrees with how you feel about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its not my opinion, its biological fact.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we are the Biological Republic of the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what the hell does that mean?   Biology has always dictated how societies function.   The roles of males and females are very clear in all species.
Click to expand...

Boy do you need to learn biology.  Start with male fishes who carry the eggs.  And those other males who tend to them.  Not to mention societies that used to be run by females.


----------



## bodecea

Redfish said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1, stmike is not the face of Christianity or its doctrines.
> 
> 2. the anti-gay movement continues to lose traction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you and wytch just don't get it.   Being anti-gay marriage is not being anti-gay.
> 
> there is no anti-gay "movement".   GRow the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are anti-gay marriage...don't have a gay marriage, don't go to a gay marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> gay marriage is an oxymoron.
Click to expand...

Why?


----------



## bodecea

PaintMyHouse said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> thats what the gay agenda is missing.   The truth.   No one cares what two consenting adults do in private.   The objection comes when a small minority in society decide to force their views on the rest of us.   No one wants gays to be punished or discriminated against.   But we do not agree that a gay hook up is equal morally, socially, or ethically to a man/woman marriage.
> 
> Human biology and anatomy support our views, not theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't care what your opinion is, the law disagrees with how you feel about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its not my opinion, its biological fact.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we are the Biological Republic of the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what the hell does that mean?   Biology has always dictated how societies function.   The roles of males and females are very clear in all species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Boy do you need to learn biology.  Start with male fishes who carry the eggs.  And those other males who tend to them.  Not to mention societies that used to be run by females.
Click to expand...

Penguins where the male and female take equal turns on the nest or off getting food.


----------



## Redfish

Look, from this thread it is very clear that there is a wide difference of opinion on gay marriage, homosexuality in general, and whether it is a normal or abnormal human condition.

When societies face such differences they vote and the majority opinion is accepted, or dealt with, by all.

So, lets let america vote on whether the nation should sanction gay unions as marriages, allow them but call them something else, or ban them totally.

let the people speak.

whether you comprehend it or not, all of our rights in this country were originally established by majority vote.   We may say they were "God-given"   but we made them valid by majority vote.

Lets do the same on the gay issues and put the issue to bed (poor choice of words)  for a while.


----------



## bodecea

Redfish said:


> Look, from this thread it is very clear that there is a wide difference of opinion on gay marriage, homosexuality in general, and whether it is a normal or abnormal human condition.
> 
> When societies face such differences they vote and the majority opinion is accepted, or dealt with, by all.
> 
> So, lets let america vote on whether the nation should sanction gay unions as marriages, allow them but call them something else, or ban them totally.
> 
> let the people speak.
> 
> whether you comprehend it or not, all of our rights in this country were originally established by majority vote.   We may say they were "God-given"   but we made them valid by majority vote.
> 
> Lets do the same on the gay issues and put the issue to bed (poor choice of words)  for a while.


So..we vote on civil rights?


----------



## Conservative65

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he can.
> 
> Certainly I can stand that my belief that homosexuals are normal is being  accepted by everyone everyone other than a few bigots like yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Only by faggots and you faggot lovers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems there are more lovers than haters. You poor dear...
> 
> U.S. Acceptance of Gay Lesbian Relations Is the New Normal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't call accepting something abnormal normal based on numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right...we go by how you _feel_ about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> funny,  you want our entire society to function based on the way you feeeeeeeeeeeel about it.  You are a bigotted, confused idiot.
Click to expand...


It's funny when people like Seawytch say such things then demand society function the way she wants when it comes to marriage.


----------



## Redfish

bodecea said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't care what your opinion is, the law disagrees with how you feel about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its not my opinion, its biological fact.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we are the Biological Republic of the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what the hell does that mean?   Biology has always dictated how societies function.   The roles of males and females are very clear in all species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Boy do you need to learn biology.  Start with male fishes who carry the eggs.  And those other males who tend to them.  Not to mention societies that used to be run by females.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Penguins where the male and female take equal turns on the nest or off getting food.
Click to expand...

 
yes, they do.   the roles of the sexes are instinctive to them.    you don't see two female penguins sharing egg sitting and food gathering.


----------



## Redfish

bodecea said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, from this thread it is very clear that there is a wide difference of opinion on gay marriage, homosexuality in general, and whether it is a normal or abnormal human condition.
> 
> When societies face such differences they vote and the majority opinion is accepted, or dealt with, by all.
> 
> So, lets let america vote on whether the nation should sanction gay unions as marriages, allow them but call them something else, or ban them totally.
> 
> let the people speak.
> 
> whether you comprehend it or not, all of our rights in this country were originally established by majority vote.   We may say they were "God-given"   but we made them valid by majority vote.
> 
> Lets do the same on the gay issues and put the issue to bed (poor choice of words)  for a while.
> 
> 
> 
> So..we vote on civil rights?
Click to expand...

 

yes, of course we do.    How do you think the constitution and bill of rights became US law?    By a vote of the representatives of the states--------------YES we vote on civil rights.


----------



## Redfish

Conservative65 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only by faggots and you faggot lovers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems there are more lovers than haters. You poor dear...
> 
> U.S. Acceptance of Gay Lesbian Relations Is the New Normal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't call accepting something abnormal normal based on numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right...we go by how you _feel_ about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> funny,  you want our entire society to function based on the way you feeeeeeeeeeeel about it.  You are a bigotted, confused idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's funny when people like Seawytch say such things then demand society function the way she wants when it comes to marriage.
Click to expand...

 

its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.


----------



## bodecea

Redfish said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> its not my opinion, its biological fact.,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we are the Biological Republic of the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what the hell does that mean?   Biology has always dictated how societies function.   The roles of males and females are very clear in all species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Boy do you need to learn biology.  Start with male fishes who carry the eggs.  And those other males who tend to them.  Not to mention societies that used to be run by females.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Penguins where the male and female take equal turns on the nest or off getting food.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, they do.   the roles of the sexes are instinctive to them.    you don't see two female penguins sharing egg sitting and food gathering.
Click to expand...

Um...yes you can.


----------



## Conservative65

Redfish said:


> Look, from this thread it is very clear that there is a wide difference of opinion on gay marriage, homosexuality in general, and whether it is a normal or abnormal human condition.
> 
> When societies face such differences they vote and the majority opinion is accepted, or dealt with, by all.
> 
> So, lets let america vote on whether the nation should sanction gay unions as marriages, allow them but call them something else, or ban them totally.
> 
> let the people speak.
> 
> whether you comprehend it or not, all of our rights in this country were originally established by majority vote.   We may say they were "God-given"   but we made them valid by majority vote.
> 
> Lets do the same on the gay issues and put the issue to bed (poor choice of words)  for a while.



The same sex marriage supporters claim a majority of the people in the country support it.  If that is true, why would they be opposed to having a vote.  If they hold the majority they claim, wouldn't that guarantee a win for them.


----------



## Redfish

bodecea said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we are the Biological Republic of the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what the hell does that mean?   Biology has always dictated how societies function.   The roles of males and females are very clear in all species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Boy do you need to learn biology.  Start with male fishes who carry the eggs.  And those other males who tend to them.  Not to mention societies that used to be run by females.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Penguins where the male and female take equal turns on the nest or off getting food.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, they do.   the roles of the sexes are instinctive to them.    you don't see two female penguins sharing egg sitting and food gathering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um...yes you can.
Click to expand...

 

proof?


----------



## bodecea

Conservative65 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only by faggots and you faggot lovers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems there are more lovers than haters. You poor dear...
> 
> U.S. Acceptance of Gay Lesbian Relations Is the New Normal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't call accepting something abnormal normal based on numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right...we go by how you _feel_ about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> funny,  you want our entire society to function based on the way you feeeeeeeeeeeel about it.  You are a bigotted, confused idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's funny when people like Seawytch say such things then demand society function the way she wants when it comes to marriage.
Click to expand...

Seawytch is demanding that society all have a gay marriage?


----------



## Redfish

Conservative65 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, from this thread it is very clear that there is a wide difference of opinion on gay marriage, homosexuality in general, and whether it is a normal or abnormal human condition.
> 
> When societies face such differences they vote and the majority opinion is accepted, or dealt with, by all.
> 
> So, lets let america vote on whether the nation should sanction gay unions as marriages, allow them but call them something else, or ban them totally.
> 
> let the people speak.
> 
> whether you comprehend it or not, all of our rights in this country were originally established by majority vote.   We may say they were "God-given"   but we made them valid by majority vote.
> 
> Lets do the same on the gay issues and put the issue to bed (poor choice of words)  for a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same sex marriage supporters claim a majority of the people in the country support it.  If that is true, why would they be opposed to having a vote.  If they hold the majority they claim, wouldn't that guarantee a win for them.
Click to expand...

 

because they know that they are not in a majority.  prop 8 in california proved that


----------



## pillars

Redfish said:


> but thats exactly what you want.  you want a minority to dictate to the majority.


 
The 3 branches of government were established to prevent the tyranny of the majority over the minority.  No one is forcing you to become gay, attend a gay wedding, condone or endorse gay marriage, or marry gay people.  But, you don't  get to determine what someone else's rights should be.


----------



## bodecea

Conservative65 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, from this thread it is very clear that there is a wide difference of opinion on gay marriage, homosexuality in general, and whether it is a normal or abnormal human condition.
> 
> When societies face such differences they vote and the majority opinion is accepted, or dealt with, by all.
> 
> So, lets let america vote on whether the nation should sanction gay unions as marriages, allow them but call them something else, or ban them totally.
> 
> let the people speak.
> 
> whether you comprehend it or not, all of our rights in this country were originally established by majority vote.   We may say they were "God-given"   but we made them valid by majority vote.
> 
> Lets do the same on the gay issues and put the issue to bed (poor choice of words)  for a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same sex marriage supporters claim a majority of the people in the country support it.  If that is true, why would they be opposed to having a vote.  If they hold the majority they claim, wouldn't that guarantee a win for them.
Click to expand...

No problems now....but again.....you think civil rights should be up for a vote?    How about we have a vote on the civil rights of....let's say.....Mormons.  A vote, mind you.

Or how about a vote on the civil rights of obese people.  A vote.

Or how about a vote on the civil rights of homeless people.  A vote.


----------



## Redfish

bodecea said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems there are more lovers than haters. You poor dear...
> 
> U.S. Acceptance of Gay Lesbian Relations Is the New Normal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't call accepting something abnormal normal based on numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right...we go by how you _feel_ about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> funny,  you want our entire society to function based on the way you feeeeeeeeeeeel about it.  You are a bigotted, confused idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's funny when people like Seawytch say such things then demand society function the way she wants when it comes to marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seawytch is demanding that society all have a gay marriage?
Click to expand...

 

she is demanding that society recognize gay marriage as normal.   You cannot be as dumb as you seem.


----------



## Conservative65

Redfish said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems there are more lovers than haters. You poor dear...
> 
> U.S. Acceptance of Gay Lesbian Relations Is the New Normal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't call accepting something abnormal normal based on numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right...we go by how you _feel_ about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> funny,  you want our entire society to function based on the way you feeeeeeeeeeeel about it.  You are a bigotted, confused idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's funny when people like Seawytch say such things then demand society function the way she wants when it comes to marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.
Click to expand...


Most lefties are.  They live by the concept that it's OK for them to do something they say is wrong if done in a way they don't like.  Use the marriage argument they put forth.  Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it.  At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage.  They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples.  They do toward those situations what they say is wrong to do for consenting adults.  They try to justify it with hypocrisy by claiming there are compelling reasons in those cases.  The hypocrisy they don't see is that they think they can determine what is compelling when they don't like it but in cases they support, no reason is compelling.


----------



## Conservative65

bodecea said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, from this thread it is very clear that there is a wide difference of opinion on gay marriage, homosexuality in general, and whether it is a normal or abnormal human condition.
> 
> When societies face such differences they vote and the majority opinion is accepted, or dealt with, by all.
> 
> So, lets let america vote on whether the nation should sanction gay unions as marriages, allow them but call them something else, or ban them totally.
> 
> let the people speak.
> 
> whether you comprehend it or not, all of our rights in this country were originally established by majority vote.   We may say they were "God-given"   but we made them valid by majority vote.
> 
> Lets do the same on the gay issues and put the issue to bed (poor choice of words)  for a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same sex marriage supporters claim a majority of the people in the country support it.  If that is true, why would they be opposed to having a vote.  If they hold the majority they claim, wouldn't that guarantee a win for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No problems now....but again.....you think civil rights should be up for a vote?    How about we have a vote on the civil rights of....let's say.....Mormons.  A vote, mind you.
> 
> Or how about a vote on the civil rights of obese people.  A vote.
> 
> Or how about a vote on the civil rights of homeless people.  A vote.
Click to expand...


The point I was making is they don't know if they are in a majority.  If there claim was true, it's like having absolute knowledge that  bet you can make is guaranteed to win yet not making the bet.


----------



## bodecea

Redfish said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, from this thread it is very clear that there is a wide difference of opinion on gay marriage, homosexuality in general, and whether it is a normal or abnormal human condition.
> 
> When societies face such differences they vote and the majority opinion is accepted, or dealt with, by all.
> 
> So, lets let america vote on whether the nation should sanction gay unions as marriages, allow them but call them something else, or ban them totally.
> 
> let the people speak.
> 
> whether you comprehend it or not, all of our rights in this country were originally established by majority vote.   We may say they were "God-given"   but we made them valid by majority vote.
> 
> Lets do the same on the gay issues and put the issue to bed (poor choice of words)  for a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same sex marriage supporters claim a majority of the people in the country support it.  If that is true, why would they be opposed to having a vote.  If they hold the majority they claim, wouldn't that guarantee a win for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> because they know that they are not in a majority.  prop 8 in california proved that
Click to expand...

Prop H8 would never win again.   Prop 22 won by over 15%...Prop H8 barely won...and that's with money pouring in from Utah and congregations pouring out to street corners (with their children) on Sundays.


----------



## Redfish

bodecea said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, from this thread it is very clear that there is a wide difference of opinion on gay marriage, homosexuality in general, and whether it is a normal or abnormal human condition.
> 
> When societies face such differences they vote and the majority opinion is accepted, or dealt with, by all.
> 
> So, lets let america vote on whether the nation should sanction gay unions as marriages, allow them but call them something else, or ban them totally.
> 
> let the people speak.
> 
> whether you comprehend it or not, all of our rights in this country were originally established by majority vote.   We may say they were "God-given"   but we made them valid by majority vote.
> 
> Lets do the same on the gay issues and put the issue to bed (poor choice of words)  for a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same sex marriage supporters claim a majority of the people in the country support it.  If that is true, why would they be opposed to having a vote.  If they hold the majority they claim, wouldn't that guarantee a win for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No problems now....but again.....you think civil rights should be up for a vote?    How about we have a vote on the civil rights of....let's say.....Mormons.  A vote, mind you.
> 
> Or how about a vote on the civil rights of obese people.  A vote.
> 
> Or how about a vote on the civil rights of homeless people.  A vote.
Click to expand...

 

Those would require changing existing rights that were passed by majority votes.   How exactly do you think the civil rights law became law?  Did it just fall from the sky or was it voted on?


----------



## bodecea

Conservative65 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't call accepting something abnormal normal based on numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right...we go by how you _feel_ about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> funny,  you want our entire society to function based on the way you feeeeeeeeeeeel about it.  You are a bigotted, confused idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's funny when people like Seawytch say such things then demand society function the way she wants when it comes to marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most lefties are.  They live by the concept that it's OK for them to do something they say is wrong if done in a way they don't like.  Use the marriage argument they put forth.  Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it.  At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage.  They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples.  They do toward those situations what they say is wrong to do for consenting adults.  They try to justify it with hypocrisy by claiming there are compelling reasons in those cases.  The hypocrisy they don't see is that they think they can determine what is compelling when they don't like it but in cases they support, no reason is compelling.
Click to expand...

Make your legal case for incest marriage.  I don't plan to stand in your way.


----------



## Conservative65

bodecea said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, from this thread it is very clear that there is a wide difference of opinion on gay marriage, homosexuality in general, and whether it is a normal or abnormal human condition.
> 
> When societies face such differences they vote and the majority opinion is accepted, or dealt with, by all.
> 
> So, lets let america vote on whether the nation should sanction gay unions as marriages, allow them but call them something else, or ban them totally.
> 
> let the people speak.
> 
> whether you comprehend it or not, all of our rights in this country were originally established by majority vote.   We may say they were "God-given"   but we made them valid by majority vote.
> 
> Lets do the same on the gay issues and put the issue to bed (poor choice of words)  for a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same sex marriage supporters claim a majority of the people in the country support it.  If that is true, why would they be opposed to having a vote.  If they hold the majority they claim, wouldn't that guarantee a win for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> because they know that they are not in a majority.  prop 8 in california proved that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prop H8 would never win again.   Prop 22 won by over 15%...Prop H8 barely won...and that's with money pouring in from Utah and congregations pouring out to street corners (with their children) on Sundays.
Click to expand...


Dollar bills don't vote.  It matters not how much money is spent unless the money can actually cast a vote.


----------



## Redfish

bodecea said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, from this thread it is very clear that there is a wide difference of opinion on gay marriage, homosexuality in general, and whether it is a normal or abnormal human condition.
> 
> When societies face such differences they vote and the majority opinion is accepted, or dealt with, by all.
> 
> So, lets let america vote on whether the nation should sanction gay unions as marriages, allow them but call them something else, or ban them totally.
> 
> let the people speak.
> 
> whether you comprehend it or not, all of our rights in this country were originally established by majority vote.   We may say they were "God-given"   but we made them valid by majority vote.
> 
> Lets do the same on the gay issues and put the issue to bed (poor choice of words)  for a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same sex marriage supporters claim a majority of the people in the country support it.  If that is true, why would they be opposed to having a vote.  If they hold the majority they claim, wouldn't that guarantee a win for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> because they know that they are not in a majority.  prop 8 in california proved that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prop H8 would never win again.   Prop 22 won by over 15%...Prop H8 barely won...and that's with money pouring in from Utah and congregations pouring out to street corners (with their children) on Sundays.
Click to expand...

 

so what is you objection to having a national referendum in every state on gay marriage?


----------



## bodecea

Redfish said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, from this thread it is very clear that there is a wide difference of opinion on gay marriage, homosexuality in general, and whether it is a normal or abnormal human condition.
> 
> When societies face such differences they vote and the majority opinion is accepted, or dealt with, by all.
> 
> So, lets let america vote on whether the nation should sanction gay unions as marriages, allow them but call them something else, or ban them totally.
> 
> let the people speak.
> 
> whether you comprehend it or not, all of our rights in this country were originally established by majority vote.   We may say they were "God-given"   but we made them valid by majority vote.
> 
> Lets do the same on the gay issues and put the issue to bed (poor choice of words)  for a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same sex marriage supporters claim a majority of the people in the country support it.  If that is true, why would they be opposed to having a vote.  If they hold the majority they claim, wouldn't that guarantee a win for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No problems now....but again.....you think civil rights should be up for a vote?    How about we have a vote on the civil rights of....let's say.....Mormons.  A vote, mind you.
> 
> Or how about a vote on the civil rights of obese people.  A vote.
> 
> Or how about a vote on the civil rights of homeless people.  A vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Those would require changing existing rights that were passed by majority votes.   How exactly do you think the civil rights law became law?  Did it just fall from the sky or was it voted on?
Click to expand...

So?   You said it's all about majority rules.   Now you move the goal posts?

I think it would be FUN to put a certain minority group of RWrs' civil rights up for a vote.  After all....you think majority rules in everything.


----------



## Conservative65

bodecea said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right...we go by how you _feel_ about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> funny,  you want our entire society to function based on the way you feeeeeeeeeeeel about it.  You are a bigotted, confused idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's funny when people like Seawytch say such things then demand society function the way she wants when it comes to marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most lefties are.  They live by the concept that it's OK for them to do something they say is wrong if done in a way they don't like.  Use the marriage argument they put forth.  Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it.  At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage.  They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples.  They do toward those situations what they say is wrong to do for consenting adults.  They try to justify it with hypocrisy by claiming there are compelling reasons in those cases.  The hypocrisy they don't see is that they think they can determine what is compelling when they don't like it but in cases they support, no reason is compelling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make your legal case for incest marriage.  I don't plan to stand in your way.
Click to expand...


I said I didn't support it personally.  What I support is those who say two consenting adults should be able to get married apply that concept to those they don't like as they demand those who oppose same sex marriage do.  If the same sex supporters legal claim is equal protection and that two consenting adults should be able to get married, they've provided the legal argument they immediately oppose when a type of marriage they don't like is suggested.


----------



## bodecea

Redfish said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, from this thread it is very clear that there is a wide difference of opinion on gay marriage, homosexuality in general, and whether it is a normal or abnormal human condition.
> 
> When societies face such differences they vote and the majority opinion is accepted, or dealt with, by all.
> 
> So, lets let america vote on whether the nation should sanction gay unions as marriages, allow them but call them something else, or ban them totally.
> 
> let the people speak.
> 
> whether you comprehend it or not, all of our rights in this country were originally established by majority vote.   We may say they were "God-given"   but we made them valid by majority vote.
> 
> Lets do the same on the gay issues and put the issue to bed (poor choice of words)  for a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same sex marriage supporters claim a majority of the people in the country support it.  If that is true, why would they be opposed to having a vote.  If they hold the majority they claim, wouldn't that guarantee a win for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> because they know that they are not in a majority.  prop 8 in california proved that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prop H8 would never win again.   Prop 22 won by over 15%...Prop H8 barely won...and that's with money pouring in from Utah and congregations pouring out to street corners (with their children) on Sundays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so what is you objection to having a national referendum in every state on gay marriage?
Click to expand...

Because civil rights aren't up for majority vote....that's YOUR side of the issue.

(Do you think inter-racial marriage would win if it was up for a vote?)


----------



## Conservative65

Redfish said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, from this thread it is very clear that there is a wide difference of opinion on gay marriage, homosexuality in general, and whether it is a normal or abnormal human condition.
> 
> When societies face such differences they vote and the majority opinion is accepted, or dealt with, by all.
> 
> So, lets let america vote on whether the nation should sanction gay unions as marriages, allow them but call them something else, or ban them totally.
> 
> let the people speak.
> 
> whether you comprehend it or not, all of our rights in this country were originally established by majority vote.   We may say they were "God-given"   but we made them valid by majority vote.
> 
> Lets do the same on the gay issues and put the issue to bed (poor choice of words)  for a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same sex marriage supporters claim a majority of the people in the country support it.  If that is true, why would they be opposed to having a vote.  If they hold the majority they claim, wouldn't that guarantee a win for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> because they know that they are not in a majority.  prop 8 in california proved that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prop H8 would never win again.   Prop 22 won by over 15%...Prop H8 barely won...and that's with money pouring in from Utah and congregations pouring out to street corners (with their children) on Sundays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so what is you objection to having a national referendum in every state on gay marriage?
Click to expand...


That objection proves to me their claim of having majority support nationwide is wrong.


----------



## Conservative65

bodecea said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, from this thread it is very clear that there is a wide difference of opinion on gay marriage, homosexuality in general, and whether it is a normal or abnormal human condition.
> 
> When societies face such differences they vote and the majority opinion is accepted, or dealt with, by all.
> 
> So, lets let america vote on whether the nation should sanction gay unions as marriages, allow them but call them something else, or ban them totally.
> 
> let the people speak.
> 
> whether you comprehend it or not, all of our rights in this country were originally established by majority vote.   We may say they were "God-given"   but we made them valid by majority vote.
> 
> Lets do the same on the gay issues and put the issue to bed (poor choice of words)  for a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same sex marriage supporters claim a majority of the people in the country support it.  If that is true, why would they be opposed to having a vote.  If they hold the majority they claim, wouldn't that guarantee a win for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> because they know that they are not in a majority.  prop 8 in california proved that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prop H8 would never win again.   Prop 22 won by over 15%...Prop H8 barely won...and that's with money pouring in from Utah and congregations pouring out to street corners (with their children) on Sundays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so what is you objection to having a national referendum in every state on gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because civil rights aren't up for majority vote....that's YOUR side of the issue.
> 
> (Do you think inter-racial marriage would win if it was up for a vote?)
Click to expand...


According to those like PaintMyHouse, since rights are granted by society, society can limit them when necessary.  Which one is it.


----------



## Redfish

bodecea said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, from this thread it is very clear that there is a wide difference of opinion on gay marriage, homosexuality in general, and whether it is a normal or abnormal human condition.
> 
> When societies face such differences they vote and the majority opinion is accepted, or dealt with, by all.
> 
> So, lets let america vote on whether the nation should sanction gay unions as marriages, allow them but call them something else, or ban them totally.
> 
> let the people speak.
> 
> whether you comprehend it or not, all of our rights in this country were originally established by majority vote.   We may say they were "God-given"   but we made them valid by majority vote.
> 
> Lets do the same on the gay issues and put the issue to bed (poor choice of words)  for a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same sex marriage supporters claim a majority of the people in the country support it.  If that is true, why would they be opposed to having a vote.  If they hold the majority they claim, wouldn't that guarantee a win for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No problems now....but again.....you think civil rights should be up for a vote?    How about we have a vote on the civil rights of....let's say.....Mormons.  A vote, mind you.
> 
> Or how about a vote on the civil rights of obese people.  A vote.
> 
> Or how about a vote on the civil rights of homeless people.  A vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Those would require changing existing rights that were passed by majority votes.   How exactly do you think the civil rights law became law?  Did it just fall from the sky or was it voted on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?   You said it's all about majority rules.   Now you move the goal posts?
> 
> I think it would be FUN to put a certain minority group of RWrs' civil rights up for a vote.  After all....you think majority rules in everything.
Click to expand...

 

in a democracy majority does rule in everything.   you confuse minority votes with minority views, races, etc.  

the rights of minorities were established by the majority.   Do you know anything about how this country works?


----------



## Redfish

bodecea said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, from this thread it is very clear that there is a wide difference of opinion on gay marriage, homosexuality in general, and whether it is a normal or abnormal human condition.
> 
> When societies face such differences they vote and the majority opinion is accepted, or dealt with, by all.
> 
> So, lets let america vote on whether the nation should sanction gay unions as marriages, allow them but call them something else, or ban them totally.
> 
> let the people speak.
> 
> whether you comprehend it or not, all of our rights in this country were originally established by majority vote.   We may say they were "God-given"   but we made them valid by majority vote.
> 
> Lets do the same on the gay issues and put the issue to bed (poor choice of words)  for a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same sex marriage supporters claim a majority of the people in the country support it.  If that is true, why would they be opposed to having a vote.  If they hold the majority they claim, wouldn't that guarantee a win for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> because they know that they are not in a majority.  prop 8 in california proved that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prop H8 would never win again.   Prop 22 won by over 15%...Prop H8 barely won...and that's with money pouring in from Utah and congregations pouring out to street corners (with their children) on Sundays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so what is you objection to having a national referendum in every state on gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because civil rights aren't up for majority vote....that's YOUR side of the issue.
> 
> (Do you think inter-racial marriage would win if it was up for a vote?)
Click to expand...

 

yes, I do.    not in 1890, but today it would pass.   if you are so sure a majority support gay marriage why do you fear a vote?


----------



## Conservative65

bodecea said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems there are more lovers than haters. You poor dear...
> 
> U.S. Acceptance of Gay Lesbian Relations Is the New Normal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't call accepting something abnormal normal based on numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right...we go by how you _feel_ about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> funny,  you want our entire society to function based on the way you feeeeeeeeeeeel about it.  You are a bigotted, confused idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's funny when people like Seawytch say such things then demand society function the way she wants when it comes to marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seawytch is demanding that society all have a gay marriage?
Click to expand...

She's demanding society accept gay marriage as OK.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

pillars said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> but thats exactly what you want.  you want a minority to dictate to the majority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 3 branches of government were established to prevent the tyranny of the majority over the minority.  No one is forcing you to become gay, attend a gay wedding, condone or endorse gay marriage, or marry gay people.  But, you don't  get to determine what someone else's rights should be.
Click to expand...


The Sexually Abnormal are not being tyrannized.  ROFLMNAO!

To the Contrary, the Sexually Abnormal are presently being allowed to DEMONSTRATE THAT SEXUAL ABNORMALITY IS A MENTAL DISORDER.

Since the beginning of mankind, such has been noted as a threat to the species.  As Civilization progressed, various cultures have accepted such and without exception, normalizing sexual abnormality was quickly followed by the failure of the culture.  

And we can see WHY in the behavior of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, over just the last few years; as they have gone from being entirely NEGATED, their sexuality being ILLEGAL, to their suing people, RUINING LIVES OF THE INNOCENT who were merely exercising their rights to not participate in behavior which THEY RECOGNIZE as unreasonably debauched, intellectually deranged and physiologically deviant.

People who simply state that they are against the destruction of marriage, are being FIRED from PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT... 

The Argument against the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality was and remains that to normalize them will result in the promotion of Sexual Abnormality, the lowering of public standards and the means of individuals to speak freely against such behavior without fear of Government reprisal, will be injured.

THAT IS WHAT HAS HAPPENED... and that is why the homosexuals will soon be returned to the top shelf and toward the back of the proverbial closet.


----------



## Conservative65

Redfish said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same sex marriage supporters claim a majority of the people in the country support it.  If that is true, why would they be opposed to having a vote.  If they hold the majority they claim, wouldn't that guarantee a win for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because they know that they are not in a majority.  prop 8 in california proved that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prop H8 would never win again.   Prop 22 won by over 15%...Prop H8 barely won...and that's with money pouring in from Utah and congregations pouring out to street corners (with their children) on Sundays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so what is you objection to having a national referendum in every state on gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because civil rights aren't up for majority vote....that's YOUR side of the issue.
> 
> (Do you think inter-racial marriage would win if it was up for a vote?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes, I do.    not in 1890, but today it would pass.   if you are so sure a majority support gay marriage why do you fear a vote?
Click to expand...


So do I with interracial marriage.  

I don't understand why same sex supporters that claim they have majority support for it don't want a vote if their claim means they are guaranteed to win.  It would be like me knowing the lottery numbers for tonight's drawing and not buying a ticket.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Conservative65 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't call accepting something abnormal normal based on numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right...we go by how you _feel_ about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> funny,  you want our entire society to function based on the way you feeeeeeeeeeeel about it.  You are a bigotted, confused idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's funny when people like Seawytch say such things then demand society function the way she wants when it comes to marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most lefties are.  They live by the concept that it's OK for them to do something they say is wrong if done in a way they don't like.  Use the marriage argument they put forth.  Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it.  At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage.  They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples.  They do toward those situations what they say is wrong to do for consenting adults.  They try to justify it with hypocrisy by claiming there are compelling reasons in those cases.  The hypocrisy they don't see is that they think they can determine what is compelling when they don't like it but in cases they support, no reason is compelling.
Click to expand...


The Ideological Left does not contest incest marriage, nor do they contest polygamy, or bestiality... And they don't care about it, because they're idiots without the slightest means to reason through the equation and recognize the immorality of such and the destructive nature of immorality... and they do so, because they can't stand the idea that someone else should tell them how to act.  

The Left wants to be free, without bearing ANY of the responsibilities that are intrinsic to such.

FTR: That's OKA: Evil...


----------



## Conservative65

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right...we go by how you _feel_ about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> funny,  you want our entire society to function based on the way you feeeeeeeeeeeel about it.  You are a bigotted, confused idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's funny when people like Seawytch say such things then demand society function the way she wants when it comes to marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most lefties are.  They live by the concept that it's OK for them to do something they say is wrong if done in a way they don't like.  Use the marriage argument they put forth.  Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it.  At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage.  They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples.  They do toward those situations what they say is wrong to do for consenting adults.  They try to justify it with hypocrisy by claiming there are compelling reasons in those cases.  The hypocrisy they don't see is that they think they can determine what is compelling when they don't like it but in cases they support, no reason is compelling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Ideological Left does not contest incest marriage, nor do they contest polygamy, or bestiality... And they don't care about it, because they're idiots without the slightest means to reason through the equation and recognize the immorality of such and the destructive nature of immorality... and they do so, because they can't stand the idea that someone else should tell them how to act.
> 
> The Left wants to be free, without bearing ANY of the responsibilities that are intrinsic to such.
> 
> FTR: That's OKA: Evil...
Click to expand...


I've met few that don't oppose those.


----------



## Redfish

Conservative65 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> funny,  you want our entire society to function based on the way you feeeeeeeeeeeel about it.  You are a bigotted, confused idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny when people like Seawytch say such things then demand society function the way she wants when it comes to marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most lefties are.  They live by the concept that it's OK for them to do something they say is wrong if done in a way they don't like.  Use the marriage argument they put forth.  Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it.  At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage.  They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples.  They do toward those situations what they say is wrong to do for consenting adults.  They try to justify it with hypocrisy by claiming there are compelling reasons in those cases.  The hypocrisy they don't see is that they think they can determine what is compelling when they don't like it but in cases they support, no reason is compelling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Ideological Left does not contest incest marriage, nor do they contest polygamy, or bestiality... And they don't care about it, because they're idiots without the slightest means to reason through the equation and recognize the immorality of such and the destructive nature of immorality... and they do so, because they can't stand the idea that someone else should tell them how to act.
> 
> The Left wants to be free, without bearing ANY of the responsibilities that are intrinsic to such.
> 
> FTR: That's OKA: Evil...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've met few that don't oppose those.
Click to expand...

 

yep,  the liberal mantra,  if it feels good, do it, and make it legal.   if it destroys society, so fricking what.  

liberalism is a mental disease.


----------



## Conservative65

Redfish said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny when people like Seawytch say such things then demand society function the way she wants when it comes to marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most lefties are.  They live by the concept that it's OK for them to do something they say is wrong if done in a way they don't like.  Use the marriage argument they put forth.  Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it.  At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage.  They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples.  They do toward those situations what they say is wrong to do for consenting adults.  They try to justify it with hypocrisy by claiming there are compelling reasons in those cases.  The hypocrisy they don't see is that they think they can determine what is compelling when they don't like it but in cases they support, no reason is compelling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Ideological Left does not contest incest marriage, nor do they contest polygamy, or bestiality... And they don't care about it, because they're idiots without the slightest means to reason through the equation and recognize the immorality of such and the destructive nature of immorality... and they do so, because they can't stand the idea that someone else should tell them how to act.
> 
> The Left wants to be free, without bearing ANY of the responsibilities that are intrinsic to such.
> 
> FTR: That's OKA: Evil...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've met few that don't oppose those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yep,  the liberal mantra,  if it feels good, do it, and make it legal.   if it destroys society, so fricking what.
> 
> liberalism is a mental disease.
Click to expand...


I would say  it's if I want it you should support it but if you expect me to do the same, you're forcing your beliefs down my throat.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civil rights are not submitted to winning the hearts and minds of the mintory hetero-fascists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but thats exactly what you want.  you want a minority to dictate to the majority.
Click to expand...



I've never seen homosexuals stating that the law should be that heterosexuals are required to Civilly Marry someone of the same sex.


Why do people not send me the memo.


>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher

Redfish said:


> Look, from this thread it is very clear that there is a wide difference of opinion on gay marriage, homosexuality in general, and whether it is a normal or abnormal human condition.
> 
> When societies face such differences they vote and the majority opinion is accepted, or dealt with, by all.
> 
> So, lets let america vote on whether the nation should sanction gay unions as marriages, allow them but call them something else, or ban them totally.
> 
> let the people speak.
> 
> whether you comprehend it or not, all of our rights in this country were originally established by majority vote.   We may say they were "God-given"   but we made them valid by majority vote.
> 
> Lets do the same on the gay issues and put the issue to bed (poor choice of words)  for a while.




1.  There are no provisions within the constitution for the nation to vote on laws.

2.  The State of Alabama (amongst others) voted to deny Civil Marriage to mixed race couples.  Do you support the power of people to vote for that?


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher

Redfish said:


> gay marriage is an oxymoron.




How can it be an oxymoron when there were votes by the people of a State that approved Civil Marriage for same sex couples.


>>>>


----------



## bodecea

Redfish said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same sex marriage supporters claim a majority of the people in the country support it.  If that is true, why would they be opposed to having a vote.  If they hold the majority they claim, wouldn't that guarantee a win for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because they know that they are not in a majority.  prop 8 in california proved that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prop H8 would never win again.   Prop 22 won by over 15%...Prop H8 barely won...and that's with money pouring in from Utah and congregations pouring out to street corners (with their children) on Sundays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so what is you objection to having a national referendum in every state on gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because civil rights aren't up for majority vote....that's YOUR side of the issue.
> 
> (Do you think inter-racial marriage would win if it was up for a vote?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes, I do.    not in 1890, but today it would pass.   if you are so sure a majority support gay marriage why do you fear a vote?
Click to expand...

It might not have passed in 1990.....and what is it, do you think, that changed the minds of people in that regard?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

WorldWatcher said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civil rights are not submitted to winning the hearts and minds of the mintory hetero-fascists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but thats exactly what you want.  you want a minority to dictate to the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen homosexuals stating that the law should be that heterosexuals are required to Civilly Marry someone of the same sex.
> 
> 
> Why do people not send me the memo.
> 
> 
> >>>
Click to expand...


The Left is evil...  And Evil ever comes in and says" Hey, if ya listen to me, your life will be ruined."

The Left says: "Hey, if ya drop the Sodomy Laws, we'll NEVER ask to be allowed to join the military or to be married or to adopt children".  They such at every venue wherein the issue is discussed, for a couple of decades... and where it is pointed out the the logical extension of dropping the sodomy laws, is that they will demand to be allowed to serve in the US Military and that they'll demand to be married and to adopt children, they RAIL ON IN FAUX OUTRAGE that such assertions are fallacious, interjecting the ubiquitous "Slippery Slope".

Then, when the sodomy laws are dropped, they demand to be allowed to serve in the Military to Marry and adopt children.

That's what evil does.


----------



## bodecea

Conservative65 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most lefties are.  They live by the concept that it's OK for them to do something they say is wrong if done in a way they don't like.  Use the marriage argument they put forth.  Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it.  At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage.  They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples.  They do toward those situations what they say is wrong to do for consenting adults.  They try to justify it with hypocrisy by claiming there are compelling reasons in those cases.  The hypocrisy they don't see is that they think they can determine what is compelling when they don't like it but in cases they support, no reason is compelling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Ideological Left does not contest incest marriage, nor do they contest polygamy, or bestiality... And they don't care about it, because they're idiots without the slightest means to reason through the equation and recognize the immorality of such and the destructive nature of immorality... and they do so, because they can't stand the idea that someone else should tell them how to act.
> 
> The Left wants to be free, without bearing ANY of the responsibilities that are intrinsic to such.
> 
> FTR: That's OKA: Evil...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've met few that don't oppose those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yep,  the liberal mantra,  if it feels good, do it, and make it legal.   if it destroys society, so fricking what.
> 
> liberalism is a mental disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would say  it's if I want it you should support it but if you expect me to do the same, *you're forcing your beliefs down my throat.*
Click to expand...

Why this imagery....every....single....time?


And I'm sorry if I'm forcing you to have a gay marriage.  Not my intent.  I just want you to NOT restrict my legal rights to marry.


----------



## Conservative65

bodecea said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> because they know that they are not in a majority.  prop 8 in california proved that
> 
> 
> 
> Prop H8 would never win again.   Prop 22 won by over 15%...Prop H8 barely won...and that's with money pouring in from Utah and congregations pouring out to street corners (with their children) on Sundays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so what is you objection to having a national referendum in every state on gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because civil rights aren't up for majority vote....that's YOUR side of the issue.
> 
> (Do you think inter-racial marriage would win if it was up for a vote?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes, I do.    not in 1890, but today it would pass.   if you are so sure a majority support gay marriage why do you fear a vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It might not have passed in 1990.....and what is it, do you think, that changed the minds of people in that regard?
Click to expand...


Longer time for indoctrination of more younger people.


----------



## Syriusly

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate men. So long as they keep their tools out of each others mouths and back sides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow- so you hate any Americans who don't have sex the way you approve of? Oh wait- only American men who don't have sex the way you approve of.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most conservatives don't care what consenting adults do in their own homes, but there are exceptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> thats what the gay agenda is missing.   The truth.   No one cares what two consenting adults do in private.   The objection comes when a small minority in society decide to force their views on the rest of us.   No one wants gays to be punished or discriminated against.   But we do not agree that a gay hook up is equal morally, socially, or ethically to a man/woman marriage.
> 
> Human biology and anatomy support our views, not theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't care what your opinion is, the law disagrees with how you feel about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its not my opinion, its biological fact.,
Click to expand...


No- just your opinion.


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civil rights are not submitted to winning the hearts and minds of the mintory hetero-fascists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but thats exactly what you want.  you want a minority to dictate to the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen homosexuals stating that the law should be that heterosexuals are required to Civilly Marry someone of the same sex.
> 
> 
> Why do people not send me the memo.
> 
> 
> >>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Left is evil...  And Evil ever comes in and says" Hey, if ya listen to me, your life will be ruined."
> 
> The Left says: "Hey, if ya drop the Sodomy Laws, we'll NEVER ask to be allowed to join the military or to be married or to adopt children".  They such at every venue wherein the issue is discussed, for a couple of decades... and where it is pointed out the the logical extension of dropping the sodomy laws, is that they will demand to be allowed to serve in the US Military and that they'll demand to be married and to adopt children, they RAIL ON IN FAUX OUTRAGE that such assertions are fallacious, interjecting the ubiquitous "Slippery Slope".
> 
> Then, when the sodomy laws are dropped, they demand to be allowed to serve in the Military to Marry and adopt children.
> 
> That's what evil does.
Click to expand...

It's evil to serve in the military?

It's evil to marry?

It's evil to adopt children?




Interesting.


----------



## Conservative65

bodecea said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most lefties are.  They live by the concept that it's OK for them to do something they say is wrong if done in a way they don't like.  Use the marriage argument they put forth.  Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it.  At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage.  They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples.  They do toward those situations what they say is wrong to do for consenting adults.  They try to justify it with hypocrisy by claiming there are compelling reasons in those cases.  The hypocrisy they don't see is that they think they can determine what is compelling when they don't like it but in cases they support, no reason is compelling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ideological Left does not contest incest marriage, nor do they contest polygamy, or bestiality... And they don't care about it, because they're idiots without the slightest means to reason through the equation and recognize the immorality of such and the destructive nature of immorality... and they do so, because they can't stand the idea that someone else should tell them how to act.
> 
> The Left wants to be free, without bearing ANY of the responsibilities that are intrinsic to such.
> 
> FTR: That's OKA: Evil...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've met few that don't oppose those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yep,  the liberal mantra,  if it feels good, do it, and make it legal.   if it destroys society, so fricking what.
> 
> liberalism is a mental disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would say  it's if I want it you should support it but if you expect me to do the same, *you're forcing your beliefs down my throat.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why this imagery....every....single....time?
> 
> 
> And I'm sorry if I'm forcing you to have a gay marriage.  Not my intent.  I just want you to NOT restrict my legal rights to marry.
Click to expand...


Your intent seems to be to whine and bitch because people don't agree with what you want to do.


----------



## bodecea

Conservative65 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prop H8 would never win again.   Prop 22 won by over 15%...Prop H8 barely won...and that's with money pouring in from Utah and congregations pouring out to street corners (with their children) on Sundays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so what is you objection to having a national referendum in every state on gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because civil rights aren't up for majority vote....that's YOUR side of the issue.
> 
> (Do you think inter-racial marriage would win if it was up for a vote?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes, I do.    not in 1890, but today it would pass.   if you are so sure a majority support gay marriage why do you fear a vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It might not have passed in 1990.....and what is it, do you think, that changed the minds of people in that regard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Longer time for indoctrination of more younger people.
Click to expand...

You mean, like religious indoctrination?   Hey!   Maybe you're on to something there.   Those worried about the indoctrination of children should work to disallow overtly religious people from marrying.


----------



## bodecea

Conservative65 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ideological Left does not contest incest marriage, nor do they contest polygamy, or bestiality... And they don't care about it, because they're idiots without the slightest means to reason through the equation and recognize the immorality of such and the destructive nature of immorality... and they do so, because they can't stand the idea that someone else should tell them how to act.
> 
> The Left wants to be free, without bearing ANY of the responsibilities that are intrinsic to such.
> 
> FTR: That's OKA: Evil...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've met few that don't oppose those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yep,  the liberal mantra,  if it feels good, do it, and make it legal.   if it destroys society, so fricking what.
> 
> liberalism is a mental disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would say  it's if I want it you should support it but if you expect me to do the same, *you're forcing your beliefs down my throat.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why this imagery....every....single....time?
> 
> 
> And I'm sorry if I'm forcing you to have a gay marriage.  Not my intent.  I just want you to NOT restrict my legal rights to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your intent seems to be to whine and bitch because people don't agree with what you want to do.
Click to expand...

What I "want to do"?   I'm already married, my friend.


----------



## Conservative65

WorldWatcher said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> gay marriage is an oxymoron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can it be an oxymoron when there were votes by the people of a State that approved Civil Marriage for same sex couples.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


I thought the States where it was legal, it had been passed by legislatures of those States.


----------



## Conservative65

bodecea said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> so what is you objection to having a national referendum in every state on gay marriage?
> 
> 
> 
> Because civil rights aren't up for majority vote....that's YOUR side of the issue.
> 
> (Do you think inter-racial marriage would win if it was up for a vote?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes, I do.    not in 1890, but today it would pass.   if you are so sure a majority support gay marriage why do you fear a vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It might not have passed in 1990.....and what is it, do you think, that changed the minds of people in that regard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Longer time for indoctrination of more younger people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean, like religious indoctrination?   Hey!   Maybe you're on to something there.   Those worried about the indoctrination of children should work to disallow overtly religious people from marrying.
Click to expand...


No one can force you to be a part of a religion.  That involves your choice.  

People like you want overtly religious people to ignore their beliefs and be happy for you doing something I believe is wrong.


----------



## Conservative65

bodecea said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've met few that don't oppose those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yep,  the liberal mantra,  if it feels good, do it, and make it legal.   if it destroys society, so fricking what.
> 
> liberalism is a mental disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would say  it's if I want it you should support it but if you expect me to do the same, *you're forcing your beliefs down my throat.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why this imagery....every....single....time?
> 
> 
> And I'm sorry if I'm forcing you to have a gay marriage.  Not my intent.  I just want you to NOT restrict my legal rights to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your intent seems to be to whine and bitch because people don't agree with what you want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I "want to do"?   I'm already married, my friend.
Click to expand...


If you're a homo, you can call it what you want.  ONLY your kind believe it's on the level of a true marriage like the one between me and my wife.


----------



## bodecea

Conservative65 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because civil rights aren't up for majority vote....that's YOUR side of the issue.
> 
> (Do you think inter-racial marriage would win if it was up for a vote?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, I do.    not in 1890, but today it would pass.   if you are so sure a majority support gay marriage why do you fear a vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It might not have passed in 1990.....and what is it, do you think, that changed the minds of people in that regard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Longer time for indoctrination of more younger people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean, like religious indoctrination?   Hey!   Maybe you're on to something there.   Those worried about the indoctrination of children should work to disallow overtly religious people from marrying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one can force you to be a part of a religion.  That involves your choice.
> 
> People like you want overtly religious people to ignore their beliefs and be happy for you doing something I believe is wrong.
Click to expand...

Well then....what I suggested would be a perfect example for those who insist that being gay is a choice......wouldn't it?  

You don't have to ignore your belief at all.....just don't shove it down my throat by your own sharia laws.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

WorldWatcher said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, from this thread it is very clear that there is a wide difference of opinion on gay marriage, homosexuality in general, and whether it is a normal or abnormal human condition.
> 
> When societies face such differences they vote and the majority opinion is accepted, or dealt with, by all.
> 
> So, lets let america vote on whether the nation should sanction gay unions as marriages, allow them but call them something else, or ban them totally.
> 
> let the people speak.
> 
> whether you comprehend it or not, all of our rights in this country were originally established by majority vote.   We may say they were "God-given"   but we made them valid by majority vote.
> 
> Lets do the same on the gay issues and put the issue to bed (poor choice of words)  for a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  There are no provisions within the constitution for the nation to vote on laws.
> 
> 2.  The State of Alabama (amongst others) voted to deny Civil Marriage to mixed race couples.  Do you support the power of people to vote for that?
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


The vast MAJORITY of the people, in the vast majority of the states, elected the vast majority of the legislators who voted to sustain the natural standards of marriage. 

Race does not deviate from a physiological Standard.... Sexual Abnormality DOES.  

Race does not determine the validity of one's reasoning.  Sexual Abnormality DOES.

Precluding people of different races from marriage does not violate the standard established by NATURE which define Marriage.


----------



## bodecea

Conservative65 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> yep,  the liberal mantra,  if it feels good, do it, and make it legal.   if it destroys society, so fricking what.
> 
> liberalism is a mental disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say  it's if I want it you should support it but if you expect me to do the same, *you're forcing your beliefs down my throat.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why this imagery....every....single....time?
> 
> 
> And I'm sorry if I'm forcing you to have a gay marriage.  Not my intent.  I just want you to NOT restrict my legal rights to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your intent seems to be to whine and bitch because people don't agree with what you want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I "want to do"?   I'm already married, my friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're a homo, you can call it what you want.  ONLY your kind believe it's on the level of a true marriage like the one between me and my wife.
Click to expand...

My wife and I have been happily married (in a church) for over 24 years.   We have a home together...we have in-laws we care for...and a beautiful daughter in college.   Tell me.........what is the LEGAL requirement that YOU meet in your marriage that we don't meet in ours.


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, from this thread it is very clear that there is a wide difference of opinion on gay marriage, homosexuality in general, and whether it is a normal or abnormal human condition.
> 
> When societies face such differences they vote and the majority opinion is accepted, or dealt with, by all.
> 
> So, lets let america vote on whether the nation should sanction gay unions as marriages, allow them but call them something else, or ban them totally.
> 
> let the people speak.
> 
> whether you comprehend it or not, all of our rights in this country were originally established by majority vote.   We may say they were "God-given"   but we made them valid by majority vote.
> 
> Lets do the same on the gay issues and put the issue to bed (poor choice of words)  for a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  There are no provisions within the constitution for the nation to vote on laws.
> 
> 2.  The State of Alabama (amongst others) voted to deny Civil Marriage to mixed race couples.  Do you support the power of people to vote for that?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The vast MAJORITY of the people, in the vast majority of the states, elected the vast majority of the legislators who voted to sustain the natural standards of marriage.
> 
> Race does not deviate from a physiological Standard.... Sexual Abnormality DOES.
> 
> Race does not determine the validity of one's reasoning.  Sexual Abnormality DOES.
> 
> Precluding people of different races from marriage does not violate the standard established by NATURE which define Marriage.
Click to expand...

Lefthandedness applies as an abnormality too.

BTW....Race is a social construct.   Marriage is a social construct.


----------



## Syriusly

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civil rights are not submitted to winning the hearts and minds of the mintory hetero-fascists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but thats exactly what you want.  you want a minority to dictate to the majority.
Click to expand...


You want to strip a minority of their constitutional protections.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

bodecea said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civil rights are not submitted to winning the hearts and minds of the mintory hetero-fascists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but thats exactly what you want.  you want a minority to dictate to the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen homosexuals stating that the law should be that heterosexuals are required to Civilly Marry someone of the same sex.
> 
> 
> Why do people not send me the memo.
> 
> 
> >>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Left is evil...  And Evil ever comes in and says" Hey, if ya listen to me, your life will be ruined."
> 
> The Left says: "Hey, if ya drop the Sodomy Laws, we'll NEVER ask to be allowed to join the military or to be married or to adopt children".  They such at every venue wherein the issue is discussed, for a couple of decades... and where it is pointed out the the logical extension of dropping the sodomy laws, is that they will demand to be allowed to serve in the US Military and that they'll demand to be married and to adopt children, they RAIL ON IN FAUX OUTRAGE that such assertions are fallacious, interjecting the ubiquitous "Slippery Slope".
> 
> Then, when the sodomy laws are dropped, they demand to be allowed to serve in the Military to Marry and adopt children.
> 
> That's what evil does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's evil to serve in the military?
> 
> It's evil to marry?
> 
> It's evil to adopt children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.
Click to expand...


It's evil to deny evil, where evil irrefutably exists.


Now, with that clarification made... is it evil to set into the most potentially destructive force on earth, people who can't even find the strength of character to not recognize that having sex with a person of their own gender?  Yes.

Is it evil to allow those of the same gender to join together?  Yes... 

Is it evil for those who lack the strength of character to recognize essential sexual boundaries to adopt children?

Yes.


----------



## Conservative65

bodecea said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say  it's if I want it you should support it but if you expect me to do the same, *you're forcing your beliefs down my throat.*
> 
> 
> 
> Why this imagery....every....single....time?
> 
> 
> And I'm sorry if I'm forcing you to have a gay marriage.  Not my intent.  I just want you to NOT restrict my legal rights to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your intent seems to be to whine and bitch because people don't agree with what you want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I "want to do"?   I'm already married, my friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're a homo, you can call it what you want.  ONLY your kind believe it's on the level of a true marriage like the one between me and my wife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My wife and I have been happily married (in a church) for over 24 years.   We have a home together...we have in-laws we care for...and a beautiful daughter in college.   Tell me.........what is the LEGAL requirement that YOU meet in your marriage that we don't meet in ours.
Click to expand...


If you are a woman, which one is the wife.


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civil rights are not submitted to winning the hearts and minds of the mintory hetero-fascists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but thats exactly what you want.  you want a minority to dictate to the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen homosexuals stating that the law should be that heterosexuals are required to Civilly Marry someone of the same sex.
> 
> 
> Why do people not send me the memo.
> 
> 
> >>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Left is evil...  And Evil ever comes in and says" Hey, if ya listen to me, your life will be ruined."
> 
> The Left says: "Hey, if ya drop the Sodomy Laws, we'll NEVER ask to be allowed to join the military or to be married or to adopt children".  They such at every venue wherein the issue is discussed, for a couple of decades... and where it is pointed out the the logical extension of dropping the sodomy laws, is that they will demand to be allowed to serve in the US Military and that they'll demand to be married and to adopt children, they RAIL ON IN FAUX OUTRAGE that such assertions are fallacious, interjecting the ubiquitous "Slippery Slope".
> 
> Then, when the sodomy laws are dropped, they demand to be allowed to serve in the Military to Marry and adopt children.
> 
> That's what evil does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's evil to serve in the military?
> 
> It's evil to marry?
> 
> It's evil to adopt children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's evil to deny evil, where evil irrefutably exists.
> 
> 
> Now, with that clarification made... is it evil to set into the most potentially destructive force on earth, people who can't even find the strength of character to not recognize that having sex with a person of their own gender?  Yes.
> 
> Is it evil to allow those of the same gender to join together?  Yes...
> 
> Is it evil for those who lack the strength of character to recognize essential sexual boundaries to adopt children?
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...


You say 
It's evil to serve in the military.

It's evil to marry.

It's evil to adopt children.


VERY Interesting.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't call accepting something abnormal normal based on numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right...we go by how you _feel_ about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> funny,  you want our entire society to function based on the way you feeeeeeeeeeeel about it.  You are a bigotted, confused idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's funny when people like Seawytch say such things then demand society function the way she wants when it comes to marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Use the marriage argument they put forth.  Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it.  At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage.  They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples. .
Click to expand...


Speaking of hypocrisy- your post is a prime example.

I have always claimed that a same gender couple should be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are.

Nothing more- nothing less.

Bigots like you- who oppose same gender marriage- are the ones who keep calling us hypocrites- for not supporting something you also oppose. 

The ones who keep bringing up the subject of brother/sister marriages are conservatives who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples. 

You bring it up only to try to deny marriage to same gender couples- and that- that is hypocrisy.


----------



## Syriusly

Redfish said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't call accepting something abnormal normal based on numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right...we go by how you _feel_ about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> funny,  you want our entire society to function based on the way you feeeeeeeeeeeel about it.  You are a bigotted, confused idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's funny when people like Seawytch say such things then demand society function the way she wants when it comes to marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seawytch is demanding that society all have a gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> she is demanding that society recognize gay marriage as normal.   You cannot be as dumb as you seem.
Click to expand...


You are demanding that society declare that gay marriage is wrong. 

Most Americans disagree with you.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

bodecea said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, from this thread it is very clear that there is a wide difference of opinion on gay marriage, homosexuality in general, and whether it is a normal or abnormal human condition.
> 
> When societies face such differences they vote and the majority opinion is accepted, or dealt with, by all.
> 
> So, lets let america vote on whether the nation should sanction gay unions as marriages, allow them but call them something else, or ban them totally.
> 
> let the people speak.
> 
> whether you comprehend it or not, all of our rights in this country were originally established by majority vote.   We may say they were "God-given"   but we made them valid by majority vote.
> 
> Lets do the same on the gay issues and put the issue to bed (poor choice of words)  for a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  There are no provisions within the constitution for the nation to vote on laws.
> 
> 2.  The State of Alabama (amongst others) voted to deny Civil Marriage to mixed race couples.  Do you support the power of people to vote for that?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The vast MAJORITY of the people, in the vast majority of the states, elected the vast majority of the legislators who voted to sustain the natural standards of marriage.
> 
> Race does not deviate from a physiological Standard.... Sexual Abnormality DOES.
> 
> Race does not determine the validity of one's reasoning.  Sexual Abnormality DOES.
> 
> Precluding people of different races from marriage does not violate the standard established by NATURE which define Marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lefthandedness applies as an abnormality too.
> 
> BTW....Race is a social construct.   Marriage is a social construct.
Click to expand...


Left handedness is not a sexual standard.  Left-handedness does not deviate from an essential function of humanity... critical to the viability of the species.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civil rights are not submitted to winning the hearts and minds of the mintory hetero-fascists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but thats exactly what you want.  you want a minority to dictate to the majority.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

No one is 'dictating' anything to anyone.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts in every jurisdiction in the United States; states that seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law are in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and those measures are being invalidated accordingly.

No majority in any jurisdiction is 'authorized' to deny citizens their civil rights, consequently the majority isn't be 'dictated to.'


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Syriusly said:


> You are demanding that society declare that gay marriage is wrong.



Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.



Syriusly said:


> Most Americans disagree with you.



And that would be true, if every human being on the planet felt that pretend marriage; marriage, by those incapable of marriage, were the purest essence of marriage.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right...we go by how you _feel_ about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> funny,  you want our entire society to function based on the way you feeeeeeeeeeeel about it.  You are a bigotted, confused idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's funny when people like Seawytch say such things then demand society function the way she wants when it comes to marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Use the marriage argument they put forth.  Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it.  At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage.  They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of hypocrisy- your post is a prime example.
> 
> I have always claimed that a same gender couple should be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are.
> 
> Nothing more- nothing less.
> 
> Bigots like you- who oppose same gender marriage- are the ones who keep calling us hypocrites- for not supporting something you also oppose.
> 
> The ones who keep bringing up the subject of brother/sister marriages are conservatives who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.
> 
> You bring it up only to try to deny marriage to same gender couples- and that- that is hypocrisy.
Click to expand...


I call you a hypocrite for claiming you support equality then denying it in cases you don't like.  I focus on the concept you faggot lovers pose regardless of specifics.  I could use polygamous marriages, something that I wouldn't do but believe is OK is others do, yet people like you oppose those.  That makes you a hypocrite.  

I don't bring up brother/sister because it's brother/sister but because hypocrites like you deny equality to them just after pushing for equality for faggots.


----------



## Syriusly

Redfish said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, from this thread it is very clear that there is a wide difference of opinion on gay marriage, homosexuality in general, and whether it is a normal or abnormal human condition.
> 
> When societies face such differences they vote and the majority opinion is accepted, or dealt with, by all.
> 
> So, lets let america vote on whether the nation should sanction gay unions as marriages, allow them but call them something else, or ban them totally.
> 
> let the people speak.
> 
> whether you comprehend it or not, all of our rights in this country were originally established by majority vote.   We may say they were "God-given"   but we made them valid by majority vote.
> 
> Lets do the same on the gay issues and put the issue to bed (poor choice of words)  for a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same sex marriage supporters claim a majority of the people in the country support it.  If that is true, why would they be opposed to having a vote.  If they hold the majority they claim, wouldn't that guarantee a win for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> because they know that they are not in a majority.  prop 8 in california proved that
Click to expand...


LOL- are you ignorant or just stupid? Or maybe both?

Prop 8 passed in 2008.

Since that time voters have voted in favor same gender marriage 3 times.

Now most Americans favor same gender marriage
Gay Marriage Attitudes A Pause Not A Plateau - Forbes

*In 1996, when Gallup asked whether marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages, 27 percent said they should; _last month, 55 percent did._  May 2011 was the first Gallup asking in which a plurality of Americans favored legalizing same-sex marriage.
*In the NBC News/Wall Street Journal question from 1996, 25 percent favored allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into same-sex marriages. *In 2013, 53 percent did.*
*In 1996, 27 percent told Pew that they favored allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally.* In 2014, 54 percent did.*


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, from this thread it is very clear that there is a wide difference of opinion on gay marriage, homosexuality in general, and whether it is a normal or abnormal human condition.
> 
> When societies face such differences they vote and the majority opinion is accepted, or dealt with, by all.
> 
> So, lets let america vote on whether the nation should sanction gay unions as marriages, allow them but call them something else, or ban them totally.
> 
> let the people speak.
> 
> whether you comprehend it or not, all of our rights in this country were originally established by majority vote.   We may say they were "God-given"   but we made them valid by majority vote.
> 
> Lets do the same on the gay issues and put the issue to bed (poor choice of words)  for a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same sex marriage supporters claim a majority of the people in the country support it.  If that is true, why would they be opposed to having a vote.  If they hold the majority they claim, wouldn't that guarantee a win for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> because they know that they are not in a majority.  prop 8 in california proved that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- are you ignorant or just stupid? Or maybe both?
> 
> Prop 8 passed in 2008.
> 
> Since that time voters have voted in favor same gender marriage 3 times.
> 
> Now most Americans favor same gender marriage
> Gay Marriage Attitudes A Pause Not A Plateau - Forbes
> 
> *In 1996, when Gallup asked whether marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages, 27 percent said they should; _last month, 55 percent did._  May 2011 was the first Gallup asking in which a plurality of Americans favored legalizing same-sex marriage.
> *In the NBC News/Wall Street Journal question from 1996, 25 percent favored allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into same-sex marriages. *In 2013, 53 percent did.*
> *In 1996, 27 percent told Pew that they favored allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally.* In 2014, 54 percent did.*
Click to expand...

Hey dickhead, if you have a majority, why not hold a vote?  If you had the winning lottery numbers, would you buy a ticket?  If it's as guaranteed as you claim about the majority, why are you scared to have a vote nationwide? I know, you're a fucking liar that isn't willing to prove what you claim in a real sense yet you'll still claim what say exists.  Put up of STFU coward.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> funny,  you want our entire society to function based on the way you feeeeeeeeeeeel about it.  You are a bigotted, confused idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny when people like Seawytch say such things then demand society function the way she wants when it comes to marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Use the marriage argument they put forth.  Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it.  At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage.  They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of hypocrisy- your post is a prime example.
> 
> I have always claimed that a same gender couple should be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are.
> 
> Nothing more- nothing less.
> 
> Bigots like you- who oppose same gender marriage- are the ones who keep calling us hypocrites- for not supporting something you also oppose.
> 
> The ones who keep bringing up the subject of brother/sister marriages are conservatives who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.
> 
> You bring it up only to try to deny marriage to same gender couples- and that- that is hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I call you a hypocrite for claiming you support equality then denying it in cases you don't like..
Click to expand...


Show me where I have ever done anything other than support equality of  a same gender couple with my wife and I- or just admit you are lying. 

You are a hypocrite because you want to claim that anyone that supports equality for a group that is not being treated equally is wrong if they dont' support every other group.

When African American men got the vote- were the people who voted for them hypocrites because they didn't vote for the vote for women?

When women got the vote, were the people who voted hypocrites because they didn't support the right of 19 year old's to vote?

When 18 year old's got the vote, were the people who voted for that hypocrites because they didn't support the right of 5 year old's to vote?

I don't think so.

But clearly you do.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right...we go by how you _feel_ about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> funny,  you want our entire society to function based on the way you feeeeeeeeeeeel about it.  You are a bigotted, confused idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's funny when people like Seawytch say such things then demand society function the way she wants when it comes to marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Use the marriage argument they put forth.  Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it.  At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage.  They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of hypocrisy- your post is a prime example.
> 
> I have always claimed that a same gender couple should be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are.
> 
> Nothing more- nothing less.
> 
> Bigots like you- who oppose same gender marriage- are the ones who keep calling us hypocrites- for not supporting something you also oppose.
> 
> The ones who keep bringing up the subject of brother/sister marriages are conservatives who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.
> 
> You bring it up only to try to deny marriage to same gender couples- and that- that is hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

It also fails as both a red herring and slippery slope fallacy – same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, brothers and sisters not.

No one is seeking to 'change marriage.'


----------



## Conservative65

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> funny,  you want our entire society to function based on the way you feeeeeeeeeeeel about it.  You are a bigotted, confused idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny when people like Seawytch say such things then demand society function the way she wants when it comes to marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Use the marriage argument they put forth.  Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it.  At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage.  They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of hypocrisy- your post is a prime example.
> 
> I have always claimed that a same gender couple should be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are.
> 
> Nothing more- nothing less.
> 
> Bigots like you- who oppose same gender marriage- are the ones who keep calling us hypocrites- for not supporting something you also oppose.
> 
> The ones who keep bringing up the subject of brother/sister marriages are conservatives who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.
> 
> You bring it up only to try to deny marriage to same gender couples- and that- that is hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It also fails as both a red herring and slippery slope fallacy – same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, brothers and sisters not.
> 
> No one is seeking to 'change marriage.'
Click to expand...


The failure is you ignoring your hypocrisy.  That's how you cowards avoid addressing it.  

If you deny marriages you oppose from exercising something you say is a right, you're a coward.

When you seek to change the definition of marriage, you are changing marriage.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civil rights are not submitted to winning the hearts and minds of the mintory hetero-fascists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but thats exactly what you want.  you want a minority to dictate to the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> No one is 'dictating' anything to anyone.
> 
> Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts in every jurisdiction in the United States; states that seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law are in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and those measures are being invalidated accordingly.
> 
> No majority in any jurisdiction is 'authorized' to deny citizens their civil rights, consequently the majority isn't be 'dictated to.'
Click to expand...


Nonsense... The natural Marriage Standard is DESIGNED TO DISCRIMINATE... Standards exist for no other purpose than DISCRIMINATION.

In effect your claim is that Standards need to be stripped from the culture. 

Of course, you're entitled to set any standard at issue and advocate for that standard not being discriminatory.

Here's one ya might try... The Legal Standard of Sexual Consent.  That's discriminatory isn't it?  Now advocate for the standard.  

OR concede through your failure to do so, that your issue is the concept of the STANDARD itself.  

And in so doing, demonstrate through your own actions that you're animated by evil.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, from this thread it is very clear that there is a wide difference of opinion on gay marriage, homosexuality in general, and whether it is a normal or abnormal human condition.
> 
> When societies face such differences they vote and the majority opinion is accepted, or dealt with, by all.
> 
> So, lets let america vote on whether the nation should sanction gay unions as marriages, allow them but call them something else, or ban them totally.
> 
> let the people speak.
> 
> whether you comprehend it or not, all of our rights in this country were originally established by majority vote.   We may say they were "God-given"   but we made them valid by majority vote.
> 
> Lets do the same on the gay issues and put the issue to bed (poor choice of words)  for a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same sex marriage supporters claim a majority of the people in the country support it.  If that is true, why would they be opposed to having a vote.  If they hold the majority they claim, wouldn't that guarantee a win for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> because they know that they are not in a majority.  prop 8 in california proved that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- are you ignorant or just stupid? Or maybe both?
> 
> Prop 8 passed in 2008.
> 
> Since that time voters have voted in favor same gender marriage 3 times.
> 
> Now most Americans favor same gender marriage
> Gay Marriage Attitudes A Pause Not A Plateau - Forbes
> 
> *In 1996, when Gallup asked whether marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages, 27 percent said they should; _last month, 55 percent did._  May 2011 was the first Gallup asking in which a plurality of Americans favored legalizing same-sex marriage.
> *In the NBC News/Wall Street Journal question from 1996, 25 percent favored allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into same-sex marriages. *In 2013, 53 percent did.*
> *In 1996, 27 percent told Pew that they favored allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally.* In 2014, 54 percent did.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey dickhead, if you have a majority, why not hold a vote?  If you had the winning lottery numbers, would you buy a ticket?  If it's as guaranteed as you claim about the majority, why are you scared to have a vote nationwide? I know, you're a fucking liar that isn't willing to prove what you claim in a real sense yet you'll still claim what say exists.  Put up of STFU coward.
Click to expand...


Wow....I can pretty much envision you sitting in your underwear in the basement yelling cursewords at the screen, with spittle flying as you hunt and peck your way through your psot.

I live in California- the courts have already ruled- the ban on gay marriage- Prop 8 is unconstitutional- hadn't you heard?

Why would we have a vote on something that is already dead?

I am fine with voters voting- but all laws are subject to the Constitution- and just like a State can pass a law banning gun ownership- and the NRA files lawsuits to get it declared unconstitutional, its perfectly fine to use the court to try to get marriage bans declared unconstitutional.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny when people like Seawytch say such things then demand society function the way she wants when it comes to marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Use the marriage argument they put forth.  Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it.  At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage.  They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of hypocrisy- your post is a prime example.
> 
> I have always claimed that a same gender couple should be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are.
> 
> Nothing more- nothing less.
> 
> Bigots like you- who oppose same gender marriage- are the ones who keep calling us hypocrites- for not supporting something you also oppose.
> 
> The ones who keep bringing up the subject of brother/sister marriages are conservatives who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.
> 
> You bring it up only to try to deny marriage to same gender couples- and that- that is hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I call you a hypocrite for claiming you support equality then denying it in cases you don't like..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me where I have ever done anything other than support equality of  a same gender couple with my wife and I- or just admit you are lying.
> 
> You are a hypocrite because you want to claim that anyone that supports equality for a group that is not being treated equally is wrong if they dont' support every other group.
> 
> When African American men got the vote- were the people who voted for them hypocrites because they didn't vote for the vote for women?
> 
> When women got the vote, were the people who voted hypocrites because they didn't support the right of 19 year old's to vote?
> 
> When 18 year old's got the vote, were the people who voted for that hypocrites because they didn't support the right of 5 year old's to vote?
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> But clearly you do.
Click to expand...


You support faggots then deny the same right you say exist to them to other types of marriages.  

If you claim something is a right then deny that right, you're the hypocrite. 

Hardly valid to relate race voting and gender voting.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny when people like Seawytch say such things then demand society function the way she wants when it comes to marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Use the marriage argument they put forth.  Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it.  At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage.  They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of hypocrisy- your post is a prime example.
> 
> I have always claimed that a same gender couple should be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are.
> 
> Nothing more- nothing less.
> 
> Bigots like you- who oppose same gender marriage- are the ones who keep calling us hypocrites- for not supporting something you also oppose.
> 
> The ones who keep bringing up the subject of brother/sister marriages are conservatives who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.
> 
> You bring it up only to try to deny marriage to same gender couples- and that- that is hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It also fails as both a red herring and slippery slope fallacy – same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, brothers and sisters not.
> 
> No one is seeking to 'change marriage.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The failure is you ignoring your hypocrisy.  That's how you cowards avoid addressing it.
> 
> If you deny marriages you oppose from exercising something you say is a right, you're a coward.
> 
> When you seek to change the definition of marriage, you are changing marriage.
Click to expand...


Ah the lectures from homophobic bigots are amusing in a sad way. 

You are a bigot and a hypocrite. 

You want to deny rights to homosexuals because they are homosexuals. 

And you have quite the junior high potty mouth.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.
> 
> 
> 
> Use the marriage argument they put forth.  Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it.  At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage.  They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of hypocrisy- your post is a prime example.
> 
> I have always claimed that a same gender couple should be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are.
> 
> Nothing more- nothing less.
> 
> Bigots like you- who oppose same gender marriage- are the ones who keep calling us hypocrites- for not supporting something you also oppose.
> 
> The ones who keep bringing up the subject of brother/sister marriages are conservatives who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.
> 
> You bring it up only to try to deny marriage to same gender couples- and that- that is hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I call you a hypocrite for claiming you support equality then denying it in cases you don't like..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me where I have ever done anything other than support equality of  a same gender couple with my wife and I- or just admit you are lying.
> 
> You are a hypocrite because you want to claim that anyone that supports equality for a group that is not being treated equally is wrong if they dont' support every other group.
> 
> When African American men got the vote- were the people who voted for them hypocrites because they didn't vote for the vote for women?
> 
> When women got the vote, were the people who voted hypocrites because they didn't support the right of 19 year old's to vote?
> 
> When 18 year old's got the vote, were the people who voted for that hypocrites because they didn't support the right of 5 year old's to vote?
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> But clearly you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You support faggots .
Click to expand...


f*ggot- n*gger- same words used by the same kind of people for the same purpose- and quite on point 

You are a hypocrite because you want to claim that anyone that supports equality for a group that is not being treated equally is wrong if they dont' support every other group.

When African American men got the vote- were the people who voted for them hypocrites because they didn't vote for the vote for women?

When women got the vote, were the people who voted hypocrites because they didn't support the right of 19 year old's to vote?

When 18 year old's got the vote, were the people who voted for that hypocrites because they didn't support the right of 5 year old's to vote?

I don't think so.

But clearly you do


----------



## g5000

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Nonsense... The natural Marriage Standard is DESIGNED TO DISCRIMINATE... Standards exist for no other purpose than DISCRIMINATION.
> 
> In effect your claim is that Standards need to be stripped from the culture.
> 
> Of course, you're entitled to set any standard at issue and advocate for that standard not being discriminatory.


What horrible nasty thing will happen if we stop discriminating against homosexuals?

Will God send a hurricane to New Orleans?



Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Here's one ya might try... The Legal Standard of Sexual Consent.  That's discriminatory isn't it?



There is a* rational basis *for banning sex with kids.  Care to toss out a *rational basis* for your discrimination toward gays?

Go ahead.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.
> 
> 
> 
> Use the marriage argument they put forth.  Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it.  At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage.  They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of hypocrisy- your post is a prime example.
> 
> I have always claimed that a same gender couple should be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are.
> 
> Nothing more- nothing less.
> 
> Bigots like you- who oppose same gender marriage- are the ones who keep calling us hypocrites- for not supporting something you also oppose.
> 
> The ones who keep bringing up the subject of brother/sister marriages are conservatives who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.
> 
> You bring it up only to try to deny marriage to same gender couples- and that- that is hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It also fails as both a red herring and slippery slope fallacy – same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, brothers and sisters not.
> 
> No one is seeking to 'change marriage.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The failure is you ignoring your hypocrisy.  That's how you cowards avoid addressing it.
> 
> If you deny marriages you oppose from exercising something you say is a right, you're a coward.
> 
> When you seek to change the definition of marriage, you are changing marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah the lectures from homophobic bigots are amusing in a sad way.
> 
> You are a bigot and a hypocrite.
> 
> You want to deny rights to homosexuals because they are homosexuals.
> 
> And you have quite the junior high potty mouth.
Click to expand...


You love faggots and that is worse than anything you can claim I am.  

Don't like the way I express myself, tough shit.  I don't have to please you.  You can either accept it or get over it.


----------



## g5000

Conservative65 said:


> You love faggots and that is worse than anything you can claim I am.



And the mask completely falls off...


----------



## Conservative65

g5000 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You love faggots and that is worse than anything you can claim I am.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the mask completely falls off...
Click to expand...


Never wore one.


----------



## Seawytch

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate men. So long as they keep their tools out of each others mouths and back sides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow- so you hate any Americans who don't have sex the way you approve of? Oh wait- only American men who don't have sex the way you approve of.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most conservatives don't care what consenting adults do in their own homes, but there are exceptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> thats what the gay agenda is missing.   The truth.   No one cares what two consenting adults do in private.   The objection comes when a small minority in society decide to force their views on the rest of us.   No one wants gays to be punished or discriminated against.   But we do not agree that a gay hook up is equal morally, socially, or ethically to a man/woman marriage.
> 
> Human biology and anatomy support our views, not theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't care what your opinion is, the law disagrees with how you feel about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its not my opinion, its biological fact.,
Click to expand...


No Fishy, that marriage is "only between a man and a woman" isn't a biological fact, a legal fact or even a religious fact. It's a bigot's opinion.


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right...we go by how you _feel_ about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> funny,  you want our entire society to function based on the way you feeeeeeeeeeeel about it.  You are a bigotted, confused idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's funny when people like Seawytch say such things then demand society function the way she wants when it comes to marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most lefties are.  They live by the concept that it's OK for them to do something they say is wrong if done in a way they don't like.  Use the marriage argument they put forth.  Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it.  At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage.  They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples.  They do toward those situations what they say is wrong to do for consenting adults.  They try to justify it with hypocrisy by claiming there are compelling reasons in those cases.  The hypocrisy they don't see is that they think they can determine what is compelling when they don't like it but in cases they support, no reason is compelling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Ideological Left does not contest incest marriage, nor do they contest polygamy, or bestiality... And they don't care about it, because they're idiots without the slightest means to reason through the equation and recognize the immorality of such and the destructive nature of immorality... and they do so, because they can't stand the idea that someone else should tell them how to act.
> 
> The Left wants to be free, without bearing ANY of the responsibilities that are intrinsic to such.
> 
> FTR: That's OKA: Evil...
Click to expand...


Take note, apathetic dimwit, this country has evolved immensely.  Why are you so afraid of people? 
If you really want to discuss hypocrisy, take a look at the Eugenics Movement headed by old Republican men.  States allowed social workers to designate people for sterilization.  The standards by which individuals could be *forcibly sterilized *were the most lax in the nation: unmarried women with children, African Americans, individuals with I.Q.'s under 70, the mentally ill, and children from poor families.  Does the majority really rule?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish said:


> Look, from this thread it is very clear that there is a wide difference of opinion on gay marriage, homosexuality in general, and whether it is a normal or abnormal human condition.
> 
> When societies face such differences they vote and the majority opinion is accepted, or dealt with, by all.
> 
> So, lets let america vote on whether the nation should sanction gay unions as marriages, allow them but call them something else, or ban them totally.
> 
> let the people speak.
> 
> whether you comprehend it or not, all of our rights in this country were originally established by majority vote.   We may say they were "God-given"   but we made them valid by majority vote.
> 
> Lets do the same on the gay issues and put the issue to bed (poor choice of words)  for a while.



And then the Constitution created a framework that protected the minority rights from the majority tyranny.

Tough.


----------



## Seawytch

Conservative65 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> yep,  the liberal mantra,  if it feels good, do it, and make it legal.   if it destroys society, so fricking what.
> 
> liberalism is a mental disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say  it's if I want it you should support it but if you expect me to do the same, *you're forcing your beliefs down my throat.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why this imagery....every....single....time?
> 
> 
> And I'm sorry if I'm forcing you to have a gay marriage.  Not my intent.  I just want you to NOT restrict my legal rights to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your intent seems to be to whine and bitch because people don't agree with what you want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I "want to do"?   I'm already married, my friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're a homo, you can call it what you want.  ONLY your kind believe it's on the level of a true marriage like the one between me and my wife.
Click to expand...


Legally it is. That makes you mad doesn't it?


----------



## Seawytch

Conservative65 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't call accepting something abnormal normal based on numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right...we go by how you _feel_ about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> funny,  you want our entire society to function based on the way you feeeeeeeeeeeel about it.  You are a bigotted, confused idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's funny when people like Seawytch say such things then demand society function the way she wants when it comes to marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seawytch is demanding that society all have a gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She's demanding society accept gay marriage as OK.
Click to expand...


Nope...just legal equality. Society already accepts marriage equality as "OK". I'm sure you've seen the polls.


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civil rights are not submitted to winning the hearts and minds of the mintory hetero-fascists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but thats exactly what you want.  you want a minority to dictate to the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen homosexuals stating that the law should be that heterosexuals are required to Civilly Marry someone of the same sex.
> 
> 
> Why do people not send me the memo.
> 
> 
> >>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Left is evil...  And Evil ever comes in and says" Hey, if ya listen to me, your life will be ruined."
> 
> The Left says: "Hey, if ya drop the Sodomy Laws, we'll NEVER ask to be allowed to join the military or to be married or to adopt children".  They such at every venue wherein the issue is discussed, for a couple of decades... and where it is pointed out the the logical extension of dropping the sodomy laws, is that they will demand to be allowed to serve in the US Military and that they'll demand to be married and to adopt children, they RAIL ON IN FAUX OUTRAGE that such assertions are fallacious, interjecting the ubiquitous "Slippery Slope".
> 
> Then, when the sodomy laws are dropped, they demand to be allowed to serve in the Military to Marry and adopt children.
> 
> That's what evil does.
Click to expand...


You are giving stupid a new name.  Evil brought about slavery, the KKK, the Tuskegee Syphilis Program, the Eugenics Movement, etc.  All you seem to think about is what is happening inside someone's bedroom.  Get a life!


----------



## JakeStarkey

The children and grand children of the marriage equality supporters are so proud of their parents and grandparents.  And since we know how millennials generally feel about this issue, we know how they generally feel about their grandparents who oppose the issue.

It what is is, losers.


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civil rights are not submitted to winning the hearts and minds of the mintory hetero-fascists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but thats exactly what you want.  you want a minority to dictate to the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen homosexuals stating that the law should be that heterosexuals are required to Civilly Marry someone of the same sex.
> 
> 
> Why do people not send me the memo.
> 
> 
> >>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Left is evil...  And Evil ever comes in and says" Hey, if ya listen to me, your life will be ruined."
> 
> The Left says: "Hey, if ya drop the Sodomy Laws, we'll NEVER ask to be allowed to join the military or to be married or to adopt children".  They such at every venue wherein the issue is discussed, for a couple of decades... and where it is pointed out the the logical extension of dropping the sodomy laws, is that they will demand to be allowed to serve in the US Military and that they'll demand to be married and to adopt children, they RAIL ON IN FAUX OUTRAGE that such assertions are fallacious, interjecting the ubiquitous "Slippery Slope".
> 
> Then, when the sodomy laws are dropped, they demand to be allowed to serve in the Military to Marry and adopt children.
> 
> That's what evil does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's evil to serve in the military?
> 
> It's evil to marry?
> 
> It's evil to adopt children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's evil to deny evil, where evil irrefutably exists.
> 
> 
> Now, with that clarification made... is it evil to set into the most potentially destructive force on earth, people who can't even find the strength of character to not recognize that having sex with a person of their own gender?  Yes.
> 
> Is it evil to allow those of the same gender to join together?  Yes...
> 
> Is it evil for those who lack the strength of character to recognize essential sexual boundaries to adopt children?
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...


Stop bloviating about your prejudices and say directly that you think you are superior to others that hold differing views from you.  Do you have the chutzpah to admit you are fallible?  Your smug prejudgments fall into the category of exploitation of those being marginalized.  I've no doubt that you would readily participate in a program such as those I've previously mentioned.  You are a danger to our society.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Where R My Keys is certainly in the lower percentiles when it comes to creative thinking and logical exercises.  If he stays in a far right social con church and community, he will be OK until his mind implodes..


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> funny,  you want our entire society to function based on the way you feeeeeeeeeeeel about it.  You are a bigotted, confused idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny when people like Seawytch say such things then demand society function the way she wants when it comes to marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Use the marriage argument they put forth.  Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it.  At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage.  They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of hypocrisy- your post is a prime example.
> 
> I have always claimed that a same gender couple should be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are.
> 
> Nothing more- nothing less.
> 
> Bigots like you- who oppose same gender marriage- are the ones who keep calling us hypocrites- for not supporting something you also oppose.
> 
> The ones who keep bringing up the subject of brother/sister marriages are conservatives who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.
> 
> You bring it up only to try to deny marriage to same gender couples- and that- that is hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It also fails as both a red herring and slippery slope fallacy – same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, brothers and sisters not.
> 
> No one is seeking to 'change marriage.'
Click to expand...


The "Slippery Slope" exists, therefore appealing to the calamitous nature of that self evident slope, is not fallacious.

When the dropping of the Sodomy Laws was being discussed, Homosexuals REPEATEDLY claimed OUTRAGE over 'suggestions' that they would inevitably claim a right to marry, or adopt children or serve in the US Military... they claimed THEN that the suggestions that they would do so were fallacious and an appeal to the slippery slope.

IN FACT, the slope DOES exist and it IS Slippery... and THEY DID INEVITABLY DEMAND TO ALLOWED TO BE MARRIED, TO ADOPT CHILDREN AND JOIN THE US MILITARY.

And acceptance of the perverse species of reasoning through which you're advocating MUST Result in Incestuous Marriage, inter-species marriage and polygamy and the elimination of the Age of sexual consent.

Just as dropping the sodomy laws HAD TO provide for homosexuals demanding to marry, adopt children and join the US Military.

Expecting anything else is every bit as foolish as expecting Relativists to consider anything which extends beyond their own needs, wants and desires.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Lilah said:


> Stop bloviating about your prejudices ...




She says as she begins to bloviate about her prejudices... 

ROFLMNAO! 

You people are helpless.


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny when people like Seawytch say such things then demand society function the way she wants when it comes to marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Use the marriage argument they put forth.  Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it.  At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage.  They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of hypocrisy- your post is a prime example.
> 
> I have always claimed that a same gender couple should be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are.
> 
> Nothing more- nothing less.
> 
> Bigots like you- who oppose same gender marriage- are the ones who keep calling us hypocrites- for not supporting something you also oppose.
> 
> The ones who keep bringing up the subject of brother/sister marriages are conservatives who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.
> 
> You bring it up only to try to deny marriage to same gender couples- and that- that is hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It also fails as both a red herring and slippery slope fallacy – same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, brothers and sisters not.
> 
> No one is seeking to 'change marriage.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "Slippery Slope" exists, therefore appealing to the calamitous nature of that self evident slope, is not fallacious.
> 
> When the dropping of the Sodomy Laws was being discussed, Homosexuals REPEATEDLY claimed OUTRAGE over 'suggestions' that they would inevitably claim a right to marry, or adopt children or serve in the US Military... they claimed THEN that the suggestions that they would do so were fallacious and an appeal to the slippery slope.
> 
> IN FACT, the slope DOES exist and it IS Slippery... and THEY DID INEVITABLY DEMAND TO ALLOWED TO BE MARRIED, TO ADOPT CHILDREN AND JOIN THE US MILITARY.
> 
> And acceptance of the perverse species of reasoning through which you're advocating MUST Result in Incestuous Marriage, inter-species marriage and polygamy and the elimination of the Age of sexual consent.
> 
> Just as dropping the sodomy laws HAD TO provide for homosexuals demanding to marry, adopt children and join the US Military.
> 
> Expecting anything else is every bit as foolish as expecting Relativists to consider anything which extends beyond their own needs, wants and desires.
Click to expand...


You must be related to the cretin, Charles Worley, who wants to place all gays and lesbians behind an electrical fence.  Do you wear a white sheet?


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny when people like Seawytch say such things then demand society function the way she wants when it comes to marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Use the marriage argument they put forth.  Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it.  At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage.  They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of hypocrisy- your post is a prime example.
> 
> I have always claimed that a same gender couple should be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are.
> 
> Nothing more- nothing less.
> 
> Bigots like you- who oppose same gender marriage- are the ones who keep calling us hypocrites- for not supporting something you also oppose.
> 
> The ones who keep bringing up the subject of brother/sister marriages are conservatives who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.
> 
> You bring it up only to try to deny marriage to same gender couples- and that- that is hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It also fails as both a red herring and slippery slope fallacy – same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, brothers and sisters not.
> 
> No one is seeking to 'change marriage.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "Slippery Slope" exists,.
Click to expand...


Ah so when I say that means that first you want to stop same gender marriage and then you want to make it illegal to be homosexuals, and then you want to start putting homosexuals to death....that would be an accurate description of the slippery slope that you say exists.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Use the marriage argument they put forth.  Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it.  At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage.  They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of hypocrisy- your post is a prime example.
> 
> I have always claimed that a same gender couple should be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are.
> 
> Nothing more- nothing less.
> 
> Bigots like you- who oppose same gender marriage- are the ones who keep calling us hypocrites- for not supporting something you also oppose.
> 
> The ones who keep bringing up the subject of brother/sister marriages are conservatives who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.
> 
> You bring it up only to try to deny marriage to same gender couples- and that- that is hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It also fails as both a red herring and slippery slope fallacy – same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, brothers and sisters not.
> 
> No one is seeking to 'change marriage.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The failure is you ignoring your hypocrisy.  That's how you cowards avoid addressing it.
> 
> If you deny marriages you oppose from exercising something you say is a right, you're a coward.
> 
> When you seek to change the definition of marriage, you are changing marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah the lectures from homophobic bigots are amusing in a sad way.
> 
> You are a bigot and a hypocrite.
> 
> You want to deny rights to homosexuals because they are homosexuals.
> 
> And you have quite the junior high potty mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You love faggots
Click to expand...


I love all humans equally- just I don't judge them based upon whether they are black or Jewish or homosexuals- I leave that for bigots that wallow in their own hatred like pigs in slop.

Meanwhile- some parting words for today

*43*“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

*44*But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
*45*so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
*46*For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
*47*And if you greet only your brothers,i what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?*48*You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Lilah said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.
> 
> 
> 
> Use the marriage argument they put forth.  Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it.  At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage.  They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of hypocrisy- your post is a prime example.
> 
> I have always claimed that a same gender couple should be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are.
> 
> Nothing more- nothing less.
> 
> Bigots like you- who oppose same gender marriage- are the ones who keep calling us hypocrites- for not supporting something you also oppose.
> 
> The ones who keep bringing up the subject of brother/sister marriages are conservatives who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.
> 
> You bring it up only to try to deny marriage to same gender couples- and that- that is hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It also fails as both a red herring and slippery slope fallacy – same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, brothers and sisters not.
> 
> No one is seeking to 'change marriage.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "Slippery Slope" exists, therefore appealing to the calamitous nature of that self evident slope, is not fallacious.
> 
> When the dropping of the Sodomy Laws was being discussed, Homosexuals REPEATEDLY claimed OUTRAGE over 'suggestions' that they would inevitably claim a right to marry, or adopt children or serve in the US Military... they claimed THEN that the suggestions that they would do so were fallacious and an appeal to the slippery slope.
> 
> IN FACT, the slope DOES exist and it IS Slippery... and THEY DID INEVITABLY DEMAND TO ALLOWED TO BE MARRIED, TO ADOPT CHILDREN AND JOIN THE US MILITARY.
> 
> And acceptance of the perverse species of reasoning through which you're advocating MUST Result in Incestuous Marriage, inter-species marriage and polygamy and the elimination of the Age of sexual consent.
> 
> Just as dropping the sodomy laws HAD TO provide for homosexuals demanding to marry, adopt children and join the US Military.
> 
> Expecting anything else is every bit as foolish as expecting Relativists to consider anything which extends beyond their own needs, wants and desires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be related to the cretin, Charles Worley, who wants to place all gays and lesbians behind an electrical fence.  Do you wear a white sheet?
Click to expand...


There's a reason that Homosexuals have spent most of human history in the closet... they're a threat to the viability of civilization.  

Yes, I would support locking up those who present with mental disorder.  And yes... Homosexuality is a presentation of mental disorder.

I should also point out that I would support allowing minimal mobility of those who show a sound degree of self control.  Perhaps, after many years of re-training, the best examples of such could be allowed to live free.  But under no circumstances should a sexually abnormal person ever be allowed to speak in a public forum, serve any function which could potentially set them in contact with Children, or in proximity of a voting booth.


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Use the marriage argument they put forth.  Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it.  At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage.  They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of hypocrisy- your post is a prime example.
> 
> I have always claimed that a same gender couple should be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are.
> 
> Nothing more- nothing less.
> 
> Bigots like you- who oppose same gender marriage- are the ones who keep calling us hypocrites- for not supporting something you also oppose.
> 
> The ones who keep bringing up the subject of brother/sister marriages are conservatives who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.
> 
> You bring it up only to try to deny marriage to same gender couples- and that- that is hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It also fails as both a red herring and slippery slope fallacy – same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, brothers and sisters not.
> 
> No one is seeking to 'change marriage.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "Slippery Slope" exists, therefore appealing to the calamitous nature of that self evident slope, is not fallacious.
> 
> When the dropping of the Sodomy Laws was being discussed, Homosexuals REPEATEDLY claimed OUTRAGE over 'suggestions' that they would inevitably claim a right to marry, or adopt children or serve in the US Military... they claimed THEN that the suggestions that they would do so were fallacious and an appeal to the slippery slope.
> 
> IN FACT, the slope DOES exist and it IS Slippery... and THEY DID INEVITABLY DEMAND TO ALLOWED TO BE MARRIED, TO ADOPT CHILDREN AND JOIN THE US MILITARY.
> 
> And acceptance of the perverse species of reasoning through which you're advocating MUST Result in Incestuous Marriage, inter-species marriage and polygamy and the elimination of the Age of sexual consent.
> 
> Just as dropping the sodomy laws HAD TO provide for homosexuals demanding to marry, adopt children and join the US Military.
> 
> Expecting anything else is every bit as foolish as expecting Relativists to consider anything which extends beyond their own needs, wants and desires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be related to the cretin, Charles Worley, who wants to place all gays and lesbians behind an electrical fence.  Do you wear a white sheet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a reason that Homosexuals have spent most of human history in the closet... they're a threat to the viability of civilization.
> 
> Yes, I would support locking up those who present with mental disorder.  And yes... Homosexuality is a presentation of mental disorder.
> 
> I should also point out that I would support allowing minimal mobility of those who show a sound degree of self control.  Perhaps, after many years of re-training, the best examples of such could be allowed to live free.  But under no circumstances should a sexually abnormal person ever be allowed to speak in a public forum, serve any function which could potentially set them in contact with Children, or in proximity of a voting booth.
Click to expand...


I suspect the reason why homosexuals, in the past, hid in the closet was because of a hateful, raging, smug, intolerant, closed-minded, despicable bigot like you.  You feed off of marginalizing people, trying to make them feel inferior as if they don't belong in your world.  But I've news for you, it's not your world and your wicked, evil ways are no longer valid in the 21st Century.  Shame on you!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Where R My Keys is out of the closet.

He wants homosexuals out of society, away from tainting the nation and the blood pool.

Such monsters crops up every generation.

He at least is where society can keep an eye on him since, I would not doubt, he has been reported those interested in his ilk.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just by faggots and faggot lovers like you.
> 
> 
> 
> Your hatred and self loathing is an example of the exception that proves the rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't loathe anyone except people like you.  I am perfectly fine with myself.
> 
> Your mindset that because a majority believe something that makes it correct isn't true.  I may look at thing differently than you but that doesn't make me wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which of course makes you a hateful bigot- just like the bigots who hated 'people like you' who happen to be Jewish or happen to be black.
> 
> You are all consumed with hating Americans because you identify them as those 'people'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means I look at things differently and you equate that with bigotry.  Typical Lib mentality of he doesn't believe like me so he's a bigot.
> 
> I despise people who think that because they like something a I should like it, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said you need to like something?    YOu don't have to like me, but don't think it's acceptable to keep me a second class citizen.
Click to expand...

You're not a second class citizen for not having special rights, fish breath.  You had equal rights under every marriage law in the country. 

Fish breath.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Lilah said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of hypocrisy- your post is a prime example.
> 
> I have always claimed that a same gender couple should be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are.
> 
> Nothing more- nothing less.
> 
> Bigots like you- who oppose same gender marriage- are the ones who keep calling us hypocrites- for not supporting something you also oppose.
> 
> The ones who keep bringing up the subject of brother/sister marriages are conservatives who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.
> 
> You bring it up only to try to deny marriage to same gender couples- and that- that is hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> 
> It also fails as both a red herring and slippery slope fallacy – same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, brothers and sisters not.
> 
> No one is seeking to 'change marriage.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "Slippery Slope" exists, therefore appealing to the calamitous nature of that self evident slope, is not fallacious.
> 
> When the dropping of the Sodomy Laws was being discussed, Homosexuals REPEATEDLY claimed OUTRAGE over 'suggestions' that they would inevitably claim a right to marry, or adopt children or serve in the US Military... they claimed THEN that the suggestions that they would do so were fallacious and an appeal to the slippery slope.
> 
> IN FACT, the slope DOES exist and it IS Slippery... and THEY DID INEVITABLY DEMAND TO ALLOWED TO BE MARRIED, TO ADOPT CHILDREN AND JOIN THE US MILITARY.
> 
> And acceptance of the perverse species of reasoning through which you're advocating MUST Result in Incestuous Marriage, inter-species marriage and polygamy and the elimination of the Age of sexual consent.
> 
> Just as dropping the sodomy laws HAD TO provide for homosexuals demanding to marry, adopt children and join the US Military.
> 
> Expecting anything else is every bit as foolish as expecting Relativists to consider anything which extends beyond their own needs, wants and desires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be related to the cretin, Charles Worley, who wants to place all gays and lesbians behind an electrical fence.  Do you wear a white sheet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a reason that Homosexuals have spent most of human history in the closet... they're a threat to the viability of civilization.
> 
> Yes, I would support locking up those who present with mental disorder.  And yes... Homosexuality is a presentation of mental disorder.
> 
> I should also point out that I would support allowing minimal mobility of those who show a sound degree of self control.  Perhaps, after many years of re-training, the best examples of such could be allowed to live free.  But under no circumstances should a sexually abnormal person ever be allowed to speak in a public forum, serve any function which could potentially set them in contact with Children, or in proximity of a voting booth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect the reason why homosexuals, in the past, hid in the closet was because of a hateful, raging, smug, intolerant, closed-minded, despicable bigot like you.  You feed off of marginalizing people, trying to make them feel inferior as if they don't belong in your world.  But I've news for you, it's not your world and your wicked, evil ways are no longer valid in the 21st Century.  Shame on you!
Click to expand...


I love you how faggots think what you got going is modern, as if homosexual metastasy didn't cause the destruction of many civilizations in history.  You think you're new and hip, but you're a rerun of old, failed cultures who met their end through indulgence in unbridled depravity.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your hatred and self loathing is an example of the exception that proves the rule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't loathe anyone except people like you.  I am perfectly fine with myself.
> 
> Your mindset that because a majority believe something that makes it correct isn't true.  I may look at thing differently than you but that doesn't make me wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which of course makes you a hateful bigot- just like the bigots who hated 'people like you' who happen to be Jewish or happen to be black.
> 
> You are all consumed with hating Americans because you identify them as those 'people'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means I look at things differently and you equate that with bigotry.  Typical Lib mentality of he doesn't believe like me so he's a bigot.
> 
> I despise people who think that because they like something a I should like it, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said you need to like something?    YOu don't have to like me, but don't think it's acceptable to keep me a second class citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not a second class citizen for not having special rights, fish breath.  You had equal rights under every marriage law in the country.
> 
> Fish breath.
Click to expand...

Give it up Chief Sellout you and your God lost.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> It also fails as both a red herring and slippery slope fallacy – same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, brothers and sisters not.
> 
> No one is seeking to 'change marriage.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "Slippery Slope" exists, therefore appealing to the calamitous nature of that self evident slope, is not fallacious.
> 
> When the dropping of the Sodomy Laws was being discussed, Homosexuals REPEATEDLY claimed OUTRAGE over 'suggestions' that they would inevitably claim a right to marry, or adopt children or serve in the US Military... they claimed THEN that the suggestions that they would do so were fallacious and an appeal to the slippery slope.
> 
> IN FACT, the slope DOES exist and it IS Slippery... and THEY DID INEVITABLY DEMAND TO ALLOWED TO BE MARRIED, TO ADOPT CHILDREN AND JOIN THE US MILITARY.
> 
> And acceptance of the perverse species of reasoning through which you're advocating MUST Result in Incestuous Marriage, inter-species marriage and polygamy and the elimination of the Age of sexual consent.
> 
> Just as dropping the sodomy laws HAD TO provide for homosexuals demanding to marry, adopt children and join the US Military.
> 
> Expecting anything else is every bit as foolish as expecting Relativists to consider anything which extends beyond their own needs, wants and desires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be related to the cretin, Charles Worley, who wants to place all gays and lesbians behind an electrical fence.  Do you wear a white sheet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a reason that Homosexuals have spent most of human history in the closet... they're a threat to the viability of civilization.
> 
> Yes, I would support locking up those who present with mental disorder.  And yes... Homosexuality is a presentation of mental disorder.
> 
> I should also point out that I would support allowing minimal mobility of those who show a sound degree of self control.  Perhaps, after many years of re-training, the best examples of such could be allowed to live free.  But under no circumstances should a sexually abnormal person ever be allowed to speak in a public forum, serve any function which could potentially set them in contact with Children, or in proximity of a voting booth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect the reason why homosexuals, in the past, hid in the closet was because of a hateful, raging, smug, intolerant, closed-minded, despicable bigot like you.  You feed off of marginalizing people, trying to make them feel inferior as if they don't belong in your world.  But I've news for you, it's not your world and your wicked, evil ways are no longer valid in the 21st Century.  Shame on you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love you how faggots think what you got going is modern, as if homosexual metastasy didn't cause the destruction of many civilizations in history.  You think you're new and hip, but you're a rerun of old, failed cultures who met their end through indulgence in unbridled depravity.
Click to expand...

Wherever you get your history books from, return them as ask for your money back.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Lilah said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.
> 
> 
> 
> Use the marriage argument they put forth.  Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it.  At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage.  They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of hypocrisy- your post is a prime example.
> 
> I have always claimed that a same gender couple should be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are.
> 
> Nothing more- nothing less.
> 
> Bigots like you- who oppose same gender marriage- are the ones who keep calling us hypocrites- for not supporting something you also oppose.
> 
> The ones who keep bringing up the subject of brother/sister marriages are conservatives who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.
> 
> You bring it up only to try to deny marriage to same gender couples- and that- that is hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It also fails as both a red herring and slippery slope fallacy – same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, brothers and sisters not.
> 
> No one is seeking to 'change marriage.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "Slippery Slope" exists, therefore appealing to the calamitous nature of that self evident slope, is not fallacious.
> 
> When the dropping of the Sodomy Laws was being discussed, Homosexuals REPEATEDLY claimed OUTRAGE over 'suggestions' that they would inevitably claim a right to marry, or adopt children or serve in the US Military... they claimed THEN that the suggestions that they would do so were fallacious and an appeal to the slippery slope.
> 
> IN FACT, the slope DOES exist and it IS Slippery... and THEY DID INEVITABLY DEMAND TO ALLOWED TO BE MARRIED, TO ADOPT CHILDREN AND JOIN THE US MILITARY.
> 
> And acceptance of the perverse species of reasoning through which you're advocating MUST Result in Incestuous Marriage, inter-species marriage and polygamy and the elimination of the Age of sexual consent.
> 
> Just as dropping the sodomy laws HAD TO provide for homosexuals demanding to marry, adopt children and join the US Military.
> 
> Expecting anything else is every bit as foolish as expecting Relativists to consider anything which extends beyond their own needs, wants and desires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be related to the cretin, Charles Worley, who wants to place all gays and lesbians behind an electrical fence.  Do you wear a white sheet?
Click to expand...


No, that's what your party does, or did you forget?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, from this thread it is very clear that there is a wide difference of opinion on gay marriage, homosexuality in general, and whether it is a normal or abnormal human condition.
> 
> When societies face such differences they vote and the majority opinion is accepted, or dealt with, by all.
> 
> So, lets let america vote on whether the nation should sanction gay unions as marriages, allow them but call them something else, or ban them totally.
> 
> let the people speak.
> 
> whether you comprehend it or not, all of our rights in this country were originally established by majority vote.   We may say they were "God-given"   but we made them valid by majority vote.
> 
> Lets do the same on the gay issues and put the issue to bed (poor choice of words)  for a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same sex marriage supporters claim a majority of the people in the country support it.  If that is true, why would they be opposed to having a vote.  If they hold the majority they claim, wouldn't that guarantee a win for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> because they know that they are not in a majority.  prop 8 in california proved that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- are you ignorant or just stupid? Or maybe both?
> 
> Prop 8 passed in 2008.
> 
> Since that time voters have voted in favor same gender marriage 3 times.
> 
> Now most Americans favor same gender marriage
> Gay Marriage Attitudes A Pause Not A Plateau - Forbes
> 
> *In 1996, when Gallup asked whether marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages, 27 percent said they should; _last month, 55 percent did._  May 2011 was the first Gallup asking in which a plurality of Americans favored legalizing same-sex marriage.
> *In the NBC News/Wall Street Journal question from 1996, 25 percent favored allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into same-sex marriages. *In 2013, 53 percent did.*
> *In 1996, 27 percent told Pew that they favored allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally.* In 2014, 54 percent did.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey dickhead, if you have a majority, why not hold a vote?  If you had the winning lottery numbers, would you buy a ticket?  If it's as guaranteed as you claim about the majority, why are you scared to have a vote nationwide? I know, you're a fucking liar that isn't willing to prove what you claim in a real sense yet you'll still claim what say exists.  Put up of STFU coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow....I can pretty much envision you sitting in your underwear in the basement yelling cursewords at the screen, with spittle flying as you hunt and peck your way through your psot.
> 
> I live in California- the courts have already ruled- the ban on gay marriage- Prop 8 is unconstitutional- hadn't you heard?
> 
> Why would we have a vote on something that is already dead?
> 
> I am fine with voters voting- but all laws are subject to the Constitution- and just like a State can pass a law banning gun ownership- and the NRA files lawsuits to get it declared unconstitutional, its perfectly fine to use the court to try to get marriage bans declared unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


Only Leftwat statists who serve their father, the devil, see victory in overturning the will of the people and advancing a sinister and perverted agenda through black robed tyrants finding "rights" that don't exist in the Constitution.


----------



## GreenBean

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny when people like Seawytch say such things then demand society function the way she wants when it comes to marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Use the marriage argument they put forth.  Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it.  At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage.  They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of hypocrisy- your post is a prime example.
> 
> I have always claimed that a same gender couple should be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are.
> 
> Nothing more- nothing less.
> 
> Bigots like you- who oppose same gender marriage- are the ones who keep calling us hypocrites- for not supporting something you also oppose.
> 
> The ones who keep bringing up the subject of brother/sister marriages are conservatives who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.
> 
> You bring it up only to try to deny marriage to same gender couples- and that- that is hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It also fails as both a red herring and slippery slope fallacy – same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, brothers and sisters not.
> 
> No one is seeking to 'change marriage.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "Slippery Slope" exists, therefore appealing to the calamitous nature of that self evident slope, is not fallacious.
> 
> When the dropping of the Sodomy Laws was being discussed, Homosexuals REPEATEDLY claimed OUTRAGE over 'suggestions' that they would inevitably claim a right to marry, or adopt children or serve in the US Military... they claimed THEN that the suggestions that they would do so were fallacious and an appeal to the slippery slope.
> 
> IN FACT, the slope DOES exist and it IS Slippery... and THEY DID INEVITABLY DEMAND TO ALLOWED TO BE MARRIED, TO ADOPT CHILDREN AND JOIN THE US MILITARY.
> 
> And acceptance of the perverse species of reasoning through which you're advocating MUST Result in Incestuous Marriage, inter-species marriage and polygamy and the elimination of the Age of sexual consent.
> 
> Just as dropping the sodomy laws HAD TO provide for homosexuals demanding to marry, adopt children and join the US Military.
> 
> Expecting anything else is every bit as foolish as expecting Relativists to consider anything which extends beyond their own needs, wants and desires.
Click to expand...



Another item on the checklist of the Gay Agenda is normalizing Pedophilia or as they refer to it "Inter generational Intimacy" and the groundwork is already being layed.   Thy are working to “abolish age of consent laws.”    There are indications of  an effort to “do away with statutory rape laws,” so that adults, primarily homosexuals would be able to openly prey on little children sexually without fear of legal consequences.

Here's a few items from the 1972 Gay Rights Platform

7. *Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.*

8. Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.

Really - "You can't make this stuff up"  

The 1972 Gay Rights Platform Platform created at the National Coalitionof Gay Organizations Convention held in Chicago in 1972


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Lilah said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> funny,  you want our entire society to function based on the way you feeeeeeeeeeeel about it.  You are a bigotted, confused idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny when people like Seawytch say such things then demand society function the way she wants when it comes to marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most lefties are.  They live by the concept that it's OK for them to do something they say is wrong if done in a way they don't like.  Use the marriage argument they put forth.  Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it.  At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage.  They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples.  They do toward those situations what they say is wrong to do for consenting adults.  They try to justify it with hypocrisy by claiming there are compelling reasons in those cases.  The hypocrisy they don't see is that they think they can determine what is compelling when they don't like it but in cases they support, no reason is compelling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Ideological Left does not contest incest marriage, nor do they contest polygamy, or bestiality... And they don't care about it, because they're idiots without the slightest means to reason through the equation and recognize the immorality of such and the destructive nature of immorality... and they do so, because they can't stand the idea that someone else should tell them how to act.
> 
> The Left wants to be free, without bearing ANY of the responsibilities that are intrinsic to such.
> 
> FTR: That's OKA: Evil...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take note, apathetic dimwit, this country has evolved immensely.  Why are you so afraid of people?
> If you really want to discuss hypocrisy, take a look at the Eugenics Movement headed by old Republican men.  States allowed social workers to designate people for sterilization.  The standards by which individuals could be *forcibly sterilized *were the most lax in the nation: unmarried women with children, African Americans, individuals with I.Q.'s under 70, the mentally ill, and children from poor families.  Does the majority really rule?
Click to expand...


Do you have a link for that or are you just pulling stuff out of your cock dilated ass? The only eugenic proponent I know of is Margaret Sanger who opened abortion clinics to kill off black people.  One of yours, of course.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

GreenBean said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.
> 
> 
> 
> Use the marriage argument they put forth.  Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it.  At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage.  They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of hypocrisy- your post is a prime example.
> 
> I have always claimed that a same gender couple should be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are.
> 
> Nothing more- nothing less.
> 
> Bigots like you- who oppose same gender marriage- are the ones who keep calling us hypocrites- for not supporting something you also oppose.
> 
> The ones who keep bringing up the subject of brother/sister marriages are conservatives who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.
> 
> You bring it up only to try to deny marriage to same gender couples- and that- that is hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It also fails as both a red herring and slippery slope fallacy – same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, brothers and sisters not.
> 
> No one is seeking to 'change marriage.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "Slippery Slope" exists, therefore appealing to the calamitous nature of that self evident slope, is not fallacious.
> 
> When the dropping of the Sodomy Laws was being discussed, Homosexuals REPEATEDLY claimed OUTRAGE over 'suggestions' that they would inevitably claim a right to marry, or adopt children or serve in the US Military... they claimed THEN that the suggestions that they would do so were fallacious and an appeal to the slippery slope.
> 
> IN FACT, the slope DOES exist and it IS Slippery... and THEY DID INEVITABLY DEMAND TO ALLOWED TO BE MARRIED, TO ADOPT CHILDREN AND JOIN THE US MILITARY.
> 
> And acceptance of the perverse species of reasoning through which you're advocating MUST Result in Incestuous Marriage, inter-species marriage and polygamy and the elimination of the Age of sexual consent.
> 
> Just as dropping the sodomy laws HAD TO provide for homosexuals demanding to marry, adopt children and join the US Military.
> 
> Expecting anything else is every bit as foolish as expecting Relativists to consider anything which extends beyond their own needs, wants and desires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Another item on the checklist of the Gay Agenda is normalizing Pedophilia or as they refer to it "Inter generational Intimacy"
Click to expand...

Hey fag-hater, you lost.  Suck it down like a big fat dick little Jesus-freak.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, I do.    not in 1890, but today it would pass.   if you are so sure a majority support gay marriage why do you fear a vote?
> 
> 
> 
> It might not have passed in 1990.....and what is it, do you think, that changed the minds of people in that regard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Longer time for indoctrination of more younger people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean, like religious indoctrination?   Hey!   Maybe you're on to something there.   Those worried about the indoctrination of children should work to disallow overtly religious people from marrying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one can force you to be a part of a religion.  That involves your choice.
> 
> People like you want overtly religious people to ignore their beliefs and be happy for you doing something I believe is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well then....what I suggested would be a perfect example for those who insist that being gay is a choice......wouldn't it?
> 
> You don't have to ignore your belief at all.....just don't shove it down my throat by your own sharia laws.
Click to expand...


Being gay is a choice, Fish Breath.   Who forced you into that lifestyle?  And you haven't seen intolerance until you've actually been to a country where Sh'ria is enforced, so quit talking out of your ass.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> It might not have passed in 1990.....and what is it, do you think, that changed the minds of people in that regard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Longer time for indoctrination of more younger people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean, like religious indoctrination?   Hey!   Maybe you're on to something there.   Those worried about the indoctrination of children should work to disallow overtly religious people from marrying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one can force you to be a part of a religion.  That involves your choice.
> 
> People like you want overtly religious people to ignore their beliefs and be happy for you doing something I believe is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well then....what I suggested would be a perfect example for those who insist that being gay is a choice......wouldn't it?
> 
> You don't have to ignore your belief at all.....just don't shove it down my throat by your own sharia laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being gay is a choice, Fish Breath.   Who forced you into that lifestyle?  And you haven't seen intolerance until you've actually been to a country where Sh'ria is enforced, so quit talking out of your ass.
Click to expand...

I'm straight Chief Sellout, and I've walked the earth decades longer than you little man.  I was born straight, they were born gay.  Grow up and fucking deal with it.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

pillars said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> but thats exactly what you want.  you want a minority to dictate to the majority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 3 branches of government were established to prevent the tyranny of the majority over the minority.  No one is forcing you to become gay, attend a gay wedding, condone or endorse gay marriage, or marry gay people.  But, you don't  get to determine what someone else's rights should be.
Click to expand...


Nope.  You faggots are just forcing people to conduct the ceremonies, bake wedding cakes, and offer photography services for fag weddings. I love how how you turd pirates pretend like you're not in everyone's face and not forcing your beliefs on anyone.  Bull fcking shit!


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1, stmike is not the face of Christianity or its doctrines.
> 
> 2. the anti-gay movement continues to lose traction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you and wytch just don't get it.   Being anti-gay marriage is not being anti-gay.
> 
> there is no anti-gay "movement".   GRow the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are anti-gay marriage...don't have a gay marriage, don't go to a gay marriage.
Click to expand...


Hard to avoid your fag weddings when Christian business owners are being sued for not offering wedding services.  You faggots are more belligerent than you pretend to be.


----------



## Coloradomtnman

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here.  I will link to the Royal College of Psychiatrists for you: http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/PS02_2014.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The College wishes to clarify that homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.  I wonder why the anti-gay site didn't mention that!  Hmmm...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Communism is responsible for the murder of 150 million innocent people in the mid-20th century."
> 
> This fact is found on any number of anti-communist sites... and that doesn't make it less than truth, thus something other than a fact.
> 
> But hey... there's no way for you to have known that.  Such requires one posses the means to reason... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was one of the worst red herrings I...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
Click to expand...


Shut the fuck up.  Seriously.  Shut the fuck up.


----------



## GreenBean

groun


Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You worked really hard to convince yourself that list is true, didn't you?   *chuckle
> 
> 
> 
> Fish breath? He called you Fish Breath and he questions YOUR intellect?
> Wow. You cant make this stuff up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so now we have a make believe devil dog -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yep. Deal with it, homophobe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have anything of substance to add Penis Breath ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the person who thinks 'substance' is calling someone 'fish breath'
Click to expand...

If you say so Penis Breath


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1, stmike is not the face of Christianity or its doctrines.
> 
> 2. the anti-gay movement continues to lose traction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you and wytch just don't get it.   Being anti-gay marriage is not being anti-gay.
> 
> there is no anti-gay "movement".   GRow the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are anti-gay marriage...don't have a gay marriage, don't go to a gay marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hard to avoid your fag weddings when Christian business owners are being sued for not offering wedding services.  You faggots are more belligerent than you pretend to be.
Click to expand...

Either follow the law or go out of business?  Baking cakes isn't serving God.  Your call.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coloradomtnman said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here.  I will link to the Royal College of Psychiatrists for you: http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/PS02_2014.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The College wishes to clarify that homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.  I wonder why the anti-gay site didn't mention that!  Hmmm...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Communism is responsible for the murder of 150 million innocent people in the mid-20th century."
> 
> This fact is found on any number of anti-communist sites... and that doesn't make it less than truth, thus something other than a fact.
> 
> But hey... there's no way for you to have known that.  Such requires one posses the means to reason... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was one of the worst red herrings I...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shut the fuck up.  Seriously.  Shut the fuck up.
Click to expand...


Or what?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Greenbean and the other social cons can't grasp that their opinion about anal sex (which heterosexuals loves as much as homosexuals), their opinions about the Bible, and the Bible itself has no standing in federal courts.
> 
> All of their above whining is . . . unhappy whining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another one of your lies, Jake the Fake Retardsky.
> 
> Most heterosexuals do not like anal sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet a large proportion of heterosexuals have had anal sex- 44% of men, 36% of women.
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf
> 
> Survey reveals US sex habits - NHS Choices - Health News
> 
> 21% of the women in the 25-29 and 30-39 age groups had experienced anal sex in the last year.
> About 20% of girls aged 18-19 had had anal sex at least once.
> And its the third most common male sexual fantasy, right after threesomes and oral sex.
> 
> Top 10 Sexual Fantasies for Men - Men s Health - Everyday Health
Click to expand...


Anal sex doesn't ring a woman's bell, so it only benefits one sex partner.  True sex is conducted for the mutual benefit of both partners.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Greenbean and the other social cons can't grasp that their opinion about anal sex (which heterosexuals loves as much as homosexuals), their opinions about the Bible, and the Bible itself has no standing in federal courts.
> 
> All of their above whining is . . . unhappy whining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another one of your lies, Jake the Fake Retardsky.
> 
> Most heterosexuals do not like anal sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet a large proportion of heterosexuals have had anal sex- 44% of men, 36% of women.
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf
> 
> Survey reveals US sex habits - NHS Choices - Health News
> 
> 21% of the women in the 25-29 and 30-39 age groups had experienced anal sex in the last year.
> About 20% of girls aged 18-19 had had anal sex at least once.
> And its the third most common male sexual fantasy, right after threesomes and oral sex.
> 
> Top 10 Sexual Fantasies for Men - Men s Health - Everyday Health
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anal sex doesn't ring a woman's bell, so it only benefits one sex partner.  True sex is conducted for the mutual benefit of both partners.
Click to expand...

A whole lot of sex with men doesn't ring a woman's bell...


----------



## GreenBean

JimBowie1958 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Greenbean and the other social cons can't grasp that their opinion about anal sex (which heterosexuals loves as much as homosexuals), their opinions about the Bible, and the Bible itself has no standing in federal courts.
> 
> All of their above whining is . . . unhappy whining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another one of your lies, Jake the Fake Retardsky.
> 
> Most heterosexuals do not like anal sex. When one walks down the side walk and sees a pile of shit, one doesn't step in it even with shoes on. IF one were barefoot that would be something I think 99% of us can agree is not going to be set in that shit.
> 
> Why would any guy with an IQ above room temperature put his DICK into shit?
> 
> ITs pretty damned stupid, you cocksucking ape.
Click to expand...


They not only put their organ into it - they suck it off when finished . That is the reason Shigella dysentery or shigelosis is rampant in the Gay community . It is a disease contracted by ingesting feces and is found primarily among the mentally disturbed and homosexuals- actually - the mentally ill which of course includes homosexuals .


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, from this thread it is very clear that there is a wide difference of opinion on gay marriage, homosexuality in general, and whether it is a normal or abnormal human condition.
> 
> When societies face such differences they vote and the majority opinion is accepted, or dealt with, by all.
> 
> So, lets let america vote on whether the nation should sanction gay unions as marriages, allow them but call them something else, or ban them totally.
> 
> let the people speak.
> 
> whether you comprehend it or not, all of our rights in this country were originally established by majority vote.   We may say they were "God-given"   but we made them valid by majority vote.
> 
> Lets do the same on the gay issues and put the issue to bed (poor choice of words)  for a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same sex marriage supporters claim a majority of the people in the country support it.  If that is true, why would they be opposed to having a vote.  If they hold the majority they claim, wouldn't that guarantee a win for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No problems now....but again.....you think civil rights should be up for a vote?    How about we have a vote on the civil rights of....let's say.....Mormons.  A vote, mind you.
> 
> Or how about a vote on the civil rights of obese people.  A vote.
> 
> Or how about a vote on the civil rights of homeless people.  A vote.
Click to expand...


Made up civil rights that aren't in the Constitution are by default consigned the venue of the democratic process.

Fish breath.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

GreenBean said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Greenbean and the other social cons can't grasp that their opinion about anal sex (which heterosexuals loves as much as homosexuals), their opinions about the Bible, and the Bible itself has no standing in federal courts.
> 
> All of their above whining is . . . unhappy whining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another one of your lies, Jake the Fake Retardsky.
> 
> Most heterosexuals do not like anal sex. When one walks down the side walk and sees a pile of shit, one doesn't step in it even with shoes on. IF one were barefoot that would be something I think 99% of us can agree is not going to be set in that shit.
> 
> Why would any guy with an IQ above room temperature put his DICK into shit?
> 
> ITs pretty damned stupid, you cocksucking ape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They not only put their organ into it - they suck it off when finished . That is the reason Shigella dysentery or shigelosis is rampant in the Gay community . It is a disease contracted by ingesting feces and is found primarily among the mentally disturbed and homosexuals- actually - the mentally ill which of course includes homosexuals .
Click to expand...


It's also called coprophagia, though I think that "fag" being part of that word might just be a coincidence.


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Greenbean and the other social cons can't grasp that their opinion about anal sex (which heterosexuals loves as much as homosexuals), their opinions about the Bible, and the Bible itself has no standing in federal courts.
> 
> All of their above whining is . . . unhappy whining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another one of your lies, Jake the Fake Retardsky.
> 
> Most heterosexuals do not like anal sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet a large proportion of heterosexuals have had anal sex- 44% of men, 36% of women.
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf
> 
> Survey reveals US sex habits - NHS Choices - Health News
> 
> 21% of the women in the 25-29 and 30-39 age groups had experienced anal sex in the last year.
> About 20% of girls aged 18-19 had had anal sex at least once.
> And its the third most common male sexual fantasy, right after threesomes and oral sex.
> 
> Top 10 Sexual Fantasies for Men - Men s Health - Everyday Health
Click to expand...



ONE :  The research is tied to the Kinsey Institute - the legacy of Alfred Kinsey - the pervert zoologist who published troves of *falsified and long since debunked studies *Which brings its validity into question.
*

*
TWO : Found in the conclusion of the study - at the link you provided - is an off handed vague concession of the studies unreliability 



> ...... it should be noted that,..... the findings are not based on in-depth interviews but on internet research *and therefore may be less reliable.*



THREE : What the article fails to address adequately is the fact that most heterosexuals who confessed to anal sex - did not do it on a regular basis - heck I myself even tried it with a girlfriend years ago -I didn't like it - nor did she.


----------



## GreenBean

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, from this thread it is very clear that there is a wide difference of opinion on gay marriage, homosexuality in general, and whether it is a normal or abnormal human condition.
> 
> When societies face such differences they vote and the majority opinion is accepted, or dealt with, by all.
> 
> So, lets let america vote on whether the nation should sanction gay unions as marriages, allow them but call them something else, or ban them totally.
> 
> let the people speak.
> 
> whether you comprehend it or not, all of our rights in this country were originally established by majority vote.   We may say they were "God-given"   but we made them valid by majority vote.
> 
> Lets do the same on the gay issues and put the issue to bed (poor choice of words)  for a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same sex marriage supporters claim a majority of the people in the country support it.  If that is true, why would they be opposed to having a vote.  If they hold the majority they claim, wouldn't that guarantee a win for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No problems now....but again.....you think civil rights should be up for a vote?    How about we have a vote on the civil rights of....let's say.....Mormons.  A vote, mind you.
> 
> Or how about a vote on the civil rights of obese people.  A vote.
> 
> Or how about a vote on the civil rights of homeless people.  A vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Made up civil rights that aren't in the Constitution are by default consigned the venue of the democratic process.
> 
> Fish breath.
Click to expand...

I say Bodecea has a new Moniker -gonna call her/it Fish Breath from now on ....lol


----------



## GreenBean

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Greenbean and the other social cons can't grasp that their opinion about anal sex (which heterosexuals loves as much as homosexuals), their opinions about the Bible, and the Bible itself has no standing in federal courts.
> 
> All of their above whining is . . . unhappy whining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another one of your lies, Jake the Fake Retardsky.
> 
> Most heterosexuals do not like anal sex. When one walks down the side walk and sees a pile of shit, one doesn't step in it even with shoes on. IF one were barefoot that would be something I think 99% of us can agree is not going to be set in that shit.
> 
> Why would any guy with an IQ above room temperature put his DICK into shit?
> 
> ITs pretty damned stupid, you cocksucking ape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They not only put their organ into it - they suck it off when finished . That is the reason Shigella dysentery or shigelosis is rampant in the Gay community . It is a disease contracted by ingesting feces and is found primarily among the mentally disturbed and homosexuals- actually - the mentally ill which of course includes homosexuals .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also called coprophagia, though I think that "fag" being part of that word might just be a coincidence.
Click to expand...


Or possibly a Freudian slip by whomever  coined the term ...LOL


----------



## PaintMyHouse

GreenBean said:


> THREE : What the article fails to address adequately is the fact that most heterosexuals who confessed to anal sex - did not do it on a regular basis - heck I myself even tried it with a girlfriend years ago -I didn't like it - nor did she.


Deviant.  Guess you didn't know how to do it right then rug muncher.


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> pillars said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> but thats exactly what you want.  you want a minority to dictate to the majority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 3 branches of government were established to prevent the tyranny of the majority over the minority.  No one is forcing you to become gay, attend a gay wedding, condone or endorse gay marriage, or marry gay people.  But, you don't  get to determine what someone else's rights should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  You faggots are just forcing people to conduct the ceremonies, bake wedding cakes, and offer photography services for fag weddings. I love how how you turd pirates pretend like you're not in everyone's face and not forcing your beliefs on anyone.  Bull fcking shit!
Click to expand...


Have you abandoned all pretext of being a Christian? 

Did you know that Public Accommodation laws protect Christians in all 50 states but gays in only a handful? Gays must serve Christians in all 50 states, but Christians don't have to serve gays in all 50. You aren't really going to try to pretend that the law treats Christians unfairly are you?


----------



## Coloradomtnman

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> pillars said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> but thats exactly what you want.  you want a minority to dictate to the majority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 3 branches of government were established to prevent the tyranny of the majority over the minority.  No one is forcing you to become gay, attend a gay wedding, condone or endorse gay marriage, or marry gay people.  But, you don't  get to determine what someone else's rights should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  You faggots are just forcing people to conduct the ceremonies, bake wedding cakes, and offer photography services for fag weddings. I love how how you turd pirates pretend like you're not in everyone's face and not forcing your beliefs on anyone.  Bull fcking shit!
Click to expand...


Oh!  I didn't realize the extent of the oppression!  Christians in untold numbers are being forced to conduct ceremonies (untrue), bake cakes, and take photographs of gay people getting married!  It's as if this is Nero's Rome!  What terrible persecution!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pillars said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> but thats exactly what you want.  you want a minority to dictate to the majority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 3 branches of government were established to prevent the tyranny of the majority over the minority.  No one is forcing you to become gay, attend a gay wedding, condone or endorse gay marriage, or marry gay people.  But, you don't  get to determine what someone else's rights should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  You faggots are just forcing people to conduct the ceremonies, bake wedding cakes, and offer photography services for fag weddings. I love how how you turd pirates pretend like you're not in everyone's face and not forcing your beliefs on anyone.  Bull fcking shit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you abandoned all pretext of being a Christian?
> 
> Did you know that Public Accommodation laws protect Christians in all 50 states but gays in only a handful? Gays must serve Christians in all 50 states, but Christians don't have to serve gays in all 50. You aren't really going to try to pretend that the law treats Christians unfairly are you?
Click to expand...


False Premise...  Christians are those who profess to have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and to adhere to the objectively reasoned tenets of his good word.

While "Gays" are professed sexual deviants; which is to say those who readily admit to having little to no control over their perverse desire for sexual gratification through sexual interaction with those of their own gender; thus having presented with profound mental disorder.

Not sure what you're driving at... Sexual Abnormality is a serious mental disorder which axiomatically indicates that caution is required when dealing with such a person.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.




Consider how those who describe themselves as homophobic are always more turned on by gay porn than self-identified gay men. They conceal they're own homosexuality by coming out (heh) against it. 

We're on to you.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coloradomtnman said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pillars said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> but thats exactly what you want.  you want a minority to dictate to the majority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 3 branches of government were established to prevent the tyranny of the majority over the minority.  No one is forcing you to become gay, attend a gay wedding, condone or endorse gay marriage, or marry gay people.  But, you don't  get to determine what someone else's rights should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  You faggots are just forcing people to conduct the ceremonies, bake wedding cakes, and offer photography services for fag weddings. I love how how you turd pirates pretend like you're not in everyone's face and not forcing your beliefs on anyone.  Bull fcking shit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh!  I didn't realize the extent of the oppression!  Christians in untold numbers are being forced to conduct ceremonies (untrue), bake cakes, and take photographs of gay people getting married!  It's as if this is Nero's Rome!  What terrible persecution!
Click to expand...


Is there some distinction in principle where one person is forced into servitude, as opposed to a million or ten million?

What would that distinction be?  And do you see any potential for expansion of forced servitude, where the first passes without contest, then the second and third and so on?

I ask, because it is clear that tens of millions of voters disagreed in the last election, wherein a large percentage of the political clout of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality was kicked to the curb by that significant majority.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Delta4Embassy said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consider how those who describe themselves as homophobic are always more turned on by gay porn than self-identified gay men. They conceal they're own homosexuality by coming out (heh) against it.
> 
> We're on to you.
Click to expand...


_'Homophobe_' is a fraudulent contrivance of the cult of socialism... the word literally means _'irrational fear of self'_; meaning that there is no such thing as a homophobe, therefore there are precisely zero people who describe themselves as such.


----------



## Coloradomtnman

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pillars said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> but thats exactly what you want.  you want a minority to dictate to the majority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 3 branches of government were established to prevent the tyranny of the majority over the minority.  No one is forcing you to become gay, attend a gay wedding, condone or endorse gay marriage, or marry gay people.  But, you don't  get to determine what someone else's rights should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  You faggots are just forcing people to conduct the ceremonies, bake wedding cakes, and offer photography services for fag weddings. I love how how you turd pirates pretend like you're not in everyone's face and not forcing your beliefs on anyone.  Bull fcking shit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh!  I didn't realize the extent of the oppression!  Christians in untold numbers are being forced to conduct ceremonies (untrue), bake cakes, and take photographs of gay people getting married!  It's as if this is Nero's Rome!  What terrible persecution!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there some distinction in principle where one person is forced into servitude, as opposed to a million or ten million?
> 
> What would that distinction be?  And do you see any potential for expansion of forced servitude, where the first passes without contest, then the second and third and so on?
> 
> I ask, because it is clear that tens of millions of voters disagreed in the last election, wherein a large percentage of the political clout of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality was kicked to the curb by that significant majority.
Click to expand...


So having to bake a cake is equal to not having equality because one is attracted to one's own gender?

Are you saying that gay marriage is a slippery slope to Christian slavery?

Was marriage equality on the ballot last November?  Would it matter if it was?  Does the Constitution protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Lilah said:


> I suspect the reason why homosexuals, in the past, hid in the closet was because of a hateful, raging, smug, intolerant, closed-minded, despicable bigot like you.



Bigot?

Me?

Let's test that...

Bigotry: _intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself._

Huh...  That's weird.  You called ME a bigot, even as YOU WERE DEMONSTRATING THE PRECISE COMPOSITION of "Bigotry".

LOL!  ... who could've seen THAT comin'?






Lilah said:


> You feed off of marginalizing people...



Wait... is it me, or is that YOU, trying to marginalize ME?

I only ask because it really looks like YOU'RE TRYING TO MARGINALIZE ME... and ya seem to be doing so, even as ya imply that doin' so, is wrong. 

So you seem to be suffering some sort of cognitive dissonance.  And ya might want to get that checked out.  Could be a serious problem for ya.




Lilah said:


> trying to make them feel inferior as if they don't belong in your world.



But... _You're_ trying to make _me_ feel inferior, and clearly your premise, is that I _don't belong in your world._

I mean... this is you, right? >>  





Lilah said:


> But I've news for you, it's not your world and your wicked, evil ways are no longer valid in the 21st Century.  Shame on you!



All I'm doing is stating a fact: Homosexuality deviates from the physiological standard established by the natural, intrinsic design of the human being.  And that it not only deviates from that standard, it deviates as FAR OFF THE STANDARD AS CAN BE PRODUCED, WHERE THE SUBJECTS IN CONSIDERATION REMAIN HUMAN.

Meaning that it's not possible to deviate FURTHER FROM THE HUMAN SEXUALITY NORM, THAN HOMOSEXUALITY.

With the overriding point being that it's beyond foolish to claim that THAT DEVIATION is *normal.
*
Because... it's *not normal.*  It's demonstrably abnormal... and nothing short of a presentation of a profound mental disorder... (_cognitive dissonance_, for instance.)

Which, again... is why homosexuals have spent the bulk of human existence up on the top shelf, pushed toward the back of the closet.  "It's a problem..."


----------



## Redfish

Coloradomtnman said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pillars said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> but thats exactly what you want.  you want a minority to dictate to the majority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 3 branches of government were established to prevent the tyranny of the majority over the minority.  No one is forcing you to become gay, attend a gay wedding, condone or endorse gay marriage, or marry gay people.  But, you don't  get to determine what someone else's rights should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  You faggots are just forcing people to conduct the ceremonies, bake wedding cakes, and offer photography services for fag weddings. I love how how you turd pirates pretend like you're not in everyone's face and not forcing your beliefs on anyone.  Bull fcking shit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh!  I didn't realize the extent of the oppression!  Christians in untold numbers are being forced to conduct ceremonies (untrue), bake cakes, and take photographs of gay people getting married!  It's as if this is Nero's Rome!  What terrible persecution!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there some distinction in principle where one person is forced into servitude, as opposed to a million or ten million?
> 
> What would that distinction be?  And do you see any potential for expansion of forced servitude, where the first passes without contest, then the second and third and so on?
> 
> I ask, because it is clear that tens of millions of voters disagreed in the last election, wherein a large percentage of the political clout of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality was kicked to the curb by that significant majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So having to bake a cake is equal to not having equality because one is attracted to one's own gender?
> 
> Are you saying that gay marriage is a slippery slope to Christian slavery?
> 
> Was marriage equality on the ballot last November?  Would it matter if it was?  Does the Constitution protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority?
Click to expand...

 

will you lefties ever get it?   minority rights were established by the majority.  Rights were made law by majority vote.   There is no tyranny in one man/one vote.   Its called democracy.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coloradomtnman said:


> So having to bake a cake is equal to not having equality because one is attracted to one's own gender?



"Having" to bake a cake, is forcing someone to do something that they don't want to do... which is forced servitude.  Try that in my shop and see how it goes for ya.



Coloradomtnman said:


> Are you saying that gay marriage is a slippery slope to Christian slavery?



Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Redfish said:


> will you lefties ever get it?   minority rights were established by the majority.  Rights were made law by majority vote.   There is no tyranny in one man/one vote.   Its called democracy.


You don't live in a democracy, you live in a Democratic Republic, and the rights of others should never be up for a vote, especially the rights of the minority.  How long before you get that?

And should you not like that then get the fuck out of my country and move to Jesusland.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So having to bake a cake is equal to not having equality because one is attracted to one's own gender?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Having" to bake a cake, is forcing someone to do something that they don't want to do... which is forced servitude.  Try that in my shop and see how it goes for ya.
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that gay marriage is a slippery slope to Christian slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...

Why do you bother saying this when it isn't true?  You lost, the fags won.  Suck it up like a big black dick faggot-hater.


----------



## Coloradomtnman

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So having to bake a cake is equal to not having equality because one is attracted to one's own gender?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Having" to bake a cake, is forcing someone to do something that they don't want to do... which is forced servitude.  Try that in my shop and see how it goes for ya.
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that gay marriage is a slippery slope to Christian slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...


Kinda like forcing someone to remain single instead marrying the person he/she loves?

Marriage is whatever the people marrying define it as.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Coloradomtnman said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So having to bake a cake is equal to not having equality because one is attracted to one's own gender?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Having" to bake a cake, is forcing someone to do something that they don't want to do... which is forced servitude.  Try that in my shop and see how it goes for ya.
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that gay marriage is a slippery slope to Christian slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kinda like forcing someone to remain single instead marrying the person he/she loves?
> 
> Marriage is whatever the people marrying define it as.
Click to expand...

Actually. here, it's what the State defines it as, unless you want a non-binding one without legal support like a church thing or whatever else you came up with.  That is what is pissing people off, the states have figured out that fags have equal rights.


----------



## Coloradomtnman

PaintMyHouse said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So having to bake a cake is equal to not having equality because one is attracted to one's own gender?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Having" to bake a cake, is forcing someone to do something that they don't want to do... which is forced servitude.  Try that in my shop and see how it goes for ya.
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that gay marriage is a slippery slope to Christian slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kinda like forcing someone to remain single instead marrying the person he/she loves?
> 
> Marriage is whatever the people marrying define it as.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually. here, it's what the State defines it as, unless you want a non-binding one without legal support like a church thing or whatever else you came up with.  That is what is pissing people off, the states have figured out that fags have equal rights.
Click to expand...


Yes.  It wasn't well made, but my point was he doesn't get to define what marriage is for others.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Coloradomtnman said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So having to bake a cake is equal to not having equality because one is attracted to one's own gender?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Having" to bake a cake, is forcing someone to do something that they don't want to do... which is forced servitude.  Try that in my shop and see how it goes for ya.
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that gay marriage is a slippery slope to Christian slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kinda like forcing someone to remain single instead marrying the person he/she loves?
> 
> Marriage is whatever the people marrying define it as.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually. here, it's what the State defines it as, unless you want a non-binding one without legal support like a church thing or whatever else you came up with.  That is what is pissing people off, the states have figured out that fags have equal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  It wasn't well made, but my point was he doesn't get to define what marriage is for others.
Click to expand...

Society does that but it isn't up for a vote, and society has found some more people who should be married.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Delta4Embassy said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consider how those who describe themselves as homophobic are always more turned on by gay porn than self-identified gay men. They conceal they're own homosexuality by coming out (heh) against it.
> 
> We're on to you.
Click to expand...


Who describes themselves as homophobic?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pillars said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> but thats exactly what you want.  you want a minority to dictate to the majority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 3 branches of government were established to prevent the tyranny of the majority over the minority.  No one is forcing you to become gay, attend a gay wedding, condone or endorse gay marriage, or marry gay people.  But, you don't  get to determine what someone else's rights should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  You faggots are just forcing people to conduct the ceremonies, bake wedding cakes, and offer photography services for fag weddings. I love how how you turd pirates pretend like you're not in everyone's face and not forcing your beliefs on anyone.  Bull fcking shit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you abandoned all pretext of being a Christian?
> 
> Did you know that Public Accommodation laws protect Christians in all 50 states but gays in only a handful? Gays must serve Christians in all 50 states, but Christians don't have to serve gays in all 50. You aren't really going to try to pretend that the law treats Christians unfairly are you?
Click to expand...

What gay person or atheist has ever been forced to perform a wedding service for Christians?

Right.  None.  Let's stop with the irrelevant comparisons shall we?

And Christians don't take advice from non Christians as to what Christian conduct should be.  That would just be absurd.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coloradomtnman said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So having to bake a cake is equal to not having equality because one is attracted to one's own gender?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Having" to bake a cake, is forcing someone to do something that they don't want to do... which is forced servitude.  Try that in my shop and see how it goes for ya.
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that gay marriage is a slippery slope to Christian slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kinda like forcing someone to remain single instead marrying the person he/she loves?
> 
> Marriage is whatever the people marrying define it as.
Click to expand...

No, it's not like that at all

The lack of "gay marriage" has not kept anyone single.  You people pair up with or without a piece of paper.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Coloradomtnman said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So having to bake a cake is equal to not having equality because one is attracted to one's own gender?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Having" to bake a cake, is forcing someone to do something that they don't want to do... which is forced servitude.  Try that in my shop and see how it goes for ya.
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that gay marriage is a slippery slope to Christian slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kinda like forcing someone to remain single instead marrying the person he/she loves?
> 
> Marriage is whatever the people marrying define it as.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually. here, it's what the State defines it as, unless you want a non-binding one without legal support like a church thing or whatever else you came up with.  That is what is pissing people off, the states have figured out that fags have equal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  It wasn't well made, but my point was he doesn't get to define what marriage is for others.
Click to expand...


Actually I do. It's called democracy.


----------



## Lilah

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny when people like Seawytch say such things then demand society function the way she wants when it comes to marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most lefties are.  They live by the concept that it's OK for them to do something they say is wrong if done in a way they don't like.  Use the marriage argument they put forth.  Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it.  At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage.  They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples.  They do toward those situations what they say is wrong to do for consenting adults.  They try to justify it with hypocrisy by claiming there are compelling reasons in those cases.  The hypocrisy they don't see is that they think they can determine what is compelling when they don't like it but in cases they support, no reason is compelling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Ideological Left does not contest incest marriage, nor do they contest polygamy, or bestiality... And they don't care about it, because they're idiots without the slightest means to reason through the equation and recognize the immorality of such and the destructive nature of immorality... and they do so, because they can't stand the idea that someone else should tell them how to act.
> 
> The Left wants to be free, without bearing ANY of the responsibilities that are intrinsic to such.
> 
> FTR: That's OKA: Evil...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take note, apathetic dimwit, this country has evolved immensely.  Why are you so afraid of people?
> If you really want to discuss hypocrisy, take a look at the Eugenics Movement headed by old Republican men.  States allowed social workers to designate people for sterilization.  The standards by which individuals could be *forcibly sterilized *were the most lax in the nation: unmarried women with children, African Americans, individuals with I.Q.'s under 70, the mentally ill, and children from poor families.  Does the majority really rule?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link for that or are you just pulling stuff out of your cock dilated ass? The only eugenic proponent I know of is Margaret Sanger who opened abortion clinics to kill off black people.  One of yours, of course.
Click to expand...


At least you've admitted you don't very much, which proves most bigots are uneducated.  Slide your fingers over your keyboard and locate the letters GOOGLE.  You do know how to Google, don't you?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So having to bake a cake is equal to not having equality because one is attracted to one's own gender?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Having" to bake a cake, is forcing someone to do something that they don't want to do... which is forced servitude.  Try that in my shop and see how it goes for ya.
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that gay marriage is a slippery slope to Christian slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kinda like forcing someone to remain single instead marrying the person he/she loves?
> 
> Marriage is whatever the people marrying define it as.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually. here, it's what the State defines it as, unless you want a non-binding one without legal support like a church thing or whatever else you came up with.  That is what is pissing people off, the states have figured out that fags have equal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  It wasn't well made, but my point was he doesn't get to define what marriage is for others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I do. It's called democracy.
Click to expand...

You don't live in a Democracy.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consider how those who describe themselves as homophobic are always more turned on by gay porn than self-identified gay men. They conceal they're own homosexuality by coming out (heh) against it.
> 
> We're on to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who describes themselves as homophobic?
Click to expand...

Who describes themselves as racist?
Who describes themselves as misogynist?
Who describes themselves as ageist?
Who describes themselves as anti-semetic?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Lilah said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most lefties are.  They live by the concept that it's OK for them to do something they say is wrong if done in a way they don't like.  Use the marriage argument they put forth.  Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it.  At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage.  They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples.  They do toward those situations what they say is wrong to do for consenting adults.  They try to justify it with hypocrisy by claiming there are compelling reasons in those cases.  The hypocrisy they don't see is that they think they can determine what is compelling when they don't like it but in cases they support, no reason is compelling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Ideological Left does not contest incest marriage, nor do they contest polygamy, or bestiality... And they don't care about it, because they're idiots without the slightest means to reason through the equation and recognize the immorality of such and the destructive nature of immorality... and they do so, because they can't stand the idea that someone else should tell them how to act.
> 
> The Left wants to be free, without bearing ANY of the responsibilities that are intrinsic to such.
> 
> FTR: That's OKA: Evil...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take note, apathetic dimwit, this country has evolved immensely.  Why are you so afraid of people?
> If you really want to discuss hypocrisy, take a look at the Eugenics Movement headed by old Republican men.  States allowed social workers to designate people for sterilization.  The standards by which individuals could be *forcibly sterilized *were the most lax in the nation: unmarried women with children, African Americans, individuals with I.Q.'s under 70, the mentally ill, and children from poor families.  Does the majority really rule?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link for that or are you just pulling stuff out of your cock dilated ass? The only eugenic proponent I know of is Margaret Sanger who opened abortion clinics to kill off black people.  One of yours, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you've admitted you don't very much, which proves most bigots are uneducated.  Slide your fingers over your keyboard and locate the letters GOOGLE.  You do know how to Google, don't you?
Click to expand...


When you make outlandish claims, it's up to you to prove them. Short of that, we can just assume you made it up.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So having to bake a cake is equal to not having equality because one is attracted to one's own gender?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Having" to bake a cake, is forcing someone to do something that they don't want to do... which is forced servitude.  Try that in my shop and see how it goes for ya.
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that gay marriage is a slippery slope to Christian slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kinda like forcing someone to remain single instead marrying the person he/she loves?
> 
> Marriage is whatever the people marrying define it as.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not like that at all
> 
> The lack of "gay marriage" has not kept anyone single.  You people pair up with or without a piece of paper.
Click to expand...

So you don't believe that gay Americans should be afforded the SAME 1000+ rights and protections that Straight Americans can get thru a simple legal marriage license.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consider how those who describe themselves as homophobic are always more turned on by gay porn than self-identified gay men. They conceal they're own homosexuality by coming out (heh) against it.
> 
> We're on to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who describes themselves as homophobic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who describes themselves as racist?
> Who describes themselves as misogynist?
> Who describes themselves as ageist?
> Who describes themselves as anti-semetic?
Click to expand...


Who describes themselves as faggot?


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So having to bake a cake is equal to not having equality because one is attracted to one's own gender?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Having" to bake a cake, is forcing someone to do something that they don't want to do... which is forced servitude.  Try that in my shop and see how it goes for ya.
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that gay marriage is a slippery slope to Christian slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kinda like forcing someone to remain single instead marrying the person he/she loves?
> 
> Marriage is whatever the people marrying define it as.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually. here, it's what the State defines it as, unless you want a non-binding one without legal support like a church thing or whatever else you came up with.  That is what is pissing people off, the states have figured out that fags have equal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  It wasn't well made, but my point was he doesn't get to define what marriage is for others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I do. It's called democracy.
Click to expand...

So, you don't know that we are not a democracy?   We are a Constitutional Republic.  Didn't you take government?


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consider how those who describe themselves as homophobic are always more turned on by gay porn than self-identified gay men. They conceal they're own homosexuality by coming out (heh) against it.
> 
> We're on to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who describes themselves as homophobic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who describes themselves as racist?
> Who describes themselves as misogynist?
> Who describes themselves as ageist?
> Who describes themselves as anti-semetic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who describes themselves as faggot?
Click to expand...

Ah....apples and oranges.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So having to bake a cake is equal to not having equality because one is attracted to one's own gender?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Having" to bake a cake, is forcing someone to do something that they don't want to do... which is forced servitude.  Try that in my shop and see how it goes for ya.
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that gay marriage is a slippery slope to Christian slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kinda like forcing someone to remain single instead marrying the person he/she loves?
> 
> Marriage is whatever the people marrying define it as.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not like that at all
> 
> The lack of "gay marriage" has not kept anyone single.  You people pair up with or without a piece of paper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't believe that gay Americans should be afforded the SAME 1000+ rights and protections that Straight Americans can get thru a simple legal marriage license.
Click to expand...


They have the same rights.  Marriage laws that say that any person can marry any unrelated person of the opposite sex is not discriminating against anyone since it applies to everyone regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.  So no, you've never been denied a single right.  Your whole weeping cortege is based on pure bullshit.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Having" to bake a cake, is forcing someone to do something that they don't want to do... which is forced servitude.  Try that in my shop and see how it goes for ya.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda like forcing someone to remain single instead marrying the person he/she loves?
> 
> Marriage is whatever the people marrying define it as.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually. here, it's what the State defines it as, unless you want a non-binding one without legal support like a church thing or whatever else you came up with.  That is what is pissing people off, the states have figured out that fags have equal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  It wasn't well made, but my point was he doesn't get to define what marriage is for others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I do. It's called democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you don't know that we are not a democracy?   We are a Constitutional Republic.  Didn't you take government?
Click to expand...

Yes. Did you?  Laws are decided by the democratic process, not activist judges.  Go back to school because you have no clue how our government works.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So having to bake a cake is equal to not having equality because one is attracted to one's own gender?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Having" to bake a cake, is forcing someone to do something that they don't want to do... which is forced servitude.  Try that in my shop and see how it goes for ya.
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that gay marriage is a slippery slope to Christian slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kinda like forcing someone to remain single instead marrying the person he/she loves?
> 
> Marriage is whatever the people marrying define it as.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not like that at all
> 
> The lack of "gay marriage" has not kept anyone single.  You people pair up with or without a piece of paper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't believe that gay Americans should be afforded the SAME 1000+ rights and protections that Straight Americans can get thru a simple legal marriage license.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have the same rights.  Marriage laws that say that any person can marry any unrelated person of the opposite sex is not discriminating against anyone since it applies to everyone regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.  So no, you've never been denied a single right.  Your whole weeping cortege is based on pure bullshit.
Click to expand...

So...blacks and whites had the same rights before Loving v. Virginia?   Blacks couldn't marry outside their race and Whites couldn't marry outside their race either.   Is that what you are asserting?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda like forcing someone to remain single instead marrying the person he/she loves?
> 
> Marriage is whatever the people marrying define it as.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually. here, it's what the State defines it as, unless you want a non-binding one without legal support like a church thing or whatever else you came up with.  That is what is pissing people off, the states have figured out that fags have equal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  It wasn't well made, but my point was he doesn't get to define what marriage is for others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I do. It's called democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you don't know that we are not a democracy?   We are a Constitutional Republic.  Didn't you take government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Did you?  Laws are decided by the democratic process, not activist judges.  Go back to school because you have no clue how our government works.
Click to expand...

Really?  What was the last law you helped write?  Oh, you never have?  Right, and you never will Chief Sellout.  Go back to fucking school, the Rez one failed you.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda like forcing someone to remain single instead marrying the person he/she loves?
> 
> Marriage is whatever the people marrying define it as.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually. here, it's what the State defines it as, unless you want a non-binding one without legal support like a church thing or whatever else you came up with.  That is what is pissing people off, the states have figured out that fags have equal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  It wasn't well made, but my point was he doesn't get to define what marriage is for others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I do. It's called democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you don't know that we are not a democracy?   We are a Constitutional Republic.  Didn't you take government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Did you?  Laws are decided by the democratic process, not activist judges.  Go back to school because you have no clue how our government works.
Click to expand...

Laws are decided by the Legislative branch of our government...or by propositions (such as in CA)...but, because of the Checks and Balances set up in the Constitution, the Judicial Branch has the power of Judicial Review.   UnConstitutional laws cannot be enforced.  Judges do not create laws....but they sure can decide whether a law is Constitutional or not.   You need to go back to school yourself.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Having" to bake a cake, is forcing someone to do something that they don't want to do... which is forced servitude.  Try that in my shop and see how it goes for ya.
> 
> Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda like forcing someone to remain single instead marrying the person he/she loves?
> 
> Marriage is whatever the people marrying define it as.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not like that at all
> 
> The lack of "gay marriage" has not kept anyone single.  You people pair up with or without a piece of paper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't believe that gay Americans should be afforded the SAME 1000+ rights and protections that Straight Americans can get thru a simple legal marriage license.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have the same rights.  Marriage laws that say that any person can marry any unrelated person of the opposite sex is not discriminating against anyone since it applies to everyone regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.  So no, you've never been denied a single right.  Your whole weeping cortege is based on pure bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...blacks and whites had the same rights before Loving v. Virginia?   Blacks couldn't marry outside their race and Whites couldn't marry outside their race either.   Is that what you are asserting?
Click to expand...


Listen, Fish Breath, I know it's hard for you to finesse the difference, but discrimination by race is unconstitutional, discrimination by lifestyle isn't.  Get it?

No, you don't get it, do you?

Can't dumb it down any further than that, Trout.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda like forcing someone to remain single instead marrying the person he/she loves?
> 
> Marriage is whatever the people marrying define it as.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not like that at all
> 
> The lack of "gay marriage" has not kept anyone single.  You people pair up with or without a piece of paper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't believe that gay Americans should be afforded the SAME 1000+ rights and protections that Straight Americans can get thru a simple legal marriage license.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have the same rights.  Marriage laws that say that any person can marry any unrelated person of the opposite sex is not discriminating against anyone since it applies to everyone regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.  So no, you've never been denied a single right.  Your whole weeping cortege is based on pure bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...blacks and whites had the same rights before Loving v. Virginia?   Blacks couldn't marry outside their race and Whites couldn't marry outside their race either.   Is that what you are asserting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen, Fish Breath, I know it's hard for you to finesse the difference, but discrimination by race is unconstitutional, discrimination by lifestyle isn't.  Get it?
> 
> No, you don't get it, do you?
> 
> Can't dumb it down any further than that, Trout.
Click to expand...

Funny, Chief Sellout, the courts disagree and there's not a fucking thing you can do about it.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda like forcing someone to remain single instead marrying the person he/she loves?
> 
> Marriage is whatever the people marrying define it as.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not like that at all
> 
> The lack of "gay marriage" has not kept anyone single.  You people pair up with or without a piece of paper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't believe that gay Americans should be afforded the SAME 1000+ rights and protections that Straight Americans can get thru a simple legal marriage license.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have the same rights.  Marriage laws that say that any person can marry any unrelated person of the opposite sex is not discriminating against anyone since it applies to everyone regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.  So no, you've never been denied a single right.  Your whole weeping cortege is based on pure bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...blacks and whites had the same rights before Loving v. Virginia?   Blacks couldn't marry outside their race and Whites couldn't marry outside their race either.   Is that what you are asserting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen, Fish Breath, I know it's hard for you to finesse the difference, but discrimination by race is unconstitutional, discrimination by lifestyle isn't.  Get it?
> 
> No, you don't get it, do you?
> 
> Can't dumb it down any further than that, Trout.
Click to expand...

How are civil rights different for race than for gender?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not like that at all
> 
> The lack of "gay marriage" has not kept anyone single.  You people pair up with or without a piece of paper.
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't believe that gay Americans should be afforded the SAME 1000+ rights and protections that Straight Americans can get thru a simple legal marriage license.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have the same rights.  Marriage laws that say that any person can marry any unrelated person of the opposite sex is not discriminating against anyone since it applies to everyone regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.  So no, you've never been denied a single right.  Your whole weeping cortege is based on pure bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...blacks and whites had the same rights before Loving v. Virginia?   Blacks couldn't marry outside their race and Whites couldn't marry outside their race either.   Is that what you are asserting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen, Fish Breath, I know it's hard for you to finesse the difference, but discrimination by race is unconstitutional, discrimination by lifestyle isn't.  Get it?
> 
> No, you don't get it, do you?
> 
> Can't dumb it down any further than that, Trout.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How are civil rights different for race than for gender?
Click to expand...

 
Because no gender is being told they can't marry.


----------



## g5000

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.


They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.

No different than being told what race you have to marry.

Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't believe that gay Americans should be afforded the SAME 1000+ rights and protections that Straight Americans can get thru a simple legal marriage license.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have the same rights.  Marriage laws that say that any person can marry any unrelated person of the opposite sex is not discriminating against anyone since it applies to everyone regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.  So no, you've never been denied a single right.  Your whole weeping cortege is based on pure bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...blacks and whites had the same rights before Loving v. Virginia?   Blacks couldn't marry outside their race and Whites couldn't marry outside their race either.   Is that what you are asserting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen, Fish Breath, I know it's hard for you to finesse the difference, but discrimination by race is unconstitutional, discrimination by lifestyle isn't.  Get it?
> 
> No, you don't get it, do you?
> 
> Can't dumb it down any further than that, Trout.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How are civil rights different for race than for gender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
Click to expand...


*They were......blacks could not marry whites and whites could not marry blacks up to Loving v. Virginia.   Guess what happened then?*


----------



## bodecea

g5000 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
Click to expand...

They also used religion as an excuse to make inter-racial marriages illegal.


----------



## Redfish

bodecea said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They also used religion as an excuse to make inter-racial marriages illegal.
Click to expand...

 

race and sex are not analogous


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Redfish said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They also used religion as an excuse to make inter-racial marriages illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> race and sex are not analogous
Click to expand...

Explain civil rights protecting religion?  Most often a Lifestyle.  Oh, you can't?  Yeah, we knew that.


----------



## Redfish

g5000 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
Click to expand...

 
a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage.  They should be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized, but it is NOT a marriage.

why is the word "marriage" so critical to the gay agenda?   A civil union gives you all of the rights you claim to want.

But thats not what this is about is it?   the gay agenda is about forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition.   Thats your real agenda,   admit it and then we can move forward.

But you won't admit it, because you know that homosexuality is not a normal human condition


----------



## g5000

Redfish said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage.
Click to expand...


Yes, it is.  Sorry about that!



Redfish said:


> They should be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized, but it is NOT a marriage.



Your stupid little semantics game is transparent.

If you folks down at Westboro Baptist don't want to call a gay marriage a marriage, that's your right.  But you don't get to force them not to call their marriage a marriage.

As for having their union recognized, that won't be true until they receive the exact same state and federal government cash and prizes we heteros get for being married.

That's all they want. You can stomp your feet and blow a lot of retard smoke about the word "marriage", but until you get it through your thick skull that that is all they want then you will continue to sound like a retard.

*Now focus:  Government cash and prizes.  They want the same.   "Equal protection of the laws."
*
Get that through your head.  It isn't about a _word_, idiot.  It is about tangible things.  Real world shit that actually matters.  Legal stuff.


----------



## g5000

bodecea said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They also used religion as an excuse to make inter-racial marriages illegal.
Click to expand...

The bigot's rhetoric against same sex marriage is identical to the rhetoric against interracial marriage.


----------



## Redfish

g5000 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They also used religion as an excuse to make inter-racial marriages illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bigot's rhetoric against same sex marriage is identical to the rhetoric against interracial marriage.
Click to expand...

 

not its not, but your bigoted support of gay marriage does resemble that foolishness.


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect the reason why homosexuals, in the past, hid in the closet was because of a hateful, raging, smug, intolerant, closed-minded, despicable bigot like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bigot?
> 
> Me?
> 
> Let's test that...
> 
> Bigotry: _intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself._
> 
> Huh...  That's weird.  You called ME a bigot, even as YOU WERE DEMONSTRATING THE PRECISE COMPOSITION of "Bigotry".
> 
> LOL!  ... who could've seen THAT comin'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> You feed off of marginalizing people...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait... is it me, or is that YOU, trying to marginalize ME?
> 
> I only ask because it really looks like YOU'RE TRYING TO MARGINALIZE ME... and ya seem to be doing so, even as ya imply that doin' so, is wrong.
> 
> So you seem to be suffering some sort of cognitive dissonance.  And ya might want to get that checked out.  Could be a serious problem for ya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> trying to make them feel inferior as if they don't belong in your world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But... _You're_ trying to make _me_ feel inferior, and clearly your premise, is that I _don't belong in your world._
> 
> I mean... this is you, right? >>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I've news for you, it's not your world and your wicked, evil ways are no longer valid in the 21st Century.  Shame on you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All I'm doing is stating a fact: Homosexuality deviates from the physiological standard established by the natural, intrinsic design of the human being.  And that it not only deviates from that standard, it deviates as FAR OFF THE STANDARD AS CAN BE PRODUCED, WHERE THE SUBJECTS IN CONSIDERATION REMAIN HUMAN.
> 
> Meaning that it's not possible to deviate FURTHER FROM THE HUMAN SEXUALITY NORM, THAN HOMOSEXUALITY.
> 
> With the overriding point being that it's beyond foolish to claim that THAT DEVIATION is *normal.
> *
> Because... it's *not normal.*  It's demonstrably abnormal... and nothing short of a presentation of a profound mental disorder... (_cognitive dissonance_, for instance.)
> 
> Which, again... is why homosexuals have spent the bulk of human existence up on the top shelf, pushed toward the back of the closet.  "It's a problem..."
Click to expand...


Please stop cutting and pasting long enough to learn the meaning of cognitive dissonance.  I've been consistent in espousing my viewpoint that all people deserve to be treated justly and humanely.
It's quite obvious that your negative teachings have manifested themselves into disdain and contempt for minorities ... particularly gay people, whom you knowingly and willingly look down upon as being second-class citizens.  You have made them your targeted group in order to try and exalt yourself as being morally superior by ascribing particular vices to them, including sexual degeneracy, especially against children.
Your hate speech, tainted slurs and bullying perpetrates violent outbreaks against the LGBT community.
Your despicable teachings of hatred are, in my view, being discredited and abandoned by those of us who choose not to stigmatize and demonize gays and lesbians.  Gay people exist. It is wrong to call them names or use slurs about them. Their relationships should not be criminalized. They should not be discriminated against in employment, housing, and public accommodation. They should not be bullied. They should never have to be afraid of violence as they go about their daily lives. They should not be blamed for America’s security problems or social ills. They should not be stigmatized or treated with contempt. There should be no space in church life or culture for their dehumanization and mistreatment.
Your teachings and behavior place gays and lesbians at greater risk of losing their self-worth, health and well being.  What is your reward for such vile behavior?


----------



## Redfish

g5000 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  Sorry about that!
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> They should be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized, but it is NOT a marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your stupid little semantics game is transparent.
> 
> If you folks down at Westboro Baptist don't want to call a gay marriage a marriage, that's your right.  But you don't get to force them not to call their marriage a marriage.
> 
> As for having their union recognized, that won't be true until they receive the exact same state and federal government cash and prizes we heteros get for being married.
> 
> That's all they want. You can stomp your feet and blow a lot of retard smoke about the word "marriage", but until you get it through your thick skull that that is all they want then you will continue to sound like a retard.
> 
> *Now focus:  Government cash and prizes.  They want the same.   "Equal protection of the laws."
> *
> Get that through your head.  It isn't about a _word_, idiot.  It is about tangible things.  Real world shit that actually matters.  Legal stuff.
Click to expand...

 

a gay civil union would give them exactly the same govt cash and prizes as a man/woman marriage.

IT IS ALL ABOUT THE WORD,   DEAL WITH THAT REALITY.


----------



## Lilah

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most lefties are.  They live by the concept that it's OK for them to do something they say is wrong if done in a way they don't like.  Use the marriage argument they put forth.  Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it.  At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage.  They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples.  They do toward those situations what they say is wrong to do for consenting adults.  They try to justify it with hypocrisy by claiming there are compelling reasons in those cases.  The hypocrisy they don't see is that they think they can determine what is compelling when they don't like it but in cases they support, no reason is compelling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ideological Left does not contest incest marriage, nor do they contest polygamy, or bestiality... And they don't care about it, because they're idiots without the slightest means to reason through the equation and recognize the immorality of such and the destructive nature of immorality... and they do so, because they can't stand the idea that someone else should tell them how to act.
> 
> The Left wants to be free, without bearing ANY of the responsibilities that are intrinsic to such.
> 
> FTR: That's OKA: Evil...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take note, apathetic dimwit, this country has evolved immensely.  Why are you so afraid of people?
> If you really want to discuss hypocrisy, take a look at the Eugenics Movement headed by old Republican men.  States allowed social workers to designate people for sterilization.  The standards by which individuals could be *forcibly sterilized *were the most lax in the nation: unmarried women with children, African Americans, individuals with I.Q.'s under 70, the mentally ill, and children from poor families.  Does the majority really rule?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link for that or are you just pulling stuff out of your cock dilated ass? The only eugenic proponent I know of is Margaret Sanger who opened abortion clinics to kill off black people.  One of yours, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you've admitted you don't very much, which proves most bigots are uneducated.  Slide your fingers over your keyboard and locate the letters GOOGLE.  You do know how to Google, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you make outlandish claims, it's up to you to prove them. Short of that, we can just assume you made it up.
Click to expand...


Maybe your education is predicated upon such a premise, but my education was predicated upon my own personal responsibility to seek knowledge for myself and in doing so, accept personal responsibility for my choices and actions.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Redfish said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  Sorry about that!
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> They should be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized, but it is NOT a marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your stupid little semantics game is transparent.
> 
> If you folks down at Westboro Baptist don't want to call a gay marriage a marriage, that's your right.  But you don't get to force them not to call their marriage a marriage.
> 
> As for having their union recognized, that won't be true until they receive the exact same state and federal government cash and prizes we heteros get for being married.
> 
> That's all they want. You can stomp your feet and blow a lot of retard smoke about the word "marriage", but until you get it through your thick skull that that is all they want then you will continue to sound like a retard.
> 
> *Now focus:  Government cash and prizes.  They want the same.   "Equal protection of the laws."
> *
> Get that through your head.  It isn't about a _word_, idiot.  It is about tangible things.  Real world shit that actually matters.  Legal stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> a gay civil union would give them exactly the same govt cash and prizes as a man/woman marriage.
> 
> IT IS ALL ABOUT THE WORD,   DEAL WITH THAT REALITY.
Click to expand...

So you're hung up on a word, when worlds change over time?  What a dumbass you are.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Lilah said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ideological Left does not contest incest marriage, nor do they contest polygamy, or bestiality... And they don't care about it, because they're idiots without the slightest means to reason through the equation and recognize the immorality of such and the destructive nature of immorality... and they do so, because they can't stand the idea that someone else should tell them how to act.
> 
> The Left wants to be free, without bearing ANY of the responsibilities that are intrinsic to such.
> 
> FTR: That's OKA: Evil...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take note, apathetic dimwit, this country has evolved immensely.  Why are you so afraid of people?
> If you really want to discuss hypocrisy, take a look at the Eugenics Movement headed by old Republican men.  States allowed social workers to designate people for sterilization.  The standards by which individuals could be *forcibly sterilized *were the most lax in the nation: unmarried women with children, African Americans, individuals with I.Q.'s under 70, the mentally ill, and children from poor families.  Does the majority really rule?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link for that or are you just pulling stuff out of your cock dilated ass? The only eugenic proponent I know of is Margaret Sanger who opened abortion clinics to kill off black people.  One of yours, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you've admitted you don't very much, which proves most bigots are uneducated.  Slide your fingers over your keyboard and locate the letters GOOGLE.  You do know how to Google, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you make outlandish claims, it's up to you to prove them. Short of that, we can just assume you made it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe your education is predicated upon such a premise, but my education was predicated upon my own personal responsibility to seek knowledge for myself and in doing so, accept personal responsibility for my choices and actions.
Click to expand...


Then you made it up.  I'm not obligated to chase after every stupid claim you can dream up.  Nobody is. 

If you can't make your arguments without making things up, then I thank you not to make them at all.


----------



## Syriusly

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1, stmike is not the face of Christianity or its doctrines.
> 
> 2. the anti-gay movement continues to lose traction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is no anti-gay "movement".   GRow the fuck up.
Click to expand...


Of course there is an 'anti-gay movement'- it gets smaller and smaller each year but they are out there trying to stir up fears about homosexuals

The Million Mom's organization regularly attempts boycotts on business's because they are deemed to 'gay friendly'
Hotwire s Lucky Me Ad Featuring Two Gay Dads Slammed By One Million Moms

Best known for its failed boycott of JCPenney after the retail chain hired Ellen DeGeneres as its spokesperson, One Million Moms is now crying foul over a Hotwire's "Lucky Me" commercial, which features two gay dads.

Then there is the 'Family Research Council' and of course there are others


 List of anti-LGBT groups
4.1 Abiding Truth Ministries
4.2 American Family Association
4.3 American Vision
4.4 Americans for Truth About Homosexuality
4.5 Bethesda Christian Institute
4.6 Chalcedon Foundation
4.7 Dove World Outreach Center
4.8 Faithful Word Baptist Church
4.9 Family Research Council
4.10 Family Research Institute
4.11 Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment
4.12 Illinois Family Institute
4.13 Jewish Political Action Committee
4.14 MassResistance
4.15 Mission: America
4.16 Parents Action League
4.17 Public Advocate of the United States
4.18 SaveCalifornia.com
4.19 Sons of Thundr (Faith Baptist Church)
4.20 Tom Brown Ministries

4.21 Traditional Values Coalition
4.22 True Light Pentecost Church
4.23 United Families International
4.24 Westboro Baptist Church
4.25 Windsor Hills Baptist Church
4.26 World Congress of Families
4.27 You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International


----------



## g5000

Redfish said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  Sorry about that!
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> They should be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized, but it is NOT a marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your stupid little semantics game is transparent.
> 
> If you folks down at Westboro Baptist don't want to call a gay marriage a marriage, that's your right.  But you don't get to force them not to call their marriage a marriage.
> 
> As for having their union recognized, that won't be true until they receive the exact same state and federal government cash and prizes we heteros get for being married.
> 
> That's all they want. You can stomp your feet and blow a lot of retard smoke about the word "marriage", but until you get it through your thick skull that that is all they want then you will continue to sound like a retard.
> 
> *Now focus:  Government cash and prizes.  They want the same.   "Equal protection of the laws."
> *
> Get that through your head.  It isn't about a _word_, idiot.  It is about tangible things.  Real world shit that actually matters.  Legal stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> a gay civil union would give them exactly the same govt cash and prizes as a man/woman marriage.
Click to expand...


And yet they are denied that to this day.  Which is why the struggle continues, dipshit.  It isn't over.  They do not have the same protections to this day.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

g5000 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
Click to expand...


What's stupid is your knee jerk dumbing down understanding of Loving V Virginia.  The decision wasn't based on people not being able to marry another race, it was based on the law being applied unequally, utilizing racial discrimination:

"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy".

This is why it doesn't compare to marriage laws that don't discriminate and are applied equally to all people.  Now you know.

Or not.


----------



## Syriusly

Redfish said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, from this thread it is very clear that there is a wide difference of opinion on gay marriage, homosexuality in general, and whether it is a normal or abnormal human condition.
> 
> When societies face such differences they vote and the majority opinion is accepted, or dealt with, by all.
> 
> So, lets let america vote on whether the nation should sanction gay unions as marriages, allow them but call them something else, or ban them totally.
> 
> let the people speak.
> 
> whether you comprehend it or not, all of our rights in this country were originally established by majority vote.   We may say they were "God-given"   but we made them valid by majority vote.
> 
> Lets do the same on the gay issues and put the issue to bed (poor choice of words)  for a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same sex marriage supporters claim a majority of the people in the country support it.  If that is true, why would they be opposed to having a vote.  If they hold the majority they claim, wouldn't that guarantee a win for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> because they know that they are not in a majority.  prop 8 in california proved that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prop H8 would never win again.   Prop 22 won by over 15%...Prop H8 barely won...and that's with money pouring in from Utah and congregations pouring out to street corners (with their children) on Sundays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so what is you objection to having a national referendum in every state on gay marriage?
Click to expand...


We don't have national referendum's.  Not even every states has referendum process's- only 27 do. 

I am fine with referendum's- feel free to put them on the ballot- but frankly the issue will have been decided before any new initiatives make it on the ballot. 

And any initiatives still have to survive constitutional challenges- whether they are in regards to marriage or guns. 

IF the Supreme Court does rule in favor of marriage equality, then looking at Loving v. Virginia as an example, over the next 30 years states will gradually repeal the laws deemed unconstitutional.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's stupid is your knee jerk dumbing down understanding of Loving V Virginia.  The decision wasn't based on people not being able to marry another race, it was based on the law being applied unequally, utilizing racial discrimination:
> 
> "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy".
> 
> This is why it doesn't compare to marriage laws that don't discriminate and are applied equally to all people.  Now you know.
> 
> Or not.
Click to expand...

Hey dummy, not all people want to marry the opposite sex so now what?


----------



## g5000

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> The only eugenic proponent I know of is Margaret Sanger who opened abortion clinics to kill off black people.



A completely bogus claim.


----------



## bodecea

Redfish said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They also used religion as an excuse to make inter-racial marriages illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> race and sex are not analogous
Click to expand...

So....if we have equal civil rights in this country regardless of race......we DON'T have the same civil rights in this country based on gender?   IS that what you are saying?


----------



## GreenBean

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pillars said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> but thats exactly what you want.  you want a minority to dictate to the majority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 3 branches of government were established to prevent the tyranny of the majority over the minority.  No one is forcing you to become gay, attend a gay wedding, condone or endorse gay marriage, or marry gay people.  But, you don't  get to determine what someone else's rights should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  You faggots are just forcing people to conduct the ceremonies, bake wedding cakes, and offer photography services for fag weddings. I love how how you turd pirates pretend like you're not in everyone's face and not forcing your beliefs on anyone.  Bull fcking shit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you abandoned all pretext of being a Christian?
> 
> Did you know that Public Accommodation laws protect Christians in all 50 states but gays in only a handful? Gays must serve Christians in all 50 states, but Christians don't have to serve gays in all 50. You aren't really going to try to pretend that the law treats Christians unfairly are you?
Click to expand...


Gays are protected as Christians, Jews, Atheists, Blacks, Whites , Chicanos or whatever category they happen tofall into.  Degenerate is* not* one of those categories


----------



## g5000

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's stupid is your knee jerk dumbing down understanding of Loving V Virginia.  The decision wasn't based on people not being able to marry another race, it was based on the law being applied unequally, utilizing racial discrimination:
> 
> "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy".
> 
> This is why it doesn't compare to marriage laws that don't discriminate and are applied equally to all people.  Now you know.
> 
> Or not.
Click to expand...

You have a serious reading comprehension problem.  What _Loving v Virginia_ was plainly stating was the law had to have a* rational basis* for excluding certain groups from marrying.

None of you bigots have ever provided a rational basis for excluding gay marriage from equal protection of the laws, and I can guarantee you the Supreme Court is going to say the same thing when it finally makes a decision.


----------



## bodecea

Redfish said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage.  *They should be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized, but it is NOT a marriage.
> 
> why is the word "marriage" so critical to the gay agenda?   A civil union gives you all of the rights you claim to want.
> 
> But thats not what this is about is it?   the gay agenda is about forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition.   Thats your real agenda,   admit it and then we can move forward.
> 
> But you won't admit it, because you know that homosexuality is not a normal human condition
Click to expand...

That is your opinion.


----------



## g5000

GreenBean said:


> Gays are protected as Christians, Jews, Atheists, Blacks, Whites , Chicanos or whatever category they happen tofall into.  Degenerate is* not* one of those categories



"I think gays are icky" is not a rational basis for excluding them from the government cash and prizes given to married people.


----------



## GreenBean

bodecea said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They also used religion as an excuse to make inter-racial marriages illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> race and sex are not analogous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So....if we have equal civil rights in this country regardless of race......we DON'T have the same civil rights in this country based on gender?   IS that what you are saying?
Click to expand...


Gender 

There are only two correct answers -* Male and Female * - 

Undecided - 
Both of  the Above 
None of the Above 
are not options on this multiple choice quiz.


----------



## Lilah

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take note, apathetic dimwit, this country has evolved immensely.  Why are you so afraid of people?
> If you really want to discuss hypocrisy, take a look at the Eugenics Movement headed by old Republican men.  States allowed social workers to designate people for sterilization.  The standards by which individuals could be *forcibly sterilized *were the most lax in the nation: unmarried women with children, African Americans, individuals with I.Q.'s under 70, the mentally ill, and children from poor families.  Does the majority really rule?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link for that or are you just pulling stuff out of your cock dilated ass? The only eugenic proponent I know of is Margaret Sanger who opened abortion clinics to kill off black people.  One of yours, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you've admitted you don't very much, which proves most bigots are uneducated.  Slide your fingers over your keyboard and locate the letters GOOGLE.  You do know how to Google, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you make outlandish claims, it's up to you to prove them. Short of that, we can just assume you made it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe your education is predicated upon such a premise, but my education was predicated upon my own personal responsibility to seek knowledge for myself and in doing so, accept personal responsibility for my choices and actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you made it up.  I'm not obligated to chase after every stupid claim you can dream up.  Nobody is.
> 
> If you can't make your arguments without making things up, then I thank you not to make them at all.
Click to expand...


Try to use what little common sense you may possess.  I'm not the author of American history, and if you are too lazy to read it, then it you're problem.


----------



## g5000

GreenBean said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They also used religion as an excuse to make inter-racial marriages illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> race and sex are not analogous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So....if we have equal civil rights in this country regardless of race......we DON'T have the same civil rights in this country based on gender?   IS that what you are saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gender
> 
> There are only two correct answers -* Male and Female * -
> 
> Undecided -
> Both of  the Above
> None of the Above
> are not options on this multiple choice quiz.
Click to expand...

If you tell a white person they can only marry another white person, you are discriminating based on race.

If you tell a female person they can only marry a male person, you are discriminating based on gender.

There is no rational basis for either.


----------



## GreenBean

g5000 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays are protected as Christians, Jews, Atheists, Blacks, Whites , Chicanos or whatever category they happen tofall into.  Degenerate is* not* one of those categories
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I think gays are icky" is not a rational basis for excluding them from the government cash and prizes given to married people.
Click to expand...


Follow the thread dumbass - the subject replied to was Public Accommodation laws - not Gay Marriage - 

FYI , I am not against Gay Marriage - I think its pretty "Icky" but its a perverts right to be as degenerate as he/she wants in the privacy of their own homes .


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

g5000 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's stupid is your knee jerk dumbing down understanding of Loving V Virginia.  The decision wasn't based on people not being able to marry another race, it was based on the law being applied unequally, utilizing racial discrimination:
> 
> "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy".
> 
> This is why it doesn't compare to marriage laws that don't discriminate and are applied equally to all people.  Now you know.
> 
> Or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have a serious reading comprehension problem.  What _Loving v Virginia_ was plainly stating was the law had to have a* rational basis* for excluding certain groups from marrying.
> 
> None of you bigots have ever provided a rational basis for excluding gay marriage from equal protection of the laws, and I can guarantee you the Supreme Court is going to say the same thing when it finally makes a decision.
Click to expand...


The law didn't exclude any group from marrying.  Do you even know what the case was about?

Close your eyes and touch your finger to your nose. I want to see if even basic concepts are a struggle for you.


----------



## GreenBean

g5000 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> 
> 
> They also used religion as an excuse to make inter-racial marriages illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> race and sex are not analogous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So....if we have equal civil rights in this country regardless of race......we DON'T have the same civil rights in this country based on gender?   IS that what you are saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gender
> 
> There are only two correct answers -* Male and Female * -
> 
> Undecided -
> Both of  the Above
> None of the Above
> are not options on this multiple choice quiz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you tell a white person they can only marry another white person, you are discriminating based on race.
> 
> If you tell a female person they can only marry a male person, you are discriminating based on gender.
> 
> There is no rational basis for either.
Click to expand...


Follow the thread dumbass - the subject replied to was Public Accommodation laws - not Racial Issues.  And yes you are correct that you can not tell a person whom they can marry based on gender or race only species and age.  Remember that when the faggots start demanding the right to boink your chihuahua or the toddler next door .


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage.  *They should be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized, but it is NOT a marriage.
> 
> why is the word "marriage" so critical to the gay agenda?   A civil union gives you all of the rights you claim to want.
> 
> But thats not what this is about is it?   the gay agenda is about forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition.   Thats your real agenda,   admit it and then we can move forward.
> 
> But you won't admit it, because you know that homosexuality is not a normal human condition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is your opinion.
Click to expand...


Then so is yours.


----------



## GreenBean

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> The law didn't exclude any group from marrying. Do you even know what the case was about?


As usual - he hasn't got a friggin clue - just chimes in with half assed and poorly thought out commentary that is way off topic


----------



## bodecea

Redfish said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They also used religion as an excuse to make inter-racial marriages illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bigot's rhetoric against same sex marriage is identical to the rhetoric against interracial marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> not its not, but your bigoted support of gay marriage does resemble that foolishness.
Click to expand...

Yes it is....in fact there's an excellent video out there that lays out the uncanny similarity between the anti-gay arguments today and the anti-interracial marriage arguments of the past.  It's called "Tying the Knot".   

And this fun quiz.
Bet You Can 8217 t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes Mediaite


----------



## bodecea

Redfish said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  Sorry about that!
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> They should be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized, but it is NOT a marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your stupid little semantics game is transparent.
> 
> If you folks down at Westboro Baptist don't want to call a gay marriage a marriage, that's your right.  But you don't get to force them not to call their marriage a marriage.
> 
> As for having their union recognized, that won't be true until they receive the exact same state and federal government cash and prizes we heteros get for being married.
> 
> That's all they want. You can stomp your feet and blow a lot of retard smoke about the word "marriage", but until you get it through your thick skull that that is all they want then you will continue to sound like a retard.
> 
> *Now focus:  Government cash and prizes.  They want the same.   "Equal protection of the laws."
> *
> Get that through your head.  It isn't about a _word_, idiot.  It is about tangible things.  Real world shit that actually matters.  Legal stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> a gay civil union would give them exactly the same govt cash and prizes as a man/woman marriage.
> 
> IT IS ALL ABOUT THE WORD,   DEAL WITH THAT REALITY.
Click to expand...

NOW you want civil unions?      We tried to get that and it was the Right who shot that option down in many states where it came up.   Now it's too late.   Marriage it is.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They also used religion as an excuse to make inter-racial marriages illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bigot's rhetoric against same sex marriage is identical to the rhetoric against interracial marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> not its not, but your bigoted support of gay marriage does resemble that foolishness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it is....in fact there's an excellent video out there that lays out the uncanny similarity between the anti-gay arguments today and the anti-interracial marriage arguments of the past.  It's called "Tying the Knot".
> 
> And this fun quiz.
> Bet You Can 8217 t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes Mediaite
Click to expand...



You know what will be even more fun is comparing NAMBLA's argument for getting rid of the age of consent to gay marriage arguments.

"Society can't tell us our love is wrong" is just the beginning. 

Soon we'll start to see those comparisons. Stand fast.


----------



## bodecea

PaintMyHouse said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  Sorry about that!
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> They should be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized, but it is NOT a marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your stupid little semantics game is transparent.
> 
> If you folks down at Westboro Baptist don't want to call a gay marriage a marriage, that's your right.  But you don't get to force them not to call their marriage a marriage.
> 
> As for having their union recognized, that won't be true until they receive the exact same state and federal government cash and prizes we heteros get for being married.
> 
> That's all they want. You can stomp your feet and blow a lot of retard smoke about the word "marriage", but until you get it through your thick skull that that is all they want then you will continue to sound like a retard.
> 
> *Now focus:  Government cash and prizes.  They want the same.   "Equal protection of the laws."
> *
> Get that through your head.  It isn't about a _word_, idiot.  It is about tangible things.  Real world shit that actually matters.  Legal stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> a gay civil union would give them exactly the same govt cash and prizes as a man/woman marriage.
> 
> IT IS ALL ABOUT THE WORD,   DEAL WITH THAT REALITY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're hung up on a word, when worlds change over time?  What a dumbass you are.
Click to expand...

It IS funny that he thinks language is static.


----------



## GreenBean

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> The only eugenic proponent I know of is Margaret Sanger who opened abortion clinics to kill off black people. One of yours, of course.


She is of course a Darling of the Left Wing elite - exposing her - exposes them - so you do realize that their minions are pre-programmed to oppose negative views of Margaret Sanger and planned parenthood ....

Sanger on Blacks ...

"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."  

The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds,"

.... Sounds like another proponent of the Left wing elite from her era -- Seig Heil MF 

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."


----------



## JakeStarkey

g5000 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only eugenic proponent I know of is Margaret Sanger who opened abortion clinics to kill off black people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A completely bogus claim.
Click to expand...

Indeed.  stmike is an absolute liar.  Koshergrl loves repeating this nonsense.


----------



## GreenBean

bodecea said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  Sorry about that!
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> They should be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized, but it is NOT a marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your stupid little semantics game is transparent.
> 
> If you folks down at Westboro Baptist don't want to call a gay marriage a marriage, that's your right.  But you don't get to force them not to call their marriage a marriage.
> 
> As for having their union recognized, that won't be true until they receive the exact same state and federal government cash and prizes we heteros get for being married.
> 
> That's all they want. You can stomp your feet and blow a lot of retard smoke about the word "marriage", but until you get it through your thick skull that that is all they want then you will continue to sound like a retard.
> 
> *Now focus:  Government cash and prizes.  They want the same.   "Equal protection of the laws."
> *
> Get that through your head.  It isn't about a _word_, idiot.  It is about tangible things.  Real world shit that actually matters.  Legal stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> a gay civil union would give them exactly the same govt cash and prizes as a man/woman marriage.
> 
> IT IS ALL ABOUT THE WORD,   DEAL WITH THAT REALITY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're hung up on a word, when worlds change over time?  What a dumbass you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It IS funny that he thinks language is static.
Click to expand...

You have no clue as to what you just said - you heard somebody else say it and thought it sounded intelligent - STFU Fish Breath


----------



## g5000

GreenBean said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only eugenic proponent I know of is Margaret Sanger who opened abortion clinics to kill off black people. One of yours, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> She is of course a Darling of the Left Wing elite - exposing her - exposes them - so you do realize that their minions are pre-programmed to oppose negative views of Margaret Sanger and planned parenthood ....
> 
> Sanger on Blacks ...
> 
> "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."
> 
> The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds,"
> 
> .... Sounds like another proponent of the Left wing elite from her era -- Seig Heil MF
> 
> "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
Click to expand...

Now show the entire context of those so very carefully excised fragments.

That last one was Sanger expressing concern that some people would mistake her efforts to help the black community for something nefarious. She was not advocating their extermination, you stupid fuck.

You are parroting bullshit you copied and pasted from hacks.  You never went and looked up the source.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

g5000 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only eugenic proponent I know of is Margaret Sanger who opened abortion clinics to kill off black people. One of yours, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> She is of course a Darling of the Left Wing elite - exposing her - exposes them - so you do realize that their minions are pre-programmed to oppose negative views of Margaret Sanger and planned parenthood ....
> 
> Sanger on Blacks ...
> 
> "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."
> 
> The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds,"
> 
> .... Sounds like another proponent of the Left wing elite from her era -- Seig Heil MF
> 
> "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now show the entire context of those so very carefully excised fragments.
Click to expand...


You think there's a context that makes those statements look good?


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's stupid is your knee jerk dumbing down understanding of Loving V Virginia.  The decision wasn't based on people not being able to marry another race,* it was based on the law being applied unequally, utilizing racial discrimination:*
> 
> "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy".
> 
> This is why it doesn't compare to marriage laws that don't discriminate and are applied equally to all people.  Now you know.
> 
> Or not.
Click to expand...

Apparently you don't know that the state of Virginia used your exact same argument about equality of the law in front of the Supreme Court.   The Justices laughed out loud.

Oh...you might find this interesting:



> The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of _Loving v. Virginia_ on April 10, 1967. The Lovings declined their attorneys' invitation to attend the hearing. On behalf of the commonwealth, Assistant Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine III argued *that Virginia law did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, and that even if it did it would be legitimate on the grounds that it protected the state from the "sociological [and] psychological evils which attend interracial marriages." In particular, McIlwaine cited academic research that suggested "that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems than those of the intramarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.*"



Sound familiar?


----------



## GreenBean

g5000 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only eugenic proponent I know of is Margaret Sanger who opened abortion clinics to kill off black people. One of yours, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> She is of course a Darling of the Left Wing elite - exposing her - exposes them - so you do realize that their minions are pre-programmed to oppose negative views of Margaret Sanger and planned parenthood ....
> 
> Sanger on Blacks ...
> 
> "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."
> 
> The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds,"
> 
> .... Sounds like another proponent of the Left wing elite from her era -- Seig Heil MF
> 
> "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now show the entire context of those so very carefully excised fragments.
> 
> That last one was Sanger expressing concern that some people would mistake her efforts to help the black community for something nefarious. She was not advocating their extermination, you stupid fuck.
> 
> You are parroting bullshit you copied and pasted from hacks.  You never went and looked up the source.
Click to expand...



Like I said the left wing elites minons are pre-programmed to defend members of the Left wing elite be they dead or alive - yougot a case to make minon ? _ Then make it....or STFU


----------



## GreenBean

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> 
> 
> They also used religion as an excuse to make inter-racial marriages illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bigot's rhetoric against same sex marriage is identical to the rhetoric against interracial marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> not its not, but your bigoted support of gay marriage does resemble that foolishness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it is....in fact there's an excellent video out there that lays out the uncanny similarity between the anti-gay arguments today and the anti-interracial marriage arguments of the past.  It's called "Tying the Knot".
> 
> And this fun quiz.
> Bet You Can 8217 t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes Mediaite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know what will be even more fun is comparing NAMBLA's argument for getting rid of the age of consent to gay marriage arguments.
> 
> "Society can't tell us our love is wrong" is just the beginning.
> 
> Soon we'll start to see those comparisons. Stand fast.
Click to expand...

Google b4u act

The modern age has been hailed as post-gender and post-racial. Meaning that we’ve grown as a society beyond petty discrimination against people on the basis of race or gender identity, and such discrimination is met with the entire wrath our legal and social institutions can muster.

Read more: B4U-ACT.org Seeking acceptance for minor attracted person and pedophiles Washington Times Communities 
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter


----------



## bodecea

GreenBean said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They also used religion as an excuse to make inter-racial marriages illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> race and sex are not analogous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So....if we have equal civil rights in this country regardless of race......we DON'T have the same civil rights in this country based on gender?   IS that what you are saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gender
> 
> There are only two correct answers -* Male and Female * -
> 
> Undecided -
> Both of  the Above
> None of the Above
> are not options on this multiple choice quiz.
Click to expand...

So...Males have civil rights and Females have civil rights, no?

Ergo....Male and Female, Female and Female, and Male and Male all have civil rights, no?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's stupid is your knee jerk dumbing down understanding of Loving V Virginia.  The decision wasn't based on people not being able to marry another race,* it was based on the law being applied unequally, utilizing racial discrimination:*
> 
> "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy".
> 
> This is why it doesn't compare to marriage laws that don't discriminate and are applied equally to all people.  Now you know.
> 
> Or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you don't know that the state of Virginia used your exact same argument about equality of the law in front of the Supreme Court.   The Justices laughed out loud.
> 
> Oh...you might find this interesting:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of _Loving v. Virginia_ on April 10, 1967. The Lovings declined their attorneys' invitation to attend the hearing. On behalf of the commonwealth, Assistant Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine III argued *that Virginia law did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, and that even if it did it would be legitimate on the grounds that it protected the state from the "sociological [and] psychological evils which attend interracial marriages." In particular, McIlwaine cited academic research that suggested "that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems than those of the intramarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sound familiar?
Click to expand...



The justices laughed out loud?  Did somebody get that on film?

Their findings were based on discrimination in the law itself, that in only entailed marriage to a white person. That's illegal.  I gave you your quote, so you can argue with the facts all you want. My job is done.


----------



## g5000

GreenBean said:


> "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."



Here is what Sanger actually said. Notice the parts you chopped out: "The ministers work is also important and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population *and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea *if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Read the whole letter for yourself, dipshit.  Sanger was trying to introduce birth control to a superstitious population.  Her aim was to allay their fears.  She knew some would think this was some kind of extermination movement, and she wanted the minister to explain the true aim.

http://smithlibraries.org/digital/files/original/d6358bc3053c93183295bf2df1c0c931.pdf


----------



## GreenBean

bodecea said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> 
> 
> They also used religion as an excuse to make inter-racial marriages illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> race and sex are not analogous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So....if we have equal civil rights in this country regardless of race......we DON'T have the same civil rights in this country based on gender?   IS that what you are saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gender
> 
> There are only two correct answers -* Male and Female * -
> 
> Undecided -
> Both of  the Above
> None of the Above
> are not options on this multiple choice quiz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...Males have civil rights and Females have civil rights, no?
> 
> Ergo....Male and Female, Female and Female, and Male and Male all have civil rights, no?
Click to expand...



Uhhh --- wtf did u jus say ?  Doyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy


----------



## bodecea

g5000 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> 
> 
> They also used religion as an excuse to make inter-racial marriages illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> race and sex are not analogous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So....if we have equal civil rights in this country regardless of race......we DON'T have the same civil rights in this country based on gender?   IS that what you are saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gender
> 
> There are only two correct answers -* Male and Female * -
> 
> Undecided -
> Both of  the Above
> None of the Above
> are not options on this multiple choice quiz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you tell a white person they can only marry another white person, you are discriminating based on race.
> 
> If you tell a female person they can only marry a male person, you are discriminating based on gender.
> 
> There is no rational basis for either.
Click to expand...




saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage.  *They should be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized, but it is NOT a marriage.
> 
> why is the word "marriage" so critical to the gay agenda?   A civil union gives you all of the rights you claim to want.
> 
> But thats not what this is about is it?   the gay agenda is about forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition.   Thats your real agenda,   admit it and then we can move forward.
> 
> But you won't admit it, because you know that homosexuality is not a normal human condition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then so is yours.
Click to expand...

Backed by law and our legal marriage license.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The wiggles and screams as the anti-marriage equality crowd denies its impending constitutional demise this summer reminds me when I caught a sheep-killing dog in a trap. 

As I walked up on it, the struggles and whining increased.  When I pulled my pistol from its holster, I swear that dog screamed, which I immediately and forever stopped.

There be no violence by the equality side, for we know the deniers are trapped by the law.

Equally, there will no extension  of mercy socially or culturally to the deniers.  They will have to live with the fact there is no dilemma, and that will be put in their face.

Scream and wiggle, folks, for time is short before SCOTUS rules.


----------



## g5000

GreenBean said:


> Sanger on Blacks ...
> 
> "...human weeds,'



The full quote:

_If plants, and live stock as well, require space and air, sunlight and love, children need them even more. The only real wealth of our country lies in the men and women of the next generation. A farmer would rather produce a thousand thoroughbreds than a million runts.

How are we to breed a race of human thoroughbreds unless we follow the same plan? *We must make this country into a garden of children* instead of a disorderly back lot overrun with human weeds.

In a home where there are too many children in proportion to the living space, the air and sunlight, *the children are usually overcrowded and underfed*. They are a constant burden on their mother's overtaxed strength and the father's earning capacity. Such homes cannot be gardens in any sense of the word._

Radio WFAB Syracuse, 1924-02-29, transcripted in "The Meaning of Radio Birth Control", April 1924, p. 111


Again, not an extermination plan.  It was advocacy for birth control.

Dumbass.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

g5000 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what Sanger actually said. Notice the parts you chopped out: "The ministers work is also important and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population *and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea *if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
> 
> Read the whole letter for yourself, dipshit.  Sanger was trying to introduce birth control to a superstitious population.  Her aim was to allay their fears.  She knew some would think this was some kind of extermination movement, and she wanted the minister to explain the true aim.
> 
> http://smithlibraries.org/digital/files/original/d6358bc3053c93183295bf2df1c0c931.pdf
Click to expand...


So you just quoted Sanger as saying that they will use ministers to lie about their agenda and hide the facts.  I told you there's no flattering context for her words and I was right.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> 
> 
> They also used religion as an excuse to make inter-racial marriages illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bigot's rhetoric against same sex marriage is identical to the rhetoric against interracial marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> not its not, but your bigoted support of gay marriage does resemble that foolishness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it is....in fact there's an excellent video out there that lays out the uncanny similarity between the anti-gay arguments today and the anti-interracial marriage arguments of the past.  It's called "Tying the Knot".
> 
> And this fun quiz.
> Bet You Can 8217 t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes Mediaite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know what will be even more fun is comparing NAMBLA's argument for getting rid of the age of consent to gay marriage arguments.
> 
> "Society can't tell us our love is wrong" is just the beginning.
> 
> Soon we'll start to see those comparisons. Stand fast.
Click to expand...

There it is.    Can't defend your argument without bringing up NAMBLA.....you lose.


----------



## bodecea

GreenBean said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  Sorry about that!
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> They should be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized, but it is NOT a marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your stupid little semantics game is transparent.
> 
> If you folks down at Westboro Baptist don't want to call a gay marriage a marriage, that's your right.  But you don't get to force them not to call their marriage a marriage.
> 
> As for having their union recognized, that won't be true until they receive the exact same state and federal government cash and prizes we heteros get for being married.
> 
> That's all they want. You can stomp your feet and blow a lot of retard smoke about the word "marriage", but until you get it through your thick skull that that is all they want then you will continue to sound like a retard.
> 
> *Now focus:  Government cash and prizes.  They want the same.   "Equal protection of the laws."
> *
> Get that through your head.  It isn't about a _word_, idiot.  It is about tangible things.  Real world shit that actually matters.  Legal stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> a gay civil union would give them exactly the same govt cash and prizes as a man/woman marriage.
> 
> IT IS ALL ABOUT THE WORD,   DEAL WITH THAT REALITY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're hung up on a word, when worlds change over time?  What a dumbass you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It IS funny that he thinks language is static.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no clue as to what you just said - you heard somebody else say it and thought it sounded intelligent - STFU Fish Breath
Click to expand...

So...you can't keep up your side of the argument and call me names and tell me to shut up.  Quite telling.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> They also used religion as an excuse to make inter-racial marriages illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> race and sex are not analogous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So....if we have equal civil rights in this country regardless of race......we DON'T have the same civil rights in this country based on gender?   IS that what you are saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gender
> 
> There are only two correct answers -* Male and Female * -
> 
> Undecided -
> Both of  the Above
> None of the Above
> are not options on this multiple choice quiz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you tell a white person they can only marry another white person, you are discriminating based on race.
> 
> If you tell a female person they can only marry a male person, you are discriminating based on gender.
> 
> There is no rational basis for either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage.  *They should be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized, but it is NOT a marriage.
> 
> why is the word "marriage" so critical to the gay agenda?   A civil union gives you all of the rights you claim to want.
> 
> But thats not what this is about is it?   the gay agenda is about forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition.   Thats your real agenda,   admit it and then we can move forward.
> 
> But you won't admit it, because you know that homosexuality is not a normal human condition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then so is yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Backed by law and our legal marriage license.
Click to expand...


Listen, Trout, the law doesn't have the power to make you married. It can only reinforce your delusions with the illusion of legitimacy that it cannot now or ever possibly possess.


----------



## JakeStarkey

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> You know what will be even more fun is comparing NAMBLA's argument for getting rid of the age of consent to gay marriage arguments.
> 
> "Society can't tell us our love is wrong" is just the beginning.
> 
> Soon we'll start to see those comparisons. Stand fast.


Weakest comment of the day.


----------



## g5000

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> You know what will be even more fun is comparing NAMBLA's argument for getting rid of the age of consent to gay marriage arguments.
> 
> "Society can't tell us our love is wrong" is just the beginning.
> 
> Soon we'll start to see those comparisons. Stand fast.



Slippery slope fallacy.

A *rational basis* can be provided for discrimination against adult-child sexual relationships and marriages.

I guess this point really needs to be pounded into your head since you persist in making idiotic fallacies.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> They also used religion as an excuse to make inter-racial marriages illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> The bigot's rhetoric against same sex marriage is identical to the rhetoric against interracial marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> not its not, but your bigoted support of gay marriage does resemble that foolishness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it is....in fact there's an excellent video out there that lays out the uncanny similarity between the anti-gay arguments today and the anti-interracial marriage arguments of the past.  It's called "Tying the Knot".
> 
> And this fun quiz.
> Bet You Can 8217 t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes Mediaite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know what will be even more fun is comparing NAMBLA's argument for getting rid of the age of consent to gay marriage arguments.
> 
> "Society can't tell us our love is wrong" is just the beginning.
> 
> Soon we'll start to see those comparisons. Stand fast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There it is.    Can't defend your argument without bringing up NAMBLA.....you lose.
Click to expand...


NAMBLA is going to be in the news quite a bit, using all your famous arguments to push their agenda through the courts.  This is depravity springing from depravity.  I just wonder if any of them will be honorable enough to give you people credit for a wining legal strategy.


----------



## mdk

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> They also used religion as an excuse to make inter-racial marriages illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> The bigot's rhetoric against same sex marriage is identical to the rhetoric against interracial marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> not its not, but your bigoted support of gay marriage does resemble that foolishness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it is....in fact there's an excellent video out there that lays out the uncanny similarity between the anti-gay arguments today and the anti-interracial marriage arguments of the past.  It's called "Tying the Knot".
> 
> And this fun quiz.
> Bet You Can 8217 t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes Mediaite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know what will be even more fun is comparing NAMBLA's argument for getting rid of the age of consent to gay marriage arguments.
> 
> "Society can't tell us our love is wrong" is just the beginning.
> 
> Soon we'll start to see those comparisons. Stand fast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There it is.    Can't defend your argument without bringing up NAMBLA.....you lose.
Click to expand...


It is a truly a sign of the desperate. NAMBLA apparently represents all gays but the instant you mention that Westboro represents all Christians the social conservatives flip their wigs. Both accusations are moronic but watching the selective outrage is delightful.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

g5000 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what will be even more fun is comparing NAMBLA's argument for getting rid of the age of consent to gay marriage arguments.
> 
> "Society can't tell us our love is wrong" is just the beginning.
> 
> Soon we'll start to see those comparisons. Stand fast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slippery slope fallacy.
> 
> A *rational basis* can be provided for discrimination against adult-child relationships.
> 
> I guess this point really needs to be pounded into your head since you persist in making idiotic fallacies.
Click to expand...



What does rationality have to do with anything when people are screaming about "rights"?


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's stupid is your knee jerk dumbing down understanding of Loving V Virginia.  The decision wasn't based on people not being able to marry another race, it was based on the law being applied unequally, utilizing racial discrimination:
> 
> "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy".
> 
> This is why it doesn't compare to marriage laws that don't discriminate and are applied equally to all people.  Now you know.
> 
> Or not.
Click to expand...


Loving v. Virginia upheld the unconstitutionality of Virginia's marriage law based because it violated the Due Process clause and the Equal Protection clause- and race was the issue. 

Substitute gender/sexual identity for race and the laws States passed specifically to ensure that gay marriage was not going to be legal violate the same Due Process and Equal Protection clauses:

Loving V. Virginia

_There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. [Footnote 11] 

We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

*These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.*

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma,316 U. S. 535,316 U. S. 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

These convictions must be reversed.

It is so ordered.
_
Now note the decision in the Wisconsin case- and the reference to the14th Amendment and Loving. 
_
It is well-established that “the Constitution protects persons, not groups,” Adarand
Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995), so regardless of possible future events
affecting the larger community, my task under federal law is to decide the claims presented
by the plaintiffs in this case now, applying the provisions in the* Fourteenth Amendment as
interpreted by the Supreme Court in cases such as Loving, Romer, Lawrence and Windsor.
Because my review of that law convinces me that plaintiffs are entitled to the same treatment
as any heterosexual couple, I conclude that the Wisconsin laws banning marriage between
same-sex couples are unconstitutional.*
_


----------



## g5000

JakeStarkey said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only eugenic proponent I know of is Margaret Sanger who opened abortion clinics to kill off black people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A completely bogus claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed.  stmike is an absolute liar.  Koshergrl loves repeating this nonsense.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a favorite of some of the rubes here.  They parrot these idiotic memes without ever fact checking them.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's stupid is your knee jerk dumbing down understanding of Loving V Virginia.  The decision wasn't based on people not being able to marry another race,* it was based on the law being applied unequally, utilizing racial discrimination:*
> 
> "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy".
> 
> This is why it doesn't compare to marriage laws that don't discriminate and are applied equally to all people.  Now you know.
> 
> Or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you don't know that the state of Virginia used your exact same argument about equality of the law in front of the Supreme Court.   The Justices laughed out loud.
> 
> Oh...you might find this interesting:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of _Loving v. Virginia_ on April 10, 1967. The Lovings declined their attorneys' invitation to attend the hearing. On behalf of the commonwealth, Assistant Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine III argued *that Virginia law did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, and that even if it did it would be legitimate on the grounds that it protected the state from the "sociological [and] psychological evils which attend interracial marriages." In particular, McIlwaine cited academic research that suggested "that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems than those of the intramarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sound familiar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The justices laughed out loud?  Did somebody get that on film?
> 
> Their findings were based on discrimination in the law itself, that in only entailed marriage to a white person. That's illegal.  I gave you your quote, so you can argue with the facts all you want. My job is done.
Click to expand...

Poor boy.  The SCOTUS is never filmed....but they are audiotaped.  Loving v. Virginia The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law


----------



## g5000

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what will be even more fun is comparing NAMBLA's argument for getting rid of the age of consent to gay marriage arguments.
> 
> "Society can't tell us our love is wrong" is just the beginning.
> 
> Soon we'll start to see those comparisons. Stand fast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slippery slope fallacy.
> 
> A *rational basis* can be provided for discrimination against adult-child relationships.
> 
> I guess this point really needs to be pounded into your head since you persist in making idiotic fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What does rationality have to do with anything when people are screaming about "rights"?
Click to expand...

We see no rationality at all from you bigots.  Things have to be explained to you in small words, and yet you continue to throw out logical fallacies and red herrings from the rube parrot toolbox.

The right that is in play with same sex marriage is "equal protection of the laws."


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> yep,  the liberal mantra,  if it feels good, do it, and make it legal.   if it destroys society, so fricking what.
> 
> liberalism is a mental disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say  it's if I want it you should support it but if you expect me to do the same, *you're forcing your beliefs down my throat.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why this imagery....every....single....time?
> 
> 
> And I'm sorry if I'm forcing you to have a gay marriage.  Not my intent.  I just want you to NOT restrict my legal rights to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your intent seems to be to whine and bitch because people don't agree with what you want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I "want to do"?   I'm already married, my friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're a homo, you can call it what you want.  ONLY your kind believe it's on the level of a true marriage like the one between me and my wife.
Click to expand...


Only your kind- the bigots of the world- believe that other people's marriage are not a 'true marriage' .


----------



## bodecea

GreenBean said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> They also used religion as an excuse to make inter-racial marriages illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> race and sex are not analogous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So....if we have equal civil rights in this country regardless of race......we DON'T have the same civil rights in this country based on gender?   IS that what you are saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gender
> 
> There are only two correct answers -* Male and Female * -
> 
> Undecided -
> Both of  the Above
> None of the Above
> are not options on this multiple choice quiz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...Males have civil rights and Females have civil rights, no?
> 
> Ergo....Male and Female, Female and Female, and Male and Male all have civil rights, no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhh --- wtf did u jus say ?  Doyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
Click to expand...

I'm sorry.   It was too complicated for you.   My apologies.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what Sanger actually said. Notice the parts you chopped out: "The ministers work is also important and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population *and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea *if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
> 
> Read the whole letter for yourself, dipshit.  Sanger was trying to introduce birth control to a superstitious population.  Her aim was to allay their fears.  She knew some would think this was some kind of extermination movement, and she wanted the minister to explain the true aim.
> 
> http://smithlibraries.org/digital/files/original/d6358bc3053c93183295bf2df1c0c931.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you just quoted Sanger as saying that they will use ministers to lie about their agenda and hide the facts.  I told you there's no flattering context for her words and I was right.
Click to expand...

Where does it say in the quote that the ministers are to lie?


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> race and sex are not analogous
> 
> 
> 
> So....if we have equal civil rights in this country regardless of race......we DON'T have the same civil rights in this country based on gender?   IS that what you are saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gender
> 
> There are only two correct answers -* Male and Female * -
> 
> Undecided -
> Both of  the Above
> None of the Above
> are not options on this multiple choice quiz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you tell a white person they can only marry another white person, you are discriminating based on race.
> 
> If you tell a female person they can only marry a male person, you are discriminating based on gender.
> 
> There is no rational basis for either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage.  *They should be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized, but it is NOT a marriage.
> 
> why is the word "marriage" so critical to the gay agenda?   A civil union gives you all of the rights you claim to want.
> 
> But thats not what this is about is it?   the gay agenda is about forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition.   Thats your real agenda,   admit it and then we can move forward.
> 
> But you won't admit it, because you know that homosexuality is not a normal human condition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then so is yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Backed by law and our legal marriage license.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen, Trout, *the law doesn't have the power to make you married.* It can only reinforce your delusions with the illusion of legitimacy that it cannot now or ever possibly possess.
Click to expand...


  Check this comment out, everyone!


----------



## bodecea

JakeStarkey said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what will be even more fun is comparing NAMBLA's argument for getting rid of the age of consent to gay marriage arguments.
> 
> "Society can't tell us our love is wrong" is just the beginning.
> 
> Soon we'll start to see those comparisons. Stand fast.
> 
> 
> 
> Weakest comment of the day.
Click to expand...

I don't know....he just doubled down by saying the law doesn't make us married.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's stupid is your knee jerk dumbing down understanding of Loving V Virginia.  The decision wasn't based on people not being able to marry another race,* it was based on the law being applied unequally, utilizing racial discrimination:*
> 
> "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy".
> 
> This is why it doesn't compare to marriage laws that don't discriminate and are applied equally to all people.  Now you know.
> 
> Or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you don't know that the state of Virginia used your exact same argument about equality of the law in front of the Supreme Court.   The Justices laughed out loud.
> 
> Oh...you might find this interesting:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of _Loving v. Virginia_ on April 10, 1967. The Lovings declined their attorneys' invitation to attend the hearing. On behalf of the commonwealth, Assistant Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine III argued *that Virginia law did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, and that even if it did it would be legitimate on the grounds that it protected the state from the "sociological [and] psychological evils which attend interracial marriages." In particular, McIlwaine cited academic research that suggested "that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems than those of the intramarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sound familiar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The justices laughed out loud?  Did somebody get that on film?
> 
> Their findings were based on discrimination in the law itself, that in only entailed marriage to a white person. That's illegal.  I gave you your quote, so you can argue with the facts all you want. My job is done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Poor boy.  The SCOTUS is never filmed....but they are audiotaped.  Loving v. Virginia The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
Click to expand...


So there's an audio clip of them laughing out loud?  Let's hear it!


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bigot's rhetoric against same sex marriage is identical to the rhetoric against interracial marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not its not, but your bigoted support of gay marriage does resemble that foolishness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it is....in fact there's an excellent video out there that lays out the uncanny similarity between the anti-gay arguments today and the anti-interracial marriage arguments of the past.  It's called "Tying the Knot".
> 
> And this fun quiz.
> Bet You Can 8217 t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes Mediaite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know what will be even more fun is comparing NAMBLA's argument for getting rid of the age of consent to gay marriage arguments.
> 
> "Society can't tell us our love is wrong" is just the beginning.
> 
> Soon we'll start to see those comparisons. Stand fast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There it is.    Can't defend your argument without bringing up NAMBLA.....you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NAMBLA is going to be in the news quite a bit, using all your famous arguments to push their agenda through the courts.  This is depravity springing from depravity.  I just wonder if any of them will be honorable enough to give you people credit for a wining legal strategy.
Click to expand...

Tell us more about your expertise on NAMBLA.   You're the one who seems to know.


----------



## g5000

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what Sanger actually said. Notice the parts you chopped out: "The ministers work is also important and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population *and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea *if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
> 
> Read the whole letter for yourself, dipshit.  Sanger was trying to introduce birth control to a superstitious population.  Her aim was to allay their fears.  She knew some would think this was some kind of extermination movement, and she wanted the minister to explain the true aim.
> 
> http://smithlibraries.org/digital/files/original/d6358bc3053c93183295bf2df1c0c931.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you just quoted Sanger as saying that they will use ministers to lie about their agenda and hide the facts.  I told you there's no flattering context for her words and I was right.
Click to expand...

Your twisted perception filters have failed you again.

Sanger was advocating birth control.  This was a radical idea at the time, and she knew that ignorant people like yourself would claim they were trying to exterminate the negroes.  She suggested the Federation have a minister explain the true goals (birth control) because of the inherent integrity a minister would bring to the conversation.

It was precisely because a minister WOULD NOT LIE that she suggested one be used to explain this was about birth control, not extermination.

And morons like you and Greenbean have just demonstrated her fears were well-founded.  You have twisted her words to make her out to be an exterminator.  QED.


----------



## bodecea

mdk said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bigot's rhetoric against same sex marriage is identical to the rhetoric against interracial marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not its not, but your bigoted support of gay marriage does resemble that foolishness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it is....in fact there's an excellent video out there that lays out the uncanny similarity between the anti-gay arguments today and the anti-interracial marriage arguments of the past.  It's called "Tying the Knot".
> 
> And this fun quiz.
> Bet You Can 8217 t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes Mediaite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know what will be even more fun is comparing NAMBLA's argument for getting rid of the age of consent to gay marriage arguments.
> 
> "Society can't tell us our love is wrong" is just the beginning.
> 
> Soon we'll start to see those comparisons. Stand fast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There it is.    Can't defend your argument without bringing up NAMBLA.....you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a truly a sign of the desperate. NAMBLA apparently represents all gays but the instant you mention that Westboro represents all Christians the social conservatives flip their wigs. Both accusations are moronic but watching the selective outrage is delightful.
Click to expand...

StMike sure seems to know what NAMBLA is going to do.  More than any others of us, that's for sure.


----------



## g5000

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor boy.  The SCOTUS is never filmed....but they are audiotaped.  Loving v. Virginia The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So there's an audio clip of them laughing out loud?  Let's hear it!
Click to expand...

Wow.  The audio is in that link.  You really do need your hand held every step of the way.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

g5000 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what will be even more fun is comparing NAMBLA's argument for getting rid of the age of consent to gay marriage arguments.
> 
> "Society can't tell us our love is wrong" is just the beginning.
> 
> Soon we'll start to see those comparisons. Stand fast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slippery slope fallacy.
> 
> A *rational basis* can be provided for discrimination against adult-child relationships.
> 
> I guess this point really needs to be pounded into your head since you persist in making idiotic fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What does rationality have to do with anything when people are screaming about "rights"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We see no rationality at all from you bigots.  Things have to be explained to you in small words, and yet you continue to throw out logical fallacies and red herrings from the rube parrot toolbox.
> 
> The right that is in play with same sex marriage is "equal protection of the laws."
Click to expand...


Uh huh.  That's exactly what NAMBLA will say, perverts borrowing legal strategies from other perverts.  They will twist the 14th Amendment like you did, find some sympathetic judges who don't have to answer to the people, and their agenda will succeed by judicial fiat.  They will scream that their rights are being denied until somebody listens.  What makes you think what worked for you faggots won't work for them too?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> not its not, but your bigoted support of gay marriage does resemble that foolishness.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is....in fact there's an excellent video out there that lays out the uncanny similarity between the anti-gay arguments today and the anti-interracial marriage arguments of the past.  It's called "Tying the Knot".
> 
> And this fun quiz.
> Bet You Can 8217 t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes Mediaite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know what will be even more fun is comparing NAMBLA's argument for getting rid of the age of consent to gay marriage arguments.
> 
> "Society can't tell us our love is wrong" is just the beginning.
> 
> Soon we'll start to see those comparisons. Stand fast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There it is.    Can't defend your argument without bringing up NAMBLA.....you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a truly a sign of the desperate. NAMBLA apparently represents all gays but the instant you mention that Westboro represents all Christians the social conservatives flip their wigs. Both accusations are moronic but watching the selective outrage is delightful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> StMike sure seems to know what NAMBLA is going to do.  More than any others of us, that's for sure.
Click to expand...


What's that supposed to mean?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

g5000 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor boy.  The SCOTUS is never filmed....but they are audiotaped.  Loving v. Virginia The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So there's an audio clip of them laughing out loud?  Let's hear it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow.  The audio is in that link.  You really do need your hand held every step of the way.
Click to expand...


That's quite a lengthy audio.  Do you know about where the Justices "laughed out loud"?


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's stupid is your knee jerk dumbing down understanding of Loving V Virginia.  The decision wasn't based on people not being able to marry another race,* it was based on the law being applied unequally, utilizing racial discrimination:*
> 
> "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy".
> 
> This is why it doesn't compare to marriage laws that don't discriminate and are applied equally to all people.  Now you know.
> 
> Or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you don't know that the state of Virginia used your exact same argument about equality of the law in front of the Supreme Court.   The Justices laughed out loud.
> 
> Oh...you might find this interesting:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of _Loving v. Virginia_ on April 10, 1967. The Lovings declined their attorneys' invitation to attend the hearing. On behalf of the commonwealth, Assistant Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine III argued *that Virginia law did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, and that even if it did it would be legitimate on the grounds that it protected the state from the "sociological [and] psychological evils which attend interracial marriages." In particular, McIlwaine cited academic research that suggested "that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems than those of the intramarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sound familiar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The justices laughed out loud?  Did somebody get that on film?
> 
> Their findings were based on discrimination in the law itself, that in only entailed marriage to a white person. That's illegal.  I gave you your quote, so you can argue with the facts all you want. My job is done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Poor boy.  The SCOTUS is never filmed....but they are audiotaped.  Loving v. Virginia The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So there's an audio clip of them laughing out loud?  Let's hear it!
Click to expand...

You can't get the link I have there?


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what will be even more fun is comparing NAMBLA's argument for getting rid of the age of consent to gay marriage arguments.
> 
> "Society can't tell us our love is wrong" is just the beginning.
> 
> Soon we'll start to see those comparisons. Stand fast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slippery slope fallacy.
> 
> A *rational basis* can be provided for discrimination against adult-child relationships.
> 
> I guess this point really needs to be pounded into your head since you persist in making idiotic fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What does rationality have to do with anything when people are screaming about "rights"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We see no rationality at all from you bigots.  Things have to be explained to you in small words, and yet you continue to throw out logical fallacies and red herrings from the rube parrot toolbox.
> 
> The right that is in play with same sex marriage is "equal protection of the laws."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh.  *That's exactly what NAMBLA will say*, perverts borrowing legal strategies from other perverts.  They will twist the 14th Amendment like you did, find some sympathetic judges who don't have to answer to the people, and their agenda will succeed by judicial fiat.  They will scream that their rights are being denied until somebody listens.  What makes you think what worked for you faggots won't work for them too?
Click to expand...



Again.  YOU are the one telling US about what NAMBLA will do.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is....in fact there's an excellent video out there that lays out the uncanny similarity between the anti-gay arguments today and the anti-interracial marriage arguments of the past.  It's called "Tying the Knot".
> 
> And this fun quiz.
> Bet You Can 8217 t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes Mediaite
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what will be even more fun is comparing NAMBLA's argument for getting rid of the age of consent to gay marriage arguments.
> 
> "Society can't tell us our love is wrong" is just the beginning.
> 
> Soon we'll start to see those comparisons. Stand fast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There it is.    Can't defend your argument without bringing up NAMBLA.....you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a truly a sign of the desperate. NAMBLA apparently represents all gays but the instant you mention that Westboro represents all Christians the social conservatives flip their wigs. Both accusations are moronic but watching the selective outrage is delightful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> StMike sure seems to know what NAMBLA is going to do.  More than any others of us, that's for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's that supposed to mean?
Click to expand...

Who here, besides you, is telling us about what NAMBLA will do?


----------



## g5000

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Uh huh.  That's exactly what NAMBLA will say, perverts borrowing legal strategies from other perverts.  They will twist the 14th Amendment like you did, find some sympathetic judges who don't have to answer to the people, and their agenda will succeed by judicial fiat.  They will scream that their rights are being denied until somebody listens.  What makes you think what worked for you faggots won't work for them too?


Okay.  I see you need some additional head pounding.

If NAMBLA ever took their cause to court, they would fail.  They could not "borrow legal strategies" from anyone, because there is *NO rational basis* for excluding gays while there *IS *a *rational basis* for excluding pedophilia.

And this is why your slippery slope fallacy catastrophically fails.

I'm afraid I really can't dumb this down any more than I have.  If you don't get it by now, you are beyond help.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor boy.  The SCOTUS is never filmed....but they are audiotaped.  Loving v. Virginia The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So there's an audio clip of them laughing out loud?  Let's hear it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow.  The audio is in that link.  You really do need your hand held every step of the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *That's quite a lengthy audio*.  Do you know about where the Justices "laughed out loud"?
Click to expand...



Not my problem  You want to know...take the time.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what will be even more fun is comparing NAMBLA's argument for getting rid of the age of consent to gay marriage arguments.
> 
> "Society can't tell us our love is wrong" is just the beginning.
> 
> Soon we'll start to see those comparisons. Stand fast.
> 
> 
> 
> There it is.    Can't defend your argument without bringing up NAMBLA.....you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a truly a sign of the desperate. NAMBLA apparently represents all gays but the instant you mention that Westboro represents all Christians the social conservatives flip their wigs. Both accusations are moronic but watching the selective outrage is delightful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> StMike sure seems to know what NAMBLA is going to do.  More than any others of us, that's for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's that supposed to mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who here, besides you, is telling us about what NAMBLA will do?
Click to expand...


Tread carefully, Trout.  If you're implying I'm a pedophile, I'll report you.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> There it is.    Can't defend your argument without bringing up NAMBLA.....you lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a truly a sign of the desperate. NAMBLA apparently represents all gays but the instant you mention that Westboro represents all Christians the social conservatives flip their wigs. Both accusations are moronic but watching the selective outrage is delightful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> StMike sure seems to know what NAMBLA is going to do.  More than any others of us, that's for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's that supposed to mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who here, besides you, is telling us about what NAMBLA will do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tread carefully, Trout.  If you're implying I'm a pedophile, I'll report you.
Click to expand...

Why are you saying that?   I've done no such thing.   Just like you've not implied that gays like myself and others here are pedophiles.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor boy.  The SCOTUS is never filmed....but they are audiotaped.  Loving v. Virginia The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So there's an audio clip of them laughing out loud?  Let's hear it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow.  The audio is in that link.  You really do need your hand held every step of the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *That's quite a lengthy audio*.  Do you know about where the Justices "laughed out loud"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not my problem  You want to know...take the time.
Click to expand...


Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie.  Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments.  That would dispense with any pretense of objectivity.  Such a gross breach of decorum would certainly have made the papers and no audio link would be required.

In other words, you're lying and you've been found out.

Stop lying, Fish breath!


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a truly a sign of the desperate. NAMBLA apparently represents all gays but the instant you mention that Westboro represents all Christians the social conservatives flip their wigs. Both accusations are moronic but watching the selective outrage is delightful.
> 
> 
> 
> StMike sure seems to know what NAMBLA is going to do.  More than any others of us, that's for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's that supposed to mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who here, besides you, is telling us about what NAMBLA will do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tread carefully, Trout.  If you're implying I'm a pedophile, I'll report you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you saying that?   I've done no such thing.   Just like you've not implied that gays like myself and others here are pedophiles.
Click to expand...


Actually you did and I didn't.  Do it again and I'll report you.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor boy.  The SCOTUS is never filmed....but they are audiotaped.  Loving v. Virginia The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So there's an audio clip of them laughing out loud?  Let's hear it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow.  The audio is in that link.  You really do need your hand held every step of the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *That's quite a lengthy audio*.  Do you know about where the Justices "laughed out loud"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not my problem  You want to know...take the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie.  Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments.  That would dispense with any pretense of objectivity.  Such a gross breach of decorum would certainly have made the papers and no audio link would be required.
> 
> In other words, you're lying and you've been found out.
> 
> Stop lying, Fish breath!
Click to expand...

I've provided you with the audio of the SCOTUS proceedings.   You are chosing (actually whining) to not listen to it.   Not my problem.  But it HAS been provided to you.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> StMike sure seems to know what NAMBLA is going to do.  More than any others of us, that's for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's that supposed to mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who here, besides you, is telling us about what NAMBLA will do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tread carefully, Trout.  If you're implying I'm a pedophile, I'll report you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you saying that?   I've done no such thing.   Just like you've not implied that gays like myself and others here are pedophiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually you did and I didn't.  Do it again and I'll report you.
Click to expand...

If this is your strategy to try to silence me, go right ahead.   It's not as if you can legitimately debate anyways.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So there's an audio clip of them laughing out loud?  Let's hear it!
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  The audio is in that link.  You really do need your hand held every step of the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *That's quite a lengthy audio*.  Do you know about where the Justices "laughed out loud"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not my problem  You want to know...take the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie.  Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments.  That would dispense with any pretense of objectivity.  Such a gross breach of decorum would certainly have made the papers and no audio link would be required.
> 
> In other words, you're lying and you've been found out.
> 
> Stop lying, Fish breath!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've provided you with the audio of the SCOTUS proceedings.   You are chosing (actually whining) to not listen to it.   Not my problem.  But it HAS been provided to you.
Click to expand...


You've been exposed as a liar. My logic has already been posted and it is irrefutable.


----------



## g5000

I can actually provide cogent, scientific reasons for why those states who have low age of consent laws should _raise _their age of consent to 18.

I would not be able to provide rational reasons for why any state should lower its age of consent.

This is again why the bullshit pedophilia meme that invariably comes up in every gay marriage topic fails.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's that supposed to mean?
> 
> 
> 
> Who here, besides you, is telling us about what NAMBLA will do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tread carefully, Trout.  If you're implying I'm a pedophile, I'll report you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you saying that?   I've done no such thing.   Just like you've not implied that gays like myself and others here are pedophiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually you did and I didn't.  Do it again and I'll report you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If this is your strategy to try to silence me, go right ahead.   It's not as if you can legitimately debate anyways.
Click to expand...


Talk all you want, just follow the rules.  That's all I'm asking


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

g5000 said:


> I can actually provide cogent, scientific reasons for why those states who have low age of consent laws should _raise _their age of consent to 18.
> 
> I would not be able to provide rational reasons for why any state should lower its age of consent.
> 
> This is again why the bullshit pedophilia meme that invariably comes up in every gay marriage topic fails.



We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else.  What we're saying will soon become evident to all.


----------



## JakeStarkey

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> There it is.    Can't defend your argument without bringing up NAMBLA.....you lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a truly a sign of the desperate. NAMBLA apparently represents all gays but the instant you mention that Westboro represents all Christians the social conservatives flip their wigs. Both accusations are moronic but watching the selective outrage is delightful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> StMike sure seems to know what NAMBLA is going to do.  More than any others of us, that's for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's that supposed to mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who here, besides you, is telling us about what NAMBLA will do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tread carefully, Trout.  If you're implying I'm a pedophile, I'll report you.
Click to expand...


Back up, silly boy.  You are the only one implying anything.  And you have already been reported.


----------



## g5000

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> You've been exposed as a liar. My logic has already been posted and it is irrefutable.



Your claim that, "Justices do not 'laugh out loud' while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments" is neither true, nor logical, nor irrefutable. In fact, the audio does refute it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can actually provide cogent, scientific reasons for why those states who have low age of consent laws should _raise _their age of consent to 18.
> 
> I would not be able to provide rational reasons for why any state should lower its age of consent.
> 
> This is again why the bullshit pedophilia meme that invariably comes up in every gay marriage topic fails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else.  What we're saying will soon become evident to all.
Click to expand...


You are neither perceptive nor an intellectual.


----------



## g5000

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> We the perceptive intellectuals...



Fuck.  I damn near choked to death on my Pepsi.  You owe me a new monitor.


----------



## GreenBean

g5000 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what Sanger actually said. Notice the parts you chopped out: "The ministers work is also important and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population *and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea *if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
> 
> Read the whole letter for yourself, dipshit.  Sanger was trying to introduce birth control to a superstitious population.  Her aim was to allay their fears.  She knew some would think this was some kind of extermination movement, and she wanted the minister to explain the true aim.
> 
> http://smithlibraries.org/digital/files/original/d6358bc3053c93183295bf2df1c0c931.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you just quoted Sanger as saying that they will use ministers to lie about their agenda and hide the facts.  I told you there's no flattering context for her words and I was right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your twisted perception filters have failed you again.
> 
> Sanger was advocating birth control.  This was a radical idea at the time, and she knew that ignorant people like yourself would claim they were trying to exterminate the negroes.  She suggested the Federation have a minister explain the true goals (birth control) because of the inherent integrity a minister would bring to the conversation.
> 
> It was precisely because a minister WOULD NOT LIE that she suggested one be used to explain this was about birth control, not extermination.
> 
> And morons like you and Greenbean have just demonstrated her fears were well-founded.  You have twisted her words to make her out to be an exterminator.  QED.
Click to expand...



As I said before - the useful idiots / tools of their leftists elite masters will spin any bullshit to protect their own little fascist realm ..

*The NEGRO PROJECT: Margaret Sanger's EUGENIC Plan for Black America*

The aim of the program was to restrict–many believe exterminate–the black population. Under the pretense of "better health" and "family planning," Sanger cleverly implemented her plan.


Spoiler: These are the "ministers" - the other useful idiots of whom you speak



What’s more shocking is Sanger’s beguilement of black America’s _créme de la créme_–those prominent, well educated and well-to-do–into executing her scheme.


Some within the black elite saw birth control as a means to attain economic empowerment, elevate the race and garner the respect of whites.

The Negro Project has had lasting repercussions in the black community: "We have become victims of genocide by our own hands," cried Hunter at the "Say So" march.

....
Sanger embraced Malthusian eugenics......

_All children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room is made for them by the deaths of grown persons. We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality._
_
*BlackGenocide.org The Negro Project*_


Unbelievable how indoctrinated idiotic lapdogs such as g5000  jump and salivate when that leftist pavlov rings his bell - You truly are a "Special" kind of stupid my friend.


----------



## GreenBean

g5000 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> We the perceptive intellectuals...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck.  I damn near choked to death on my Pepsi.  You owe me a new monitor.
Click to expand...

Too bad is was only "damn near"  ... and are you sure it was a "Pepsi"


----------



## GreenBean

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> What makes you think what worked for you faggots won't work for them too?


For the most part - they are one and the same


----------



## g5000

GreenBean said:


> Unbelievable how indoctrinated idiotic lapdogs such as g5000  jump and salivate when that leftist pavlov rings his bell - You truly are a "Special" kind of stupid my friend.



The irony is just too rich here.


----------



## g5000

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else.  What we're saying will soon become evident to all.



Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Use the marriage argument they put forth.  Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it.  At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage.  They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of hypocrisy- your post is a prime example.
> 
> I have always claimed that a same gender couple should be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are.
> 
> Nothing more- nothing less.
> 
> Bigots like you- who oppose same gender marriage- are the ones who keep calling us hypocrites- for not supporting something you also oppose.
> 
> The ones who keep bringing up the subject of brother/sister marriages are conservatives who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.
> 
> You bring it up only to try to deny marriage to same gender couples- and that- that is hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It also fails as both a red herring and slippery slope fallacy – same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, brothers and sisters not.
> 
> No one is seeking to 'change marriage.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "Slippery Slope" exists, therefore appealing to the calamitous nature of that self evident slope, is not fallacious.
> 
> When the dropping of the Sodomy Laws was being discussed, Homosexuals REPEATEDLY claimed OUTRAGE over 'suggestions' that they would inevitably claim a right to marry, or adopt children or serve in the US Military... they claimed THEN that the suggestions that they would do so were fallacious and an appeal to the slippery slope.
> 
> IN FACT, the slope DOES exist and it IS Slippery... and THEY DID INEVITABLY DEMAND TO ALLOWED TO BE MARRIED, TO ADOPT CHILDREN AND JOIN THE US MILITARY.
> 
> And acceptance of the perverse species of reasoning through which you're advocating MUST Result in Incestuous Marriage, inter-species marriage and polygamy and the elimination of the Age of sexual consent.
> 
> Just as dropping the sodomy laws HAD TO provide for homosexuals demanding to marry, adopt children and join the US Military.
> 
> Expecting anything else is every bit as foolish as expecting Relativists to consider anything which extends beyond their own needs, wants and desires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be related to the cretin, Charles Worley, who wants to place all gays and lesbians behind an electrical fence.  Do you wear a white sheet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I would support locking up those who present with mental disorder.  And yes... Homosexuality is a presentation of mental disorder.
Click to expand...


And there we have the slippery slope- Keys is opposed to equal rights for homosexuals, Keys is opposed to even allowing homosexuals to have any freedom- he wants them incarcerated- and according to the slippery slope, the next step in the slippery slope are Keys "Death Camps for Krazy Homosexuals".

I mean if you believe in slippery slopes.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> pillars said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> but thats exactly what you want.  you want a minority to dictate to the majority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 3 branches of government were established to prevent the tyranny of the majority over the minority.  No one is forcing you to become gay, attend a gay wedding, condone or endorse gay marriage, or marry gay people.  But, you don't  get to determine what someone else's rights should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  You faggots are just forcing people to conduct the ceremonies, bake wedding cakes, and offer photography services for fag weddings. I love how how you turd pirates pretend like you're not in everyone's face and not forcing your beliefs on anyone.  Bull fcking shit!
Click to expand...


You mean that people are demanding that business's comply with the law? I can see why that would upset bigots. 

And once again- since you so eloquently demonstrate it in every post

f*ggot- n*gger- c*nt- k*ke- the same kinds of words, used by the same kind of people for the exact same purpose.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> It might not have passed in 1990.....and what is it, do you think, that changed the minds of people in that regard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Longer time for indoctrination of more younger people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean, like religious indoctrination?   Hey!   Maybe you're on to something there.   Those worried about the indoctrination of children should work to disallow overtly religious people from marrying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one can force you to be a part of a religion.  That involves your choice.
> 
> People like you want overtly religious people to ignore their beliefs and be happy for you doing something I believe is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well then....what I suggested would be a perfect example for those who insist that being gay is a choice......wouldn't it?
> 
> You don't have to ignore your belief at all.....just don't shove it down my throat by your own sharia laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being gay is a choice, Fish Breath..
Click to expand...


So you really believe that if you wanted to be attracted to men, instead of women, you could chose to do so?

Obviously anyone can screw anyone- male sexual response is pretty straightforward- you could probably choose to screw a man if someone offered you enough money- but do you really think that if someone offered you the same amount of money to be attracted to say Brad Pitt- you would actually physically be attracted to Brad Pitt?

Not me- wouldn't matter how much money you offered- I could never be sexually attracted to another man.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.
> 
> 
> 
> Use the marriage argument they put forth.  Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it.  At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage.  They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of hypocrisy- your post is a prime example.
> 
> I have always claimed that a same gender couple should be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are.
> 
> Nothing more- nothing less.
> 
> Bigots like you- who oppose same gender marriage- are the ones who keep calling us hypocrites- for not supporting something you also oppose.
> 
> The ones who keep bringing up the subject of brother/sister marriages are conservatives who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.
> 
> You bring it up only to try to deny marriage to same gender couples- and that- that is hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It also fails as both a red herring and slippery slope fallacy – same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, brothers and sisters not.
> 
> No one is seeking to 'change marriage.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "Slippery Slope" exists, therefore appealing to the calamitous nature of that self evident slope, is not fallacious.
> 
> When the dropping of the Sodomy Laws was being discussed, Homosexuals REPEATEDLY claimed OUTRAGE over 'suggestions' that they would inevitably claim a right to marry, or adopt children or serve in the US Military... they claimed THEN that the suggestions that they would do so were fallacious and an appeal to the slippery slope.
> 
> IN FACT, the slope DOES exist and it IS Slippery... and THEY DID INEVITABLY DEMAND TO ALLOWED TO BE MARRIED, TO ADOPT CHILDREN AND JOIN THE US MILITARY.
> 
> And acceptance of the perverse species of reasoning through which you're advocating MUST Result in Incestuous Marriage, inter-species marriage and polygamy and the elimination of the Age of sexual consent.
> 
> Just as dropping the sodomy laws HAD TO provide for homosexuals demanding to marry, adopt children and join the US Military.
> 
> Expecting anything else is every bit as foolish as expecting Relativists to consider anything which extends beyond their own needs, wants and desires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Another item on the checklist of the Gay Agenda is normalizing Pedophilia
Click to expand...


Ah another attempt by homophobic bigots to equate homosexuals to pedophiles.

Homophobic bigots don't care how much they endanger children in order to promote discrimination against homosexuals.


----------



## Redfish

g5000 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else.  What we're saying will soon become evident to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.
Click to expand...

 

its already happening dingleberry.   The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual).   They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1, stmike is not the face of Christianity or its doctrines.
> 
> 2. the anti-gay movement continues to lose traction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you and wytch just don't get it.   Being anti-gay marriage is not being anti-gay.
> 
> there is no anti-gay "movement".   GRow the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are anti-gay marriage...don't have a gay marriage, don't go to a gay marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hard to avoid your fag weddings when Christian business owners are being sued for not offering wedding services.  You faggots are more belligerent than you pretend to be.
Click to expand...


If you stop reading right wing whacko news sources you could avoid them altogether. 

Have you been sued for not following State or local laws?

Anyone forced you to go to a 'f*g' or 'n*gger' or k*ke wedding?

Conservatives are so very offended by lawsuits- until they think that their rights are being violated, and then suddenly they are all for filing lawsuits.


----------



## Syriusly

Redfish said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else.  What we're saying will soon become evident to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its already happening dingleberry.   The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual).   They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.
Click to expand...


And what is that exact same legal argument?


----------



## Redfish

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else.  What we're saying will soon become evident to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its already happening dingleberry.   The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual).   They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is that exact same legal argument?
Click to expand...

 
1. discrimination
2. equal rights
3. the right to marry who you love
4. fairness
5. the constitution


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  The audio is in that link.  You really do need your hand held every step of the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *That's quite a lengthy audio*.  Do you know about where the Justices "laughed out loud"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not my problem  You want to know...take the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie.  Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments.  That would dispense with any pretense of objectivity.  Such a gross breach of decorum would certainly have made the papers and no audio link would be required.
> 
> In other words, you're lying and you've been found out.
> 
> Stop lying, Fish breath!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've provided you with the audio of the SCOTUS proceedings.   You are chosing (actually whining) to not listen to it.   Not my problem.  But it HAS been provided to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been exposed as a liar. My logic has already been posted and it is irrefutable.
Click to expand...

And.......how has that happened?   By you not bothering to listen to the link I provided?  Your unwillingness to take the time to actually learn something is not my problem.   When you were in school, did you call your teachers liars for not spoon-feeding you everything?   (That might explain things)


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pillars said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> but thats exactly what you want.  you want a minority to dictate to the majority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 3 branches of government were established to prevent the tyranny of the majority over the minority.  No one is forcing you to become gay, attend a gay wedding, condone or endorse gay marriage, or marry gay people.  But, you don't  get to determine what someone else's rights should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  You faggots are just forcing people to conduct the ceremonies, bake wedding cakes, and offer photography services for fag weddings. I love how how you turd pirates pretend like you're not in everyone's face and not forcing your beliefs on anyone.  Bull fcking shit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you abandoned all pretext of being a Christian?
> 
> Did you know that Public Accommodation laws protect Christians in all 50 states but gays in only a handful? Gays must serve Christians in all 50 states, but Christians don't have to serve gays in all 50. You aren't really going to try to pretend that the law treats Christians unfairly are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What gay person or atheist has ever been forced to perform a wedding service for Christians?
> 
> Right.  None.  Let's stop with the irrelevant comparisons shall we?
> 
> And Christians don't take advice from non Christians as to what Christian conduct should be.  That would just be absurd.
Click to expand...


And you ignore the point once again- so I will gladly repost what you ignored

_Did you know that Public Accommodation laws protect Christians in all 50 states but gays in only a handful? Gays must serve Christians in all 50 states, but Christians don't have to serve gays in all 50. You aren't really going to try to pretend that the law treats Christians unfairly are you?_

If a Muslim or Jew refuses to rent a hotel room to you because you are a Christian, you are protected by public accommodation laws in all 50 states. But if a Muslim or Jew refuses to rent a room to you because you are a homosexual, you are only protected by law in a few states and localities. 

The protections extended to homosexuals are projected more completely to Christians and members of any other faith.


----------



## Syriusly

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else.  What we're saying will soon become evident to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its already happening dingleberry.   The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual).   They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is that exact same legal argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. discrimination
> 2. equal rights
> 3. the right to marry who you love
> 4. fairness
> 5. the constitution
Click to expand...


So you really don't know what the arguments that are being made regarding same gender marriage other than bullet points?


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who here, besides you, is telling us about what NAMBLA will do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tread carefully, Trout.  If you're implying I'm a pedophile, I'll report you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you saying that?   I've done no such thing.   Just like you've not implied that gays like myself and others here are pedophiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually you did and I didn't.  Do it again and I'll report you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If this is your strategy to try to silence me, go right ahead.   It's not as if you can legitimately debate anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talk all you want, just follow the rules.  That's all I'm asking
Click to expand...

Which I have been doing.   But if you think I have not....it is your duty to report me.   Somehow I don't think it will end up as you think....so you are just bloviating in an attempt to shut me up.  Not going to work.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can actually provide cogent, scientific reasons for why those states who have low age of consent laws should _raise _their age of consent to 18.
> 
> I would not be able to provide rational reasons for why any state should lower its age of consent.
> 
> This is again why the bullshit pedophilia meme that invariably comes up in every gay marriage topic fails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *We the perceptive intellectuals* are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else.  What we're saying will soon become evident to all.
Click to expand...

PRICELESS!


----------



## Syriusly

Redfish said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They also used religion as an excuse to make inter-racial marriages illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bigot's rhetoric against same sex marriage is identical to the rhetoric against interracial marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> not its not, but your bigoted support of gay marriage does resemble that foolishness.
Click to expand...


Yeah- that is some convoluted logic. 

I think you are saying(and feel free to correct me) that if someone supports marriage equality for gay couples- but doesn't also support people who want polygamous marriage, that is bigotry similar to opposing mixed race marriage.

Of course if you look at how bizarre that argument is- since those who opposed mixed race marriage also opposed gay marriage and polygamous marriage- while those who supported the marriage of mixed race couples never supported gay or polygamous marriage.

So logically you are saying that by supporting gay marriage we are as bigoted as the Lovings were.


----------



## Syriusly

Redfish said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage.
Click to expand...


That is your opinion. 

My opinion is that marriage is marriage.  The gay friends that I have who got married, got married for the same reasons as my wife and I had for marrying.


----------



## Syriusly

Redfish said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They also used religion as an excuse to make inter-racial marriages illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> race and sex are not analogous
Click to expand...


Bigotry is bigotry.


----------



## Redfish

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else.  What we're saying will soon become evident to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its already happening dingleberry.   The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual).   They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is that exact same legal argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. discrimination
> 2. equal rights
> 3. the right to marry who you love
> 4. fairness
> 5. the constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you really don't know what the arguments that are being made regarding same gender marriage other than bullet points?
Click to expand...

 

those are the arguments being made,   but if you disagree with my summation, tell us what I missed.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda like forcing someone to remain single instead marrying the person he/she loves?
> 
> Marriage is whatever the people marrying define it as.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually. here, it's what the State defines it as, unless you want a non-binding one without legal support like a church thing or whatever else you came up with.  That is what is pissing people off, the states have figured out that fags have equal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  It wasn't well made, but my point was he doesn't get to define what marriage is for others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I do. It's called democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you don't know that we are not a democracy?   We are a Constitutional Republic.  Didn't you take government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Did you?  Laws are decided by the democratic process, not activist judges.  Go back to school because you have no clue how our government works.
Click to expand...


Wow- you are so amazingly wrong. 

We are a representative, Constitutional Republic. 

While we have some forms of direct democracy- the 27 states that have referendum laws- the United States itself has no direct democracy.

And since we are a Constitutional Republic- all laws are subject to the Constitution- and judges determine whether they are or not-- something Conservatives applaud when it is the NRA filing lawsuits, and when an 'activist' judge overturns a law Conservatives find objective.


----------



## Redfish

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They also used religion as an excuse to make inter-racial marriages illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> race and sex are not analogous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bigotry is bigotry.
Click to expand...

 

yes, it is, and your bigotry against anyone who disagrees with you is quite evident.   WTF makes your position superior to all others?    Who the fuck are you that you think you can dictate how others must think and believe?  

Thats the problem with you fricken libtards,  you think that you are smarter than everyone else,  but you aren't


----------



## Redfish

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually. here, it's what the State defines it as, unless you want a non-binding one without legal support like a church thing or whatever else you came up with.  That is what is pissing people off, the states have figured out that fags have equal rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  It wasn't well made, but my point was he doesn't get to define what marriage is for others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I do. It's called democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you don't know that we are not a democracy?   We are a Constitutional Republic.  Didn't you take government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Did you?  Laws are decided by the democratic process, not activist judges.  Go back to school because you have no clue how our government works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- you are so amazingly wrong.
> 
> We are a representative, Constitutional Republic.
> 
> While we have some forms of direct democracy- the 27 states that have referendum laws- the United States itself has no direct democracy.
> 
> And since we are a Constitutional Republic- all laws are subject to the Constitution- and judges determine whether they are or not-- something Conservatives applaud when it is the NRA filing lawsuits, and when an 'activist' judge overturns a law Conservatives find objective.
Click to expand...

 

does congress pass laws by majority vote?   yes or no


----------



## bodecea

Redfish said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else.  What we're saying will soon become evident to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its already happening dingleberry.   The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual).   They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.
Click to expand...

That's interesting.  Your source?


----------



## bodecea

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else.  What we're saying will soon become evident to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its already happening dingleberry.   The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual).   They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is that exact same legal argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. discrimination
> 2. equal rights
> 3. the right to marry who you love
> 4. fairness
> 5. the constitution
Click to expand...

Here's the legal problem with using the current marriage license for polygamy.

The 1000+ rights and protections for marriage today have a default feature automatically there.  If one partner dies, the other gets the house, etc.   Same with child custody, etc.
If you add a 3rd party, then it becomes complicated and the current marriage rights and protections are not enough.....the entire 
Overview of Federal Benefits Granted to Married Couples Resources Human Rights Campaign
would have to be overhauled.


----------



## bodecea

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  It wasn't well made, but my point was he doesn't get to define what marriage is for others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I do. It's called democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you don't know that we are not a democracy?   We are a Constitutional Republic.  Didn't you take government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Did you?  Laws are decided by the democratic process, not activist judges.  Go back to school because you have no clue how our government works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- you are so amazingly wrong.
> 
> We are a representative, Constitutional Republic.
> 
> While we have some forms of direct democracy- the 27 states that have referendum laws- the United States itself has no direct democracy.
> 
> And since we are a Constitutional Republic- all laws are subject to the Constitution- and judges determine whether they are or not-- something Conservatives applaud when it is the NRA filing lawsuits, and when an 'activist' judge overturns a law Conservatives find objective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> does congress pass laws by majority vote?   yes or no
Click to expand...

They do...unless when overiding a Presidential veto.   But are they allowed to pass UnConstitutional laws?  (Actually they are, but those laws will not stand)


----------



## Redfish

bodecea said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I do. It's called democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> So, you don't know that we are not a democracy?   We are a Constitutional Republic.  Didn't you take government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Did you?  Laws are decided by the democratic process, not activist judges.  Go back to school because you have no clue how our government works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- you are so amazingly wrong.
> 
> We are a representative, Constitutional Republic.
> 
> While we have some forms of direct democracy- the 27 states that have referendum laws- the United States itself has no direct democracy.
> 
> And since we are a Constitutional Republic- all laws are subject to the Constitution- and judges determine whether they are or not-- something Conservatives applaud when it is the NRA filing lawsuits, and when an 'activist' judge overturns a law Conservatives find objective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> does congress pass laws by majority vote?   yes or no
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do...unless when overiding a Presidential veto.   But are they allowed to pass UnConstitutional laws?  (Actually they are, but those laws will not stand)
Click to expand...

 

Good point, Obamacare will not stand the test of constitutionality.


----------



## Redfish

bodecea said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else.  What we're saying will soon become evident to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its already happening dingleberry.   The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual).   They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is that exact same legal argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. discrimination
> 2. equal rights
> 3. the right to marry who you love
> 4. fairness
> 5. the constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's the legal problem with using the current marriage license for polygamy.
> 
> The 1000+ rights and protections for marriage today have a default feature automatically there.  If one partner dies, the other gets the house, etc.   Same with child custody, etc.
> If you add a 3rd party, then it becomes complicated and the current marriage rights and protections are not enough.....the entire
> Overview of Federal Benefits Granted to Married Couples Resources Human Rights Campaign
> would have to be overhauled.
Click to expand...

 

Yep, those laws will have to change and the lawyers will have a field day doing it.   Can you imagine the legal fees for a divorce of 5 people?

but my point remains valid,  the arguments for polysexual marriage are EXACTLY the same as the arguments for man/man and woman/woman marriage.


----------



## Redfish

bodecea said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else.  What we're saying will soon become evident to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its already happening dingleberry.   The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual).   They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's interesting.  Your source?
Click to expand...

 

google it.   I am here to guide you, not to teach you.


----------



## Lilah

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  It wasn't well made, but my point was he doesn't get to define what marriage is for others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I do. It's called democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you don't know that we are not a democracy?   We are a Constitutional Republic.  Didn't you take government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Did you?  Laws are decided by the democratic process, not activist judges.  Go back to school because you have no clue how our government works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- you are so amazingly wrong.
> 
> We are a representative, Constitutional Republic.
> 
> While we have some forms of direct democracy- the 27 states that have referendum laws- the United States itself has no direct democracy.
> 
> And since we are a Constitutional Republic- all laws are subject to the Constitution- and judges determine whether they are or not-- something Conservatives applaud when it is the NRA filing lawsuits, and when an 'activist' judge overturns a law Conservatives find objective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> does congress pass laws by majority vote?   yes or no
Click to expand...


Can one man, the President, veto them?


----------



## bodecea

Redfish said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you don't know that we are not a democracy?   We are a Constitutional Republic.  Didn't you take government?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Did you?  Laws are decided by the democratic process, not activist judges.  Go back to school because you have no clue how our government works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- you are so amazingly wrong.
> 
> We are a representative, Constitutional Republic.
> 
> While we have some forms of direct democracy- the 27 states that have referendum laws- the United States itself has no direct democracy.
> 
> And since we are a Constitutional Republic- all laws are subject to the Constitution- and judges determine whether they are or not-- something Conservatives applaud when it is the NRA filing lawsuits, and when an 'activist' judge overturns a law Conservatives find objective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> does congress pass laws by majority vote?   yes or no
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do...unless when overiding a Presidential veto.   But are they allowed to pass UnConstitutional laws?  (Actually they are, but those laws will not stand)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good point, Obamacare will not stand the test of constitutionality.
Click to expand...

Interesting that you say that considering that it has ALREADY gone in front of the SCOTUS and been declared Constitutional.   

Supreme Court ObamaCare Ruling on ObamaCare


----------



## bodecea

Redfish said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its already happening dingleberry.   The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual).   They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is that exact same legal argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. discrimination
> 2. equal rights
> 3. the right to marry who you love
> 4. fairness
> 5. the constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's the legal problem with using the current marriage license for polygamy.
> 
> The 1000+ rights and protections for marriage today have a default feature automatically there.  If one partner dies, the other gets the house, etc.   Same with child custody, etc.
> If you add a 3rd party, then it becomes complicated and the current marriage rights and protections are not enough.....the entire
> Overview of Federal Benefits Granted to Married Couples Resources Human Rights Campaign
> would have to be overhauled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, those laws will have to change and the lawyers will have a field day doing it.   Can you imagine the legal fees for a divorce of 5 people?
> 
> but my point remains valid,  the arguments for polysexual marriage are EXACTLY the same as the arguments for man/man and woman/woman marriage.
Click to expand...

Um....no, for the reasons I illustrated.  It's not impossible to make an argument, but it isn't the exact same.


----------



## bodecea

Redfish said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else.  What we're saying will soon become evident to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its already happening dingleberry.   The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual).   They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's interesting.  Your source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> google it.   I am here to guide you, not to teach you.
Click to expand...

Doesn't exist outside your head then, eh?

I stand corrected:

ACLU of Utah to Join Polygamists in Bigamy Fight American Civil Liberties Union

Interesting read.  But as the article says, there are a few legal hurdles that do not exist with gay marriage........so no, it is not exactly the same.


----------



## Syriusly

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its already happening dingleberry.   The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual).   They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is that exact same legal argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. discrimination
> 2. equal rights
> 3. the right to marry who you love
> 4. fairness
> 5. the constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you really don't know what the arguments that are being made regarding same gender marriage other than bullet points?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> those are the arguments being made,   but if you disagree with my summation, tell us what I missed.
Click to expand...


Sure- glad you asked. Let me give you some quotes from the Wisconsin case that overturned Wisconsin's ban on gay marriage(and I strongly suggest reading it to understand why so many cases against gay marriage are winning)

_Rather, it is necessary to conclude only that the* state may not
intrude without adequate justification on certain fundamental decisions* made by individuals
and that, *when the state does impose restrictions on these important matters, it must do so
in an even-handed manner.....

....All plaintiffs meet the requirements for getting married in Wisconsin, with the
exception that each wishes to marry someone of the same sex.....

*_
*This is a crucial point- explained in detail in the ruling
Roughly:
a) marriage is a right- repeatedly confirmed by the Supreme Court
b) rights can only be denied by the State if the States can provide a compelling State interest that is accomplished by denying the right*
_
First, because I have concluded that the marriage ban significantly
interferes with plaintiffs’ right to marry under the due process clause, defendants must show
that the ban furthers “sufficiently important state interests” that are “closely tailored to
effectuate only those interests.”
_
This is an important distinction- because Wisconsin was unable to provide an important state interest that banning gay marriage actually accomplishes.

The court also addressed the issue that you raise(since Wisconsin raised it as a slippery slope issue)

_Thus,the important question for this case is not whether another individual’s marriage claim may
be analogous to plaintiffs’ claim, but whether plaintiffs’ claim is like the claims raised in cases
such as Loving, Zablocki, Turner and Windsor. I have concluded that it is. 

When the Supreme Court struck down the marriage restrictions in those other cases, it did not engage
in hypothetical discussions about what might come next. See also Lewis v. Harris, 875 A.2d
259, 287-88 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2005) (Collester, J., dissenting) (“It is . . . unnecessary for us
to consider here the question of the constitutional rights of polygamists to marry persons of
their choosing. . . . One issue of fundamental constitutional rights is enough for now.”).
_
*Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net. *
_
A more fundamental point is that Wisconsin’s ban on same-sex marriage is different from other
marriage restrictions because it completely excludes gay persons from participating in the
institution of marriage in any meaningful sense. In other words, gay persons simply are
asking for the right to marry someone. With the obvious exception of minors, no other class
is being denied this right. As in Romer, plaintiffs are not asking for “special rights”; they are
asking only for the rights that every adult already has_

And finally coming to the decision:
_
It is well-established that “the Constitution protects persons, not groups,” Adarand
Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995), so regardless of possible future events
affecting the larger community, my task under federal law is to decide the claims presented
by the plaintiffs in this case now, *applying the provisions in the Fourteenth Amendment as
interpreted by the Supreme Court in cases such as Loving, Romer, Lawrence and Windsor.*
Because my review of that law convinces me that plaintiffs are entitled to the same treatment
as any heterosexual couple, I conclude that the Wisconsin laws banning marriage between
same-sex couples are unconstitutional.
_
As the court noted- the case for same gender marriage can be distinguished from bans on incestuious and polygamous marriage- the question is whether States can make more compelling arguments that the bans on those marriages are justified.

IF States cannot provide compelling arguments to justify banning incestuous and polygamous marriages- well there is a reasonable chance that they would indeed lose- and would deserve to lose.


----------



## bodecea

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> its already happening dingleberry.   The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual).   They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what is that exact same legal argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. discrimination
> 2. equal rights
> 3. the right to marry who you love
> 4. fairness
> 5. the constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you really don't know what the arguments that are being made regarding same gender marriage other than bullet points?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> those are the arguments being made,   but if you disagree with my summation, tell us what I missed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure- glad you asked. Let me give you some quotes from the Wisconsin case that overturned Wisconsin's ban on gay marriage(and I strongly suggest reading it to understand why so many cases against gay marriage are winning)
> 
> _Rather, it is necessary to conclude only that the* state may not
> intrude without adequate justification on certain fundamental decisions* made by individuals
> and that, *when the state does impose restrictions on these important matters, it must do so
> in an even-handed manner.....
> 
> ....All plaintiffs meet the requirements for getting married in Wisconsin, with the
> exception that each wishes to marry someone of the same sex.....
> 
> *_
> *This is a crucial point- explained in detail in the ruling
> Roughly:
> a) marriage is a right- repeatedly confirmed by the Supreme Court
> b) rights can only be denied by the State if the States can provide a compelling State interest that is accomplished by denying the right*
> _
> First, because I have concluded that the marriage ban significantly
> interferes with plaintiffs’ right to marry under the due process clause, defendants must show
> that the ban furthers “sufficiently important state interests” that are “closely tailored to
> effectuate only those interests.”
> _
> This is an important distinction- because Wisconsin was unable to provide an important state interest that banning gay marriage actually accomplishes.
> 
> The court also addressed the issue that you raise(since Wisconsin raised it as a slippery slope issue)
> 
> _Thus,the important question for this case is not whether another individual’s marriage claim may
> be analogous to plaintiffs’ claim, but whether plaintiffs’ claim is like the claims raised in cases
> such as Loving, Zablocki, Turner and Windsor. I have concluded that it is.
> 
> When the Supreme Court struck down the marriage restrictions in those other cases, it did not engage
> in hypothetical discussions about what might come next. See also Lewis v. Harris, 875 A.2d
> 259, 287-88 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2005) (Collester, J., dissenting) (“It is . . . unnecessary for us
> to consider here the question of the constitutional rights of polygamists to marry persons of
> their choosing. . . . One issue of fundamental constitutional rights is enough for now.”).
> _
> *Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
> marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net. *
> _
> A more fundamental point is that Wisconsin’s ban on same-sex marriage is different from other
> marriage restrictions because it completely excludes gay persons from participating in the
> institution of marriage in any meaningful sense. In other words, gay persons simply are
> asking for the right to marry someone. With the obvious exception of minors, no other class
> is being denied this right. As in Romer, plaintiffs are not asking for “special rights”; they are
> asking only for the rights that every adult already has_
> 
> And finally coming to the decision:
> _
> It is well-established that “the Constitution protects persons, not groups,” Adarand
> Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995), so regardless of possible future events
> affecting the larger community, my task under federal law is to decide the claims presented
> by the plaintiffs in this case now, *applying the provisions in the Fourteenth Amendment as
> interpreted by the Supreme Court in cases such as Loving, Romer, Lawrence and Windsor.*
> Because my review of that law convinces me that plaintiffs are entitled to the same treatment
> as any heterosexual couple, I conclude that the Wisconsin laws banning marriage between
> same-sex couples are unconstitutional.
> _
> As the court noted- the case for same gender marriage can be distinguished from bans on incestuious and polygamous marriage- the question is whether States can make more compelling arguments that the bans on those marriages are justified.
> 
> IF States cannot provide compelling arguments to justify banning incestuous and polygamous marriages- well there is a reasonable chance that they would indeed lose- and would deserve to lose.
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else.  What we're saying will soon become evident to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its already happening dingleberry.   The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual).   They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.
Click to expand...


They will fail, and the sun will rise in the east.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They also used religion as an excuse to make inter-racial marriages illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> race and sex are not analogous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bigotry is bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes, it is, and your bigotry against anyone who disagrees with you is quite evident.   WTF makes your position superior to all others?    Who the fuck are you that you think you can dictate how others must think and believe?
> 
> Thats the problem with you fricken libtards,  you think that you are smarter than everyone else,  but you aren't
Click to expand...


That is what the anti-CR folks said.  The hatred is almost all on the far right social con side.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  It wasn't well made, but my point was he doesn't get to define what marriage is for others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I do. It's called democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you don't know that we are not a democracy?   We are a Constitutional Republic.  Didn't you take government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Did you?  Laws are decided by the democratic process, not activist judges.  Go back to school because you have no clue how our government works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- you are so amazingly wrong.
> 
> We are a representative, Constitutional Republic.
> 
> While we have some forms of direct democracy- the 27 states that have referendum laws- the United States itself has no direct democracy.
> 
> And since we are a Constitutional Republic- all laws are subject to the Constitution- and judges determine whether they are or not-- something Conservatives applaud when it is the NRA filing lawsuits, and when an 'activist' judge overturns a law Conservatives find objective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> does congress pass laws by majority vote?   yes or no
Click to expand...


Immaterial, so your question need not be answered.  Scoot along, please.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you don't know that we are not a democracy?   We are a Constitutional Republic.  Didn't you take government?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Did you?  Laws are decided by the democratic process, not activist judges.  Go back to school because you have no clue how our government works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- you are so amazingly wrong.
> 
> We are a representative, Constitutional Republic.
> 
> While we have some forms of direct democracy- the 27 states that have referendum laws- the United States itself has no direct democracy.
> 
> And since we are a Constitutional Republic- all laws are subject to the Constitution- and judges determine whether they are or not-- something Conservatives applaud when it is the NRA filing lawsuits, and when an 'activist' judge overturns a law Conservatives find objective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> does congress pass laws by majority vote?   yes or no
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do...unless when overiding a Presidential veto.   But are they allowed to pass UnConstitutional laws?  (Actually they are, but those laws will not stand)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good point, Obamacare will not stand the test of constitutionality.
Click to expand...

  It already has.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else.  What we're saying will soon become evident to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its already happening dingleberry.   The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual).   They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's interesting.  Your source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> google it.   I am here to guide you, not to teach you.
Click to expand...

There is no source.


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else.  What we're saying will soon become evident to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its already happening dingleberry.   The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual).   They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's interesting.  Your source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> google it.   I am here to guide you, not to teach you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no source.
Click to expand...

 

ok, I'll do the work for you

ACLU defends polygamy


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Did you?  Laws are decided by the democratic process, not activist judges.  Go back to school because you have no clue how our government works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow- you are so amazingly wrong.
> 
> We are a representative, Constitutional Republic.
> 
> While we have some forms of direct democracy- the 27 states that have referendum laws- the United States itself has no direct democracy.
> 
> And since we are a Constitutional Republic- all laws are subject to the Constitution- and judges determine whether they are or not-- something Conservatives applaud when it is the NRA filing lawsuits, and when an 'activist' judge overturns a law Conservatives find objective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> does congress pass laws by majority vote?   yes or no
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do...unless when overiding a Presidential veto.   But are they allowed to pass UnConstitutional laws?  (Actually they are, but those laws will not stand)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good point, Obamacare will not stand the test of constitutionality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It already has.
Click to expand...

 

Nope,   the state mandate is about to be ruled unconstitutional.   Then the whole house of cards will fall.


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else.  What we're saying will soon become evident to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its already happening dingleberry.   The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual).   They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will fail, and the sun will rise in the east.
Click to expand...

 
on what legal basis do you support discrimination against polygamists?


----------



## Syriusly

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else.  What we're saying will soon become evident to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its already happening dingleberry.   The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual).   They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will fail, and the sun will rise in the east.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> on what legal basis do you support discrimination against polygamists?
Click to expand...


On what rational basis do you believe that he does?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish said:


> Obamacare will not stand the test of constitutionality.


It already has.


----------



## bodecea

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its already happening dingleberry.   The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual).   They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's interesting.  Your source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> google it.   I am here to guide you, not to teach you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ok, I'll do the work for you
> 
> ACLU defends polygamy
Click to expand...

Thank you...but you are a day late and a dollar short.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Did you?  Laws are decided by the democratic process, not activist judges.  Go back to school because you have no clue how our government works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow- you are so amazingly wrong.
> 
> We are a representative, Constitutional Republic.
> 
> While we have some forms of direct democracy- the 27 states that have referendum laws- the United States itself has no direct democracy.
> 
> And since we are a Constitutional Republic- all laws are subject to the Constitution- and judges determine whether they are or not-- something Conservatives applaud when it is the NRA filing lawsuits, and when an 'activist' judge overturns a law Conservatives find objective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> does congress pass laws by majority vote?   yes or no
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do...unless when overiding a Presidential veto.   But are they allowed to pass UnConstitutional laws?  (Actually they are, but those laws will not stand)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good point, Obamacare will not stand the test of constitutionality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting that you say that considering that it has ALREADY gone in front of the SCOTUS and been declared Constitutional.
> 
> Supreme Court ObamaCare Ruling on ObamaCare
Click to expand...

It's being jeopardized anew using a different angle, funding for the exchanges. Obamacare is being featured right now in "1000 ways to die".


----------



## bodecea

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow- you are so amazingly wrong.
> 
> We are a representative, Constitutional Republic.
> 
> While we have some forms of direct democracy- the 27 states that have referendum laws- the United States itself has no direct democracy.
> 
> And since we are a Constitutional Republic- all laws are subject to the Constitution- and judges determine whether they are or not-- something Conservatives applaud when it is the NRA filing lawsuits, and when an 'activist' judge overturns a law Conservatives find objective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> does congress pass laws by majority vote?   yes or no
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do...unless when overiding a Presidential veto.   But are they allowed to pass UnConstitutional laws?  (Actually they are, but those laws will not stand)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good point, Obamacare will not stand the test of constitutionality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It already has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope,   the state mandate is about to be ruled unconstitutional.   Then the whole house of cards will fall.
Click to expand...

Interesting that you think so.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> does congress pass laws by majority vote?   yes or no
> 
> 
> 
> They do...unless when overiding a Presidential veto.   But are they allowed to pass UnConstitutional laws?  (Actually they are, but those laws will not stand)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good point, Obamacare will not stand the test of constitutionality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It already has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope,   the state mandate is about to be ruled unconstitutional.   Then the whole house of cards will fall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting that you think so.
Click to expand...

The arrogant shall fall and the meek will inherit the earth.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else.  What we're saying will soon become evident to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its already happening dingleberry.   The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual).   They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's interesting.  Your source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> google it.   I am here to guide you, not to teach you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't exist outside your head then, eh?
> 
> I stand corrected:
> 
> ACLU of Utah to Join Polygamists in Bigamy Fight American Civil Liberties Union
> 
> Interesting read.  But as the article says, there are a few legal hurdles that do not exist with gay marriage........so no, it is not exactly the same.
Click to expand...

It will prevail nonetheless. We've gone from reading the Constitution for what it says to finding hidden meanings and rights. Pedophiles, polygamists, queers, and all other sexual deviants understand that the holes in the dike (no pun intended) mean that the whole thing is about to collapse.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do...unless when overiding a Presidential veto.   But are they allowed to pass UnConstitutional laws?  (Actually they are, but those laws will not stand)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point, Obamacare will not stand the test of constitutionality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It already has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope,   the state mandate is about to be ruled unconstitutional.   Then the whole house of cards will fall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting that you think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The arrogant shall fall and the meek will inherit the earth.
Click to expand...

Yes...so the suggestion is that we should be meek in the face of Islamic Terrorism so that we can inherit the Earth...............no, wait.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its already happening dingleberry.   The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual).   They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's interesting.  Your source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> google it.   I am here to guide you, not to teach you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't exist outside your head then, eh?
> 
> I stand corrected:
> 
> ACLU of Utah to Join Polygamists in Bigamy Fight American Civil Liberties Union
> 
> Interesting read.  But as the article says, there are a few legal hurdles that do not exist with gay marriage........so no, it is not exactly the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It will prevail nonetheless. We've gone from reading the Constitution for what it says to finding hidden meanings and rights. Pedophiles, polygamists, queers, and all other sexual deviants understand that the holes in the dike (no pun intended) mean that the whole thing is about to collapse.
Click to expand...

There you go again.


----------



## Lilah

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its already happening dingleberry.   The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual).   They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's interesting.  Your source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> google it.   I am here to guide you, not to teach you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't exist outside your head then, eh?
> 
> I stand corrected:
> 
> ACLU of Utah to Join Polygamists in Bigamy Fight American Civil Liberties Union
> 
> Interesting read.  But as the article says, there are a few legal hurdles that do not exist with gay marriage........so no, it is not exactly the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It will prevail nonetheless. We've gone from reading the Constitution for what it says to finding hidden meanings and rights. Pedophiles, polygamists, queers, and all other sexual deviants understand that the holes in the dike (no pun intended) mean that the whole thing is about to collapse.
Click to expand...


Oopsy, I think you have a leak.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else.  What we're saying will soon become evident to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its already happening dingleberry.   The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual).   They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will fail, and the sun will rise in the east.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> on what legal basis do you support discrimination against polygamists?
Click to expand...


Immaterial question.  Dismissed.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Lilah said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> its already happening dingleberry.   The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual).   They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.
> 
> 
> 
> That's interesting.  Your source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> google it.   I am here to guide you, not to teach you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't exist outside your head then, eh?
> 
> I stand corrected:
> 
> ACLU of Utah to Join Polygamists in Bigamy Fight American Civil Liberties Union
> 
> Interesting read.  But as the article says, there are a few legal hurdles that do not exist with gay marriage........so no, it is not exactly the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It will prevail nonetheless. We've gone from reading the Constitution for what it says to finding hidden meanings and rights. Pedophiles, polygamists, queers, and all other sexual deviants understand that the holes in the dike (no pun intended) mean that the whole thing is about to collapse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oopsy, I think you have a leak.
Click to expand...


Not at all.  The document protects us from social defunctions like you and Where R My Keys.


----------



## JakeStarkey

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do...unless when overiding a Presidential veto.   But are they allowed to pass UnConstitutional laws?  (Actually they are, but those laws will not stand)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point, Obamacare will not stand the test of constitutionality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It already has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope,   the state mandate is about to be ruled unconstitutional.   Then the whole house of cards will fall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting that you think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The arrogant shall fall and the meek will inherit the earth.
Click to expand...

Then the mandate is safe.  If not, it will be fixed within two weeks.


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else.  What we're saying will soon become evident to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its already happening dingleberry.   The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual).   They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will fail, and the sun will rise in the east.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> on what legal basis do you support discrimination against polygamists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immaterial question.  Dismissed.
Click to expand...

 

no its not,  that is THE PRIMARY question in this debate.   You want gay marriage but you want to prohibit polysexual marriage--------on what legal basis do you want to prohibit multiple marriage?   If you answer truthfully you will repeat the exact reasons many give for opposing gay marriage,  but you won't answer truthfully so its a moot point


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good point, Obamacare will not stand the test of constitutionality.
> 
> 
> 
> It already has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope,   the state mandate is about to be ruled unconstitutional.   Then the whole house of cards will fall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting that you think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The arrogant shall fall and the meek will inherit the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then the mandate is safe.  If not, it will be fixed within two weeks.
Click to expand...

 

obamacare is terrible legislation.  it is hurting the people it claimed to be trying to help.  it is costing the country billions and is driving doctors out of medicine.  It must be repealed or drastically changed.


----------



## g5000

Redfish said:


> no its not,  that is THE PRIMARY question in this debate.   You want gay marriage but you want to prohibit polysexual marriage--------on what legal basis do you want to prohibit multiple marriage?   If you answer truthfully you will repeat the exact reasons many give for opposing gay marriage,  but you won't answer truthfully so its a moot point



So you need a rational basis for banning polygamy.

Here you go: *The Perils of Polygamy*

You really are attached to your slippery slope!

What next?  "Then tell me why you can't marry a dog"?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Redfish said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  Sorry about that!
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> They should be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized, but it is NOT a marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your stupid little semantics game is transparent.
> 
> If you folks down at Westboro Baptist don't want to call a gay marriage a marriage, that's your right.  But you don't get to force them not to call their marriage a marriage.
> 
> As for having their union recognized, that won't be true until they receive the exact same state and federal government cash and prizes we heteros get for being married.
> 
> That's all they want. You can stomp your feet and blow a lot of retard smoke about the word "marriage", but until you get it through your thick skull that that is all they want then you will continue to sound like a retard.
> 
> *Now focus:  Government cash and prizes.  They want the same.   "Equal protection of the laws."
> *
> Get that through your head.  It isn't about a _word_, idiot.  It is about tangible things.  Real world shit that actually matters.  Legal stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> a gay civil union would give them exactly the same govt cash and prizes as a man/woman marriage.
> 
> IT IS ALL ABOUT THE WORD,   DEAL WITH THAT REALITY.
Click to expand...


They Sexually abnormal NEED it to be MARRIAGE... because they recognize the inherent legitimacy of Marriage.  

What they're not sufficiently heeled, intellectually speaking, is that the standard which provides for the inherent legitimacy of Marriage, precludes their participation.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

g5000 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> no its not,  that is THE PRIMARY question in this debate.   You want gay marriage but you want to prohibit polysexual marriage--------on what legal basis do you want to prohibit multiple marriage?   If you answer truthfully you will repeat the exact reasons many give for opposing gay marriage,  but you won't answer truthfully so its a moot point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you need a rational basis for banning polygamy.
> 
> Here you go: *The Perils of Polygamy*
> 
> You really are attached to your slippery slope!
> 
> What next?  "Then tell me why you can't marry a dog"?
Click to expand...


Why can't you marry a dog?  Specifically?


----------



## bodecea

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its already happening dingleberry.   The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual).   They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will fail, and the sun will rise in the east.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> on what legal basis do you support discrimination against polygamists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immaterial question.  Dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no its not,  that is THE PRIMARY question in this debate.   You want gay marriage *but you want to prohibit polysexual marriage*--------on what legal basis do you want to prohibit multiple marriage?   If you answer truthfully you will repeat the exact reasons many give for opposing gay marriage,  but you won't answer truthfully so its a moot point
Click to expand...

 Where have any of us said that?


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> no its not,  that is THE PRIMARY question in this debate.   You want gay marriage but you want to prohibit polysexual marriage--------on what legal basis do you want to prohibit multiple marriage?   If you answer truthfully you will repeat the exact reasons many give for opposing gay marriage,  but you won't answer truthfully so its a moot point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you need a rational basis for banning polygamy.
> 
> Here you go: *The Perils of Polygamy*
> 
> You really are attached to your slippery slope!
> 
> What next?  "Then tell me why you can't marry a dog"?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can't you marry a dog?  Specifically?
Click to expand...

Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults (at least it is today)  How can a dog consent?  How can a dog understand and sign a contract?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish said:


> no its not,  that is THE PRIMARY question in this debate.   You want gay marriage but you want to prohibit polysexual marriage--------on what legal basis do you want to prohibit multiple marriage?   If you answer truthfully you will repeat the exact reasons many give for opposing gay marriage,  but you won't answer truthfully so its a moot point



We are discussing marriage equality, not polygamy, which is in no way similar.  You can say it is all you want, but you are wrong.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish said:


> obamacare is terrible legislation.  it is hurting the people it claimed to be trying to help.  it is costing the country billions and is driving doctors out of medicine.  It must be repealed or drastically changed.



No, it's not terrible.  There are some fixes that will be done.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Where_r_my_Keys' attempts despite his inability to discuss this issue intellectually has given us months of entertainment.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its already happening dingleberry.   The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual).   They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's interesting.  Your source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> google it.   I am here to guide you, not to teach you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't exist outside your head then, eh?
> 
> I stand corrected:
> 
> ACLU of Utah to Join Polygamists in Bigamy Fight American Civil Liberties Union
> 
> Interesting read.  But as the article says, there are a few legal hurdles that do not exist with gay marriage........so no, it is not exactly the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It will prevail nonetheless. We've gone from reading the Constitution for what it says to finding hidden meanings and rights. Pedophiles, polygamists, queers, and all other sexual deviants understand that the holes in the dike (no pun intended) mean that the whole thing is about to collapse.
Click to expand...


Yeah- once again- a bigot who can't tell the difference between raping a child and consensual sex between adults.

Do they send you to special schools to learn this crap?


----------



## Syriusly

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> It already has.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope,   the state mandate is about to be ruled unconstitutional.   Then the whole house of cards will fall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting that you think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The arrogant shall fall and the meek will inherit the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then the mandate is safe.  If not, it will be fixed within two weeks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> obamacare is terrible legislation.  it is hurting the people it claimed to be trying to help.  it is costing the country billions and is driving doctors out of medicine.  It must be repealed or drastically changed.
Click to expand...


So is it proper to change Obamacare by going through courts- or only by changing it through legislation?


----------



## Syriusly

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its already happening dingleberry.   The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual).   They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will fail, and the sun will rise in the east.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> on what legal basis do you support discrimination against polygamists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immaterial question.  Dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no its not,  that is THE PRIMARY question in this debate.   You want gay marriage but you want to prohibit polysexual marriage----t
Click to expand...


Where did Jake say he wants to prohibit 'polysexual' marriage?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish is flibbertegetting because he is not allowed to frame the discussion.  Where r my Keys gets bent out of shape as well.


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  Sorry about that!
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> They should be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized, but it is NOT a marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your stupid little semantics game is transparent.
> 
> If you folks down at Westboro Baptist don't want to call a gay marriage a marriage, that's your right.  But you don't get to force them not to call their marriage a marriage.
> 
> As for having their union recognized, that won't be true until they receive the exact same state and federal government cash and prizes we heteros get for being married.
> 
> That's all they want. You can stomp your feet and blow a lot of retard smoke about the word "marriage", but until you get it through your thick skull that that is all they want then you will continue to sound like a retard.
> 
> *Now focus:  Government cash and prizes.  They want the same.   "Equal protection of the laws."
> *
> Get that through your head.  It isn't about a _word_, idiot.  It is about tangible things.  Real world shit that actually matters.  Legal stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> a gay civil union would give them exactly the same govt cash and prizes as a man/woman marriage.
> 
> IT IS ALL ABOUT THE WORD,   DEAL WITH THAT REALITY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They Sexually abnormal NEED it to be MARRIAGE... because they recognize the inherent legitimacy of Marriage.
> 
> What they're not sufficiently heeled, intellectually speaking, is that the standard which provides for the inherent legitimacy of Marriage, precludes their
> participation.
Click to expand...


A lot of people consider the marriage certificate to be a property-sharing agreement.  A lot of women, and men, get a house, a new car, and an allowance of thousands of dollars a month, all for the simple reason that they hooked up with someone who has money.  Some people will not settle for a regular person.  They want a rich one.  Beauty, a depreciating asset, is the only thing some people bring to the table and when it has outlived its usefulness, the promises made fall by the wayside. In such cases was the marriage legitimate?
Consider a gay couple who have been together for 30+ years, monogamously of course, who desire the same protections that marriage offers to straight people, such as if one  partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items if they are not married.  Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.
What does marriage mean to the likes of you?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Lilah said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  Sorry about that!
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> They should be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized, but it is NOT a marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your stupid little semantics game is transparent.
> 
> If you folks down at Westboro Baptist don't want to call a gay marriage a marriage, that's your right.  But you don't get to force them not to call their marriage a marriage.
> 
> As for having their union recognized, that won't be true until they receive the exact same state and federal government cash and prizes we heteros get for being married.
> 
> That's all they want. You can stomp your feet and blow a lot of retard smoke about the word "marriage", but until you get it through your thick skull that that is all they want then you will continue to sound like a retard.
> 
> *Now focus:  Government cash and prizes.  They want the same.   "Equal protection of the laws."
> *
> Get that through your head.  It isn't about a _word_, idiot.  It is about tangible things.  Real world shit that actually matters.  Legal stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> a gay civil union would give them exactly the same govt cash and prizes as a man/woman marriage.
> 
> IT IS ALL ABOUT THE WORD,   DEAL WITH THAT REALITY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They Sexually abnormal NEED it to be MARRIAGE... because they recognize the inherent legitimacy of Marriage.
> 
> What they're not sufficiently heeled, intellectually speaking, is that the standard which provides for the inherent legitimacy of Marriage, precludes their
> participation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of people consider the marriage certificate to be a property-sharing agreement.  A lot of women, and men, get a house, a new car, and an allowance of thousands of dollars a month, all for the simple reason that they hooked up with someone who has money.  Some people will not settle for a regular person.  They want a rich one.  Beauty, a depreciating asset, is the only thing some people bring to the table and when it has outlived its usefulness, the promises made fall by the wayside. In such cases was the marriage legitimate?
> Consider a gay couple who have been together for 30+ years, monogamously of course, who desire the same protections that marriage offers to straight people, such as if one  partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items if they are not married.  Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.
> What does marriage mean to the likes of you?
Click to expand...


Friend... 35 years ago, I married the most beautiful woman I had ever seen.  I literally fell in love with her, the moment I saw her.  Which is made all the more odd, given that at the time, I was holding the hand of my girl friend, who I'd been 'steady' with for a well over a year.

We married 5 years later... and spent the next two years in bliss.

The four subsequent years were hell on earth... we separated and I was presented with divorce papers several times.  But I would not sign them.

Now in that time, there's been times when she's hated my guts and I've hated that I was forced to breath the same air as her.  We've been cruel to one another, said things that we fully meant at the time, on the surface... but neither of us could let the other go.

Our marriage is built around that... we're a man and a woman, doing the best we can on this journey.   We've been flush with cash and broke as a stick.  We've lived all over these United States and raised three children; homeschooling them for most of their respective schooling. And had more experiences, good and bad, than I could ever recount here... .

So, I know something about the subject...  Count me as an expert of understanding the marriage thing.

With that said, I don't reject anyone happiness or the pursuit of such for themselves.

But just as I will not be starting as a running back for Miami next week, homosexuals will not be married.

Because neither of us meet the respective standards...


Would I like to be the starting back. you bet.  But I don't really want to try... because doing what I would have to do to EVEN BE CONSIDERED:  it hurts... A LOT.   And I'm not willing to pay that price.

And the same for the homosexual that wants to be married.  To be such, they'd have to marry someone that they're not sexually attracted to.  They don't want to pay that price.

The difference between us, is that I am not so pathetic that I will sue to force the NFL to let me suit up... .  What's more, is that I understand that if I did... and IF I prevailed... that others would follow me and it would be no time at all before the NFL was no longer a legitimate enterprise.  And everything that I sought to gain from 'being' a professional linebacker, would evaporate.

Marriage is what it is, and the legitimacy intrinsic to such, comes from the standards that define it.  Strip Marriage of those standards and marriage ceases to be... . 

So... I don't know if that helps you see how I see it, but that's probably as close as I'm going to be able to get.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ask Where how many times he has been divorced.


----------



## JakeStarkey

He is not telling us the whole story, and part of it is that he still does not believe he is not at the center of the world.


----------



## bodecea

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  Sorry about that!
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> They should be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized, but it is NOT a marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your stupid little semantics game is transparent.
> 
> If you folks down at Westboro Baptist don't want to call a gay marriage a marriage, that's your right.  But you don't get to force them not to call their marriage a marriage.
> 
> As for having their union recognized, that won't be true until they receive the exact same state and federal government cash and prizes we heteros get for being married.
> 
> That's all they want. You can stomp your feet and blow a lot of retard smoke about the word "marriage", but until you get it through your thick skull that that is all they want then you will continue to sound like a retard.
> 
> *Now focus:  Government cash and prizes.  They want the same.   "Equal protection of the laws."
> *
> Get that through your head.  It isn't about a _word_, idiot.  It is about tangible things.  Real world shit that actually matters.  Legal stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> a gay civil union would give them exactly the same govt cash and prizes as a man/woman marriage.
> 
> IT IS ALL ABOUT THE WORD,   DEAL WITH THAT REALITY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They Sexually abnormal NEED it to be MARRIAGE... because they recognize the inherent legitimacy of Marriage.
> 
> What they're not sufficiently heeled, intellectually speaking, is that the standard which provides for the inherent legitimacy of Marriage, precludes their
> participation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of people consider the marriage certificate to be a property-sharing agreement.  A lot of women, and men, get a house, a new car, and an allowance of thousands of dollars a month, all for the simple reason that they hooked up with someone who has money.  Some people will not settle for a regular person.  They want a rich one.  Beauty, a depreciating asset, is the only thing some people bring to the table and when it has outlived its usefulness, the promises made fall by the wayside. In such cases was the marriage legitimate?
> Consider a gay couple who have been together for 30+ years, monogamously of course, who desire the same protections that marriage offers to straight people, such as if one  partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items if they are not married.  Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.
> What does marriage mean to the likes of you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Friend... 35 years ago, I married the most beautiful woman I had ever seen.  I literally fell in love with her, the moment I saw her.  Which is made all the more odd, given that at the time, I was holding the hand of my girl friend, who I'd been 'steady' with for a well over a year.
> 
> We married 5 years later... and spent the next two years in bliss.
> 
> The four subsequent years were hell on earth... we separated and I was presented with divorce papers several times.  But I would not sign them.
> 
> Now in that time, there's been times when she's hated my guts and I've hated that I was forced to breath the same air as her.  We've been cruel to one another, said things that we fully meant at the time, on the surface... but neither of us could let the other go.
> 
> Our marriage is built around that... we're a man and a woman, doing the best we can on this journey.   We've been flush with cash and broke as a stick.  We've lived all over these United States and raised three children; homeschooling them for most of their respective schooling. And had more experiences, good and bad, than I could ever recount here... .
> 
> So, I know something about the subject...  Count me as an expert of understanding the marriage thing.
> 
> With that said, I don't reject anyone happiness or the pursuit of such for themselves.
> 
> But just as I will not be starting as a running back for Miami next week, homosexuals will not be married.
> 
> Because neither of us meet the respective standards...
> 
> 
> Would I like to be the starting back. you bet.  But I don't really want to try... because doing what I would have to do to EVEN BE CONSIDERED:  it hurts... A LOT.   And I'm not willing to pay that price.
> 
> And the same for the homosexual that wants to be married.  To be such, they'd have to marry someone that they're not sexually attracted to.  They don't want to pay that price.
> 
> The difference between us, is that I am not so pathetic that I will sue to force the NFL to let me suit up... .  What's more, is that I understand that if I did... and IF I prevailed... that others would follow me and it would be no time at all before the NFL was no longer a legitimate enterprise.  And everything that I sought to gain from 'being' a professional linebacker, would evaporate.
> 
> Marriage is what it is, and the legitimacy intrinsic to such, comes from the standards that define it.  Strip Marriage of those standards and marriage ceases to be... .
> 
> So... I don't know if that helps you see how I see it, but that's probably as close as I'm going to be able to get.
Click to expand...

How presumptuous of you to think you can tell other law-abiding, tax-paying citizens whether they have a real marriage or not.


----------



## GreenBean

g5000 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unbelievable how indoctrinated idiotic lapdogs such as g5000  jump and salivate when that leftist pavlov rings his bell - You truly are a "Special" kind of stupid my friend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The irony is just too rich here.
Click to expand...



That took a lot of thought -  Is that the best you can do dumbass ?


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> You mean that people are demanding that business's comply with the law?




Failure to comply is known as Civil disobedience - the first step towards Revolution.  When the law doesn't respect the people how can you expect the people to respect the law ?


----------



## GreenBean

bodecea said:


> hink you can tell other law-abiding, tax-paying citizens whether they have a real marriage or not.



A real marriage in the eyes of the Law doe not make it a real marriage in the eyes of the people - it always has been and always will be a Joke


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1, stmike is not the face of Christianity or its doctrines.
> 
> 2. the anti-gay movement continues to lose traction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you and wytch just don't get it.   Being anti-gay marriage is not being anti-gay.
> 
> there is no anti-gay "movement".   GRow the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are anti-gay marriage...don't have a gay marriage, don't go to a gay marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hard to avoid your fag weddings when Christian business owners are being sued for not offering wedding services.  You faggots are more belligerent than you pretend to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you stop reading right wing whacko news sources you could avoid them altogether.
> 
> Have you been sued for not following State or local laws?
> 
> Anyone forced you to go to a 'f*g' or 'n*gger' or k*ke wedding?
> 
> Conservatives are so very offended by lawsuits- until they think that their rights are being violated, and then suddenly they are all for filing lawsuits.
Click to expand...



You are so pathetic - it's truly sickening - you just can't break away from that bigoted racist anti-Semitic skinhead mentality can you ?  

So how long you been a faggot anyway? - did some grownup queer f*ck you up the ass when you were a little kid or did he just dick you in the face - is that how you were traumatized and psychologically damaged ? 

You know homosexuality is generally the product of early childhood trauma-sometimes even pre-cognizant childhood trauma . There are professionals who can help you get to the bottom of your problem.

You know they say that most cases of child molestation are perpetrated by close family friends or family members -so I can understand if you don't want to talk about it - but I'm sure you are aware of client-patient confidentiality - anyway think about what said - open your mind and think about what happened to you all those years ago - regards and sweet dreams


----------



## PaintMyHouse

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean that people are demanding that business's comply with the law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Failure to comply is known as Civil disobedience - the first step towards Revolution.  When the law doesn't respect the people how can you expect the people to respect the law ?
Click to expand...

The People no longer agree with you little faggot-hater.  You no longer matter.  Suck on that bitch.


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> So you really believe that if you wanted to be attracted to men, instead of women, you could chose to do so?




A serious drug addict can not envision life without his "precious"  be it Crack, Heroine ,Meth etc....  that is all they live for - BUT many are cured it's known as *substance abuse treatmen*t .

And many wiser and more intelligent Homosexuals - be they male or female can see through the smoke screen that the liberal elite have created -they are aware that they have serious problems and seek help - it's known as conversion therapy or * reperative therapy
*
Success rates for both branches of mental hygiene are comparable. Seriously -Syriusly - There's hope - even for the seemingly hopeless turd burglar such as yourself .

Masters and Johnson - 2 respected researchers in sexual research _[ Unlike Alfred Kinsey, a darling of the LGBT and leftist elite - whose work has long since been dumped into the trash bin of irrelevance ] _did a study project  -Of the 67 male and female patients with "homosexual dissatisfaction," only 14 failed in the initial two-week "conversion" or "reversion" treatment. (The 12 cases of attempted "conversion" were for men and women who had always believed they were homosexual and were troubled by it, while the 55 "reversion" cases were in people who believed their homosexuality was more fleeting.) During five years of follow-up, their success rate for both groups was better than 70 percent.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you really believe that if you wanted to be attracted to men, instead of women, you could chose to do so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A serious drug addict can not envision life without his "precious"  be it Crack, Heroine ,Meth etc....  that is all they live for - BUT many are cured it's known as *substance abuse treatmen*t .
> 
> And many wiser and more intelligent Homosexuals - be they male or female can see through the smoke screen that the liberal elite have created -they are aware that they have serious problems and seek help - it's known as conversion therapy or * reperative therapy
> *
> Success rates for both branches of mental hygiene are comparable. Seriously -Syriusly - There's hope - even for the seemingly hopeless turd burglar such as yourself .
> 
> Masters and Johnson - 2 respected researchers in sexual research _[ Unlike Alfred Kinsey, a darling of the LGBT and leftist elite - whose work has long since been dumped into the trash bin of irrelevance ] _did a study project  -Of the 67 male and female patients with "homosexual dissatisfaction," only 14 failed in the initial two-week "conversion" or "reversion" treatment. (The 12 cases of attempted "conversion" were for men and women who had always believed they were homosexual and were troubled by it, while the 55 "reversion" cases were in people who believed their homosexuality was more fleeting.) During five years of follow-up, their success rate for both groups was better than 70 percent.
Click to expand...

Say goodbye GB.  What you think no longer matters, and never should have.  You are pissing into the wind little man, without unzipping you pants.


----------



## Seawytch

g5000 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no gender is being told they can't marry.
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  Sorry about that!
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> They should be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized, but it is NOT a marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your stupid little semantics game is transparent.
> 
> If you folks down at Westboro Baptist don't want to call a gay marriage a marriage, that's your right.  But you don't get to force them not to call their marriage a marriage.
> 
> As for having their union recognized, that won't be true until they receive the exact same state and federal government cash and prizes we heteros get for being married.
> 
> That's all they want. You can stomp your feet and blow a lot of retard smoke about the word "marriage", but until you get it through your thick skull that that is all they want then you will continue to sound like a retard.
> 
> *Now focus:  Government cash and prizes.  They want the same.   "Equal protection of the laws."
> *
> Get that through your head.  It isn't about a _word_, idiot.  It is about tangible things.  Real world shit that actually matters.  Legal stuff.
Click to expand...



Oh, but for Fishy it IS about a word.  It's about a word he doesn't want gays to use, but is unwilling to change the word for everyone. Fishy likes feeling special and if gays also have marriage, he won't feel special anymore.


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> race and sex are not analogous
> 
> 
> 
> So....if we have equal civil rights in this country regardless of race......we DON'T have the same civil rights in this country based on gender?   IS that what you are saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gender
> 
> There are only two correct answers -* Male and Female * -
> 
> Undecided -
> Both of  the Above
> None of the Above
> are not options on this multiple choice quiz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you tell a white person they can only marry another white person, you are discriminating based on race.
> 
> If you tell a female person they can only marry a male person, you are discriminating based on gender.
> 
> There is no rational basis for either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are being told which gender they cannot marry.  That is gender discrimination.
> 
> No different than being told what race you have to marry.
> 
> Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage.  *They should be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized, but it is NOT a marriage.
> 
> why is the word "marriage" so critical to the gay agenda?   A civil union gives you all of the rights you claim to want.
> 
> But thats not what this is about is it?   the gay agenda is about forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition.   Thats your real agenda,   admit it and then we can move forward.
> 
> But you won't admit it, because you know that homosexuality is not a normal human condition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then so is yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Backed by law and our legal marriage license.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen, Trout, the law doesn't have the power to make you married. It can only reinforce your delusions with the illusion of legitimacy that it cannot now or ever possibly possess.
Click to expand...



When it comes to legal, civil marriage the law most certainly does have the power to make us married...and it did. Gays ARE legally marrying despite your opinion about their legal marriages.


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor boy.  The SCOTUS is never filmed....but they are audiotaped.  Loving v. Virginia The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So there's an audio clip of them laughing out loud?  Let's hear it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow.  The audio is in that link.  You really do need your hand held every step of the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *That's quite a lengthy audio*.  Do you know about where the Justices "laughed out loud"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not my problem  You want to know...take the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie.  Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments.  That would dispense with any pretense of objectivity.  Such a gross breach of decorum would certainly have made the papers and no audio link would be required.
> 
> In other words, you're lying and you've been found out.
> 
> Stop lying, Fish breath!
Click to expand...


Do you enjoy being proven wrong? This was just recently....

When Justice Elena Kagan asked whether states could ban couples over the age of 55 because they wouldn't be able to have kids, Cooper argued that "it is very rare that…both parties to the couple are infertile."* The chamber erupted in laughter.* "No really, because…if both the woman and the man are over 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage," Kagan said,* and the chamber filled with laughter again. *Justice Stephen Breyer was more blunt: "I mean, there are lots of people who get married who can't have children."​*At Supreme Court, Marriage Equality Foes' Best Argument Is That They're Losing*


----------



## Seawytch

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> It already has.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope,   the state mandate is about to be ruled unconstitutional.   Then the whole house of cards will fall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting that you think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The arrogant shall fall and the meek will inherit the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then the mandate is safe.  If not, it will be fixed within two weeks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> obamacare is terrible legislation.  it is hurting the people it claimed to be trying to help.  it is costing the country billions and is driving doctors out of medicine.  It must be repealed or drastically changed.
Click to expand...


Except none of that is true. The Affordable Care Act is helping people. Lives have actually been saved by this legislation. People who never had health insurance now have it. 

7 Charts That Prove Obamacare Is Working

*More people have insurance:*







*People who are getting health insurance are almost certainly better off.*



The Real Numbers On 'The Obamacare Effect' Are In-Now Let The Crow Eating Begin


----------



## GreenBean

Seawytch said:


> People who never had health insurance now have it.


And people who had health insurance got dropped or can't afford it  - it's about taking from those who produce and giving to those who don't produce ... note that there is a big difference between *those who don't and those who can't
*
Those who can't produce - due to either physical or mental disability have medicaid and other Public assistance to fall back on  - those who can produce and contribute to society but don't are among the parasites that are the minions of the leftist Liberal elite .


----------



## GreenBean

Seawytch said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope,   the state mandate is about to be ruled unconstitutional.   Then the whole house of cards will fall.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that you think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The arrogant shall fall and the meek will inherit the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then the mandate is safe.  If not, it will be fixed within two weeks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> obamacare is terrible legislation.  it is hurting the people it claimed to be trying to help.  it is costing the country billions and is driving doctors out of medicine.  It must be repealed or drastically changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except none of that is true. The Affordable Care Act is helping people. Lives have actually been saved by this legislation. People who never had health insurance now have it.
> 
> 7 Charts That Prove Obamacare Is Working
> 
> *More people have insurance:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *People who are getting health insurance are almost certainly better off.*
> 
> 
> 
> The Real Numbers On 'The Obamacare Effect' Are In-Now Let The Crow Eating Begin
Click to expand...



There are at least 4 “losers” for every “winner” under Obamacare;
Even excluding “minimal losers” and “minimal winners,” there are more than 2 “losers” for every “winner”
Similarly, there are at least three times as many “big losers” as “big winners.”







Health policy wonks are likely familiar with a chart that got wide circulation in the blogosphere in late October (especially among progressives)–characterized by David Weigel at _Slate_as “The Chart That Could Save Obamacare.” Originally created by Brookings fellow Justin Wolfers and Tweeted on Halloween, the chart was based on estimates provided by Jonathan Gruber in an interview with Ryan Lizza that appeared in  _The New Yorker_. Here’s the “bottom line” as summarized by Lizza:

Gruber summarized his stats: ninety-seven per cent of Americans are either left alone or are clear winners, while three per cent are arguably losers. “We have to as a society be able to accept that,” he said. “Don’t get me wrong, that’s a shame, but no law in the history of America makes everyone better off.”

Over at _Business Insider_, Josh Barro quibbled with the details, but nevertheless concurred: “It’s clear that Obamacare creates more winners than losers.”  This assessment echoed the conclusionof _Washington Post_‘s fact checker, Glenn Kessler (admittedly, made 2 weeks before Justin Wolfers’ chart had been Tweeted): ”quite likely the number of winners from the law is larger than the losers.” At Bloomberg, Megan McArdle pointed out that Mr. Barro was far too optimistic but she didn’t attempt to recalculate a more accurate number (or ratio) of winners or losers.  In reality, the number of winners is far smaller than Gruber claims, while the number of losers is far larger.

And even though I believe that as of mid-January, _chances are better than even that Obamacare has not reduced the net number uninsured by a single person_[1] this post makes a much stronger claim. While Obamacare unquestionably will do some good, the best evidence suggests that even if the law is fully implemented (something that at this juncture surely is in doubt), the number of losers almost certainly will outweigh the number of winners:

The Chart That Could Sink Obamacare - Forbes


----------



## bodecea

GreenBean said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that you think so.
> 
> 
> 
> The arrogant shall fall and the meek will inherit the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then the mandate is safe.  If not, it will be fixed within two weeks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> obamacare is terrible legislation.  it is hurting the people it claimed to be trying to help.  it is costing the country billions and is driving doctors out of medicine.  It must be repealed or drastically changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except none of that is true. The Affordable Care Act is helping people. Lives have actually been saved by this legislation. People who never had health insurance now have it.
> 
> 7 Charts That Prove Obamacare Is Working
> 
> *More people have insurance:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *People who are getting health insurance are almost certainly better off.*
> 
> 
> 
> The Real Numbers On 'The Obamacare Effect' Are In-Now Let The Crow Eating Begin
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There are at least 4 “losers” for every “winner” under Obamacare;
> Even excluding “minimal losers” and “minimal winners,” there are more than 2 “losers” for every “winner”
> Similarly, there are at least three times as many “big losers” as “big winners.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Health policy wonks are likely familiar with a chart that got wide circulation in the blogosphere in late October (especially among progressives)–characterized by David Weigel at _Slate_as “The Chart That Could Save Obamacare.” Originally created by Brookings fellow Justin Wolfers and Tweeted on Halloween, the chart was based on estimates provided by Jonathan Gruber in an interview with Ryan Lizza that appeared in  _The New Yorker_. Here’s the “bottom line” as summarized by Lizza:
> 
> Gruber summarized his stats: ninety-seven per cent of Americans are either left alone or are clear winners, while three per cent are arguably losers. “We have to as a society be able to accept that,” he said. “Don’t get me wrong, that’s a shame, but no law in the history of America makes everyone better off.”
> 
> Over at _Business Insider_, Josh Barro quibbled with the details, but nevertheless concurred: “It’s clear that Obamacare creates more winners than losers.”  This assessment echoed the conclusionof _Washington Post_‘s fact checker, Glenn Kessler (admittedly, made 2 weeks before Justin Wolfers’ chart had been Tweeted): ”quite likely the number of winners from the law is larger than the losers.” At Bloomberg, Megan McArdle pointed out that Mr. Barro was far too optimistic but she didn’t attempt to recalculate a more accurate number (or ratio) of winners or losers.  In reality, the number of winners is far smaller than Gruber claims, while the number of losers is far larger.
> 
> And even though I believe that as of mid-January, _chances are better than even that Obamacare has not reduced the net number uninsured by a single person_[1] this post makes a much stronger claim. While Obamacare unquestionably will do some good, the best evidence suggests that even if the law is fully implemented (something that at this juncture surely is in doubt), the number of losers almost certainly will outweigh the number of winners:
> 
> The Chart That Could Sink Obamacare - Forbes
Click to expand...

Your chart doesn't make your case, you know.


----------



## Seawytch

bodecea said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> The arrogant shall fall and the meek will inherit the earth.
> 
> 
> 
> Then the mandate is safe.  If not, it will be fixed within two weeks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> obamacare is terrible legislation.  it is hurting the people it claimed to be trying to help.  it is costing the country billions and is driving doctors out of medicine.  It must be repealed or drastically changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except none of that is true. The Affordable Care Act is helping people. Lives have actually been saved by this legislation. People who never had health insurance now have it.
> 
> 7 Charts That Prove Obamacare Is Working
> 
> *More people have insurance:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *People who are getting health insurance are almost certainly better off.*
> 
> 
> 
> The Real Numbers On 'The Obamacare Effect' Are In-Now Let The Crow Eating Begin
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There are at least 4 “losers” for every “winner” under Obamacare;
> Even excluding “minimal losers” and “minimal winners,” there are more than 2 “losers” for every “winner”
> Similarly, there are at least three times as many “big losers” as “big winners.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Health policy wonks are likely familiar with a chart that got wide circulation in the blogosphere in late October (especially among progressives)–characterized by David Weigel at _Slate_as “The Chart That Could Save Obamacare.” Originally created by Brookings fellow Justin Wolfers and Tweeted on Halloween, the chart was based on estimates provided by Jonathan Gruber in an interview with Ryan Lizza that appeared in  _The New Yorker_. Here’s the “bottom line” as summarized by Lizza:
> 
> Gruber summarized his stats: ninety-seven per cent of Americans are either left alone or are clear winners, while three per cent are arguably losers. “We have to as a society be able to accept that,” he said. “Don’t get me wrong, that’s a shame, but no law in the history of America makes everyone better off.”
> 
> Over at _Business Insider_, Josh Barro quibbled with the details, but nevertheless concurred: “It’s clear that Obamacare creates more winners than losers.”  This assessment echoed the conclusionof _Washington Post_‘s fact checker, Glenn Kessler (admittedly, made 2 weeks before Justin Wolfers’ chart had been Tweeted): ”quite likely the number of winners from the law is larger than the losers.” At Bloomberg, Megan McArdle pointed out that Mr. Barro was far too optimistic but she didn’t attempt to recalculate a more accurate number (or ratio) of winners or losers.  In reality, the number of winners is far smaller than Gruber claims, while the number of losers is far larger.
> 
> And even though I believe that as of mid-January, _chances are better than even that Obamacare has not reduced the net number uninsured by a single person_[1] this post makes a much stronger claim. While Obamacare unquestionably will do some good, the best evidence suggests that even if the law is fully implemented (something that at this juncture surely is in doubt), the number of losers almost certainly will outweigh the number of winners:
> 
> The Chart That Could Sink Obamacare - Forbes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your chart doesn't make your case, you know.
Click to expand...


This one makes the case for "Obamacare":


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good point, Obamacare will not stand the test of constitutionality.
> 
> 
> 
> It already has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope,   the state mandate is about to be ruled unconstitutional.   Then the whole house of cards will fall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting that you think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The arrogant shall fall and the meek will inherit the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...so the suggestion is that we should be meek in the face of Islamic Terrorism so that we can inherit the Earth...............no, wait.
Click to expand...

If the M in MIRV stands for "meek" then yes!


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

g5000 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> no its not,  that is THE PRIMARY question in this debate.   You want gay marriage but you want to prohibit polysexual marriage--------on what legal basis do you want to prohibit multiple marriage?   If you answer truthfully you will repeat the exact reasons many give for opposing gay marriage,  but you won't answer truthfully so its a moot point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you need a rational basis for banning polygamy.
> 
> Here you go: *The Perils of Polygamy*
> 
> You really are attached to your slippery slope!
> 
> What next?  "Then tell me why you can't marry a dog"?
Click to expand...

What right do you have to deny polygamists and pedophiles equal rights? All they want is the same thing you have and their love is just as valid. Get used to hearing these arguments because they're going to be much more frequent. They should be familiar since they're your arguments for queer marriage.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> no its not,  that is THE PRIMARY question in this debate.   You want gay marriage but you want to prohibit polysexual marriage--------on what legal basis do you want to prohibit multiple marriage?   If you answer truthfully you will repeat the exact reasons many give for opposing gay marriage,  but you won't answer truthfully so its a moot point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you need a rational basis for banning polygamy.
> 
> Here you go: *The Perils of Polygamy*
> 
> You really are attached to your slippery slope!
> 
> What next?  "Then tell me why you can't marry a dog"?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can't you marry a dog?  Specifically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults (at least it is today)  How can a dog consent?  How can a dog understand and sign a contract?
Click to expand...

At least it is today. Thank you, dear, for your candor about your "progressive" agenda.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So there's an audio clip of them laughing out loud?  Let's hear it!
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  The audio is in that link.  You really do need your hand held every step of the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *That's quite a lengthy audio*.  Do you know about where the Justices "laughed out loud"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not my problem  You want to know...take the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie.  Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments.  That would dispense with any pretense of objectivity.  Such a gross breach of decorum would certainly have made the papers and no audio link would be required.
> 
> In other words, you're lying and you've been found out.
> 
> Stop lying, Fish breath!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you enjoy being proven wrong? This was just recently....
> 
> When Justice Elena Kagan asked whether states could ban couples over the age of 55 because they wouldn't be able to have kids, Cooper argued that "it is very rare that…both parties to the couple are infertile."* The chamber erupted in laughter.* "No really, because…if both the woman and the man are over 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage," Kagan said,* and the chamber filled with laughter again. *Justice Stephen Breyer was more blunt: "I mean, there are lots of people who get married who can't have children."​*At Supreme Court, Marriage Equality Foes' Best Argument Is That They're Losing*
Click to expand...

Now you're being desperate and in the process proving my point and cementing your reputation as a liar. When there is laughter, it's noteworthy and is recorded in print. No such record exists of the justices laughing while the Virginia attorney general was presenting oral arguments like you claimed.  So you told a lie.  Now you even admit it.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....if we have equal civil rights in this country regardless of race......we DON'T have the same civil rights in this country based on gender?   IS that what you are saying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gender
> 
> There are only two correct answers -* Male and Female * -
> 
> Undecided -
> Both of  the Above
> None of the Above
> are not options on this multiple choice quiz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you tell a white person they can only marry another white person, you are discriminating based on race.
> 
> If you tell a female person they can only marry a male person, you are discriminating based on gender.
> 
> There is no rational basis for either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> *a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage.  *They should be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized, but it is NOT a marriage.
> 
> why is the word "marriage" so critical to the gay agenda?   A civil union gives you all of the rights you claim to want.
> 
> But thats not what this is about is it?   the gay agenda is about forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition.   Thats your real agenda,   admit it and then we can move forward.
> 
> But you won't admit it, because you know that homosexuality is not a normal human condition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then so is yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Backed by law and our legal marriage license.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen, Trout, the law doesn't have the power to make you married. It can only reinforce your delusions with the illusion of legitimacy that it cannot now or ever possibly possess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to legal, civil marriage the law most certainly does have the power to make us married...and it did. Gays ARE legally marrying despite your opinion about their legal marriages.
Click to expand...

The law does not have the power to turn wrong into right although it has repeatedly tried throughout the history of civilization. Faux legitimacy is not the same as intrinsic validity. Your delusions are reinforced by politicians, but they are still delusions.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> its already happening dingleberry.   The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual).   They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.
> 
> 
> 
> That's interesting.  Your source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> google it.   I am here to guide you, not to teach you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't exist outside your head then, eh?
> 
> I stand corrected:
> 
> ACLU of Utah to Join Polygamists in Bigamy Fight American Civil Liberties Union
> 
> Interesting read.  But as the article says, there are a few legal hurdles that do not exist with gay marriage........so no, it is not exactly the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It will prevail nonetheless. We've gone from reading the Constitution for what it says to finding hidden meanings and rights. Pedophiles, polygamists, queers, and all other sexual deviants understand that the holes in the dike (no pun intended) mean that the whole thing is about to collapse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah- once again- a bigot who can't tell the difference between raping a child and consensual sex between adults.
> 
> Do they send you to special schools to learn this crap?
Click to expand...

Your vehement condemnations won't stop the advance of the perverts seeking legal recognition for their right to rape children. What I find amusing is how you people opened those doors and then imagined you would be the last to go through them. Hilariously naive.


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  Sorry about that!
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> They should be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized, but it is NOT a marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your stupid little semantics game is transparent.
> 
> If you folks down at Westboro Baptist don't want to call a gay marriage a marriage, that's your right.  But you don't get to force them not to call their marriage a marriage.
> 
> As for having their union recognized, that won't be true until they receive the exact same state and federal government cash and prizes we heteros get for being married.
> 
> That's all they want. You can stomp your feet and blow a lot of retard smoke about the word "marriage", but until you get it through your thick skull that that is all they want then you will continue to sound like a retard.
> 
> *Now focus:  Government cash and prizes.  They want the same.   "Equal protection of the laws."
> *
> Get that through your head.  It isn't about a _word_, idiot.  It is about tangible things.  Real world shit that actually matters.  Legal stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> a gay civil union would give them exactly the same govt cash and prizes as a man/woman marriage.
> 
> IT IS ALL ABOUT THE WORD,   DEAL WITH THAT REALITY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They Sexually abnormal NEED it to be MARRIAGE... because they recognize the inherent legitimacy of Marriage.
> 
> What they're not sufficiently heeled, intellectually speaking, is that the standard which provides for the inherent legitimacy of Marriage, precludes their
> participation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of people consider the marriage certificate to be a property-sharing agreement.  A lot of women, and men, get a house, a new car, and an allowance of thousands of dollars a month, all for the simple reason that they hooked up with someone who has money.  Some people will not settle for a regular person.  They want a rich one.  Beauty, a depreciating asset, is the only thing some people bring to the table and when it has outlived its usefulness, the promises made fall by the wayside. In such cases was the marriage legitimate?
> Consider a gay couple who have been together for 30+ years, monogamously of course, who desire the same protections that marriage offers to straight people, such as if one  partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items if they are not married.  Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.
> What does marriage mean to the likes of you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Friend... 35 years ago, I married the most beautiful woman I had ever seen.  I literally fell in love with her, the moment I saw her.  Which is made all the more odd, given that at the time, I was holding the hand of my girl friend, who I'd been 'steady' with for a well over a year.
> 
> We married 5 years later... and spent the next two years in bliss.
> 
> The four subsequent years were hell on earth... we separated and I was presented with divorce papers several times.  But I would not sign them.
> 
> Now in that time, there's been times when she's hated my guts and I've hated that I was forced to breath the same air as her.  We've been cruel to one another, said things that we fully meant at the time, on the surface... but neither of us could let the other go.
> 
> Our marriage is built around that... we're a man and a woman, doing the best we can on this journey.   We've been flush with cash and broke as a stick.  We've lived all over these United States and raised three children; homeschooling them for most of their respective schooling. And had more experiences, good and bad, than I could ever recount here... .
> 
> So, I know something about the subject...  Count me as an expert of understanding the marriage thing.
> 
> With that said, I don't reject anyone happiness or the pursuit of such for themselves.
> 
> But just as I will not be starting as a running back for Miami next week, homosexuals will not be married.
> 
> Because neither of us meet the respective standards...
> 
> 
> Would I like to be the starting back. you bet.  But I don't really want to try... because doing what I would have to do to EVEN BE CONSIDERED:  it hurts... A LOT.   And I'm not willing to pay that price.
> 
> And the same for the homosexual that wants to be married.  To be such, they'd have to marry someone that they're not sexually attracted to.  They don't want to pay that price.
> 
> The difference between us, is that I am not so pathetic that I will sue to force the NFL to let me suit up... .  What's more, is that I understand that if I did... and IF I prevailed... that others would follow me and it would be no time at all before the NFL was no longer a legitimate enterprise.  And everything that I sought to gain from 'being' a professional linebacker, would evaporate.
> 
> Marriage is what it is, and the legitimacy intrinsic to such, comes from the standards that define it.  Strip Marriage of those standards and marriage ceases to be... .
> 
> So... I don't know if that helps you see how I see it, but that's probably as close as I'm going to be able to get.
Click to expand...


It's impossible to take you seriously; someone who gauges society's evolution by his own inadequacies.  And by that I mean your inability to play professional football, which you've stated is your desire.
"And the same for the homosexual that wants to be married.  To be such, they'd have to marry someone that they're not sexually attracted to.  They don't want to pay that price."  I haven't a clue what you are suggesting here.
When love found you, were you free to pursue your future with the woman of your dreams or were you stigmatized?  You state it was love at first sight; therefore, you didn't stop to think about it as her beauty overwhelmed you.  Do you actually believe your story is unique.  I have a friend who has fallen in love at first sight seven times now.
Your analogy comparing a lawsuit against the NFL because they won't let an old man without talent play for them and gay rights is beyond stupid.  As stated above, your inadequacies have absolutely nothing to do with gay rights.
The unity of marriage is over 43000 years old, and for your information, Nero, twice married men as did others.
Why should anyone have to live their life through your eyes?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

What's 4300 thousand? Thanks for confirming that homosexual pervasiveness lends to the collapse and destruction of civilization. Rome fell due to internal weakness. This is kinda the point.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Lilah said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  Sorry about that!
> 
> Your stupid little semantics game is transparent.
> 
> If you folks down at Westboro Baptist don't want to call a gay marriage a marriage, that's your right.  But you don't get to force them not to call their marriage a marriage.
> 
> As for having their union recognized, that won't be true until they receive the exact same state and federal government cash and prizes we heteros get for being married.
> 
> That's all they want. You can stomp your feet and blow a lot of retard smoke about the word "marriage", but until you get it through your thick skull that that is all they want then you will continue to sound like a retard.
> 
> *Now focus:  Government cash and prizes.  They want the same.   "Equal protection of the laws."
> *
> Get that through your head.  It isn't about a _word_, idiot.  It is about tangible things.  Real world shit that actually matters.  Legal stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a gay civil union would give them exactly the same govt cash and prizes as a man/woman marriage.
> 
> IT IS ALL ABOUT THE WORD,   DEAL WITH THAT REALITY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They Sexually abnormal NEED it to be MARRIAGE... because they recognize the inherent legitimacy of Marriage.
> 
> What they're not sufficiently heeled, intellectually speaking, is that the standard which provides for the inherent legitimacy of Marriage, precludes their
> participation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of people consider the marriage certificate to be a property-sharing agreement.  A lot of women, and men, get a house, a new car, and an allowance of thousands of dollars a month, all for the simple reason that they hooked up with someone who has money.  Some people will not settle for a regular person.  They want a rich one.  Beauty, a depreciating asset, is the only thing some people bring to the table and when it has outlived its usefulness, the promises made fall by the wayside. In such cases was the marriage legitimate?
> Consider a gay couple who have been together for 30+ years, monogamously of course, who desire the same protections that marriage offers to straight people, such as if one  partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items if they are not married.  Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.
> What does marriage mean to the likes of you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Friend... 35 years ago, I married the most beautiful woman I had ever seen.  I literally fell in love with her, the moment I saw her.  Which is made all the more odd, given that at the time, I was holding the hand of my girl friend, who I'd been 'steady' with for a well over a year.
> 
> We married 5 years later... and spent the next two years in bliss.
> 
> The four subsequent years were hell on earth... we separated and I was presented with divorce papers several times.  But I would not sign them.
> 
> Now in that time, there's been times when she's hated my guts and I've hated that I was forced to breath the same air as her.  We've been cruel to one another, said things that we fully meant at the time, on the surface... but neither of us could let the other go.
> 
> Our marriage is built around that... we're a man and a woman, doing the best we can on this journey.   We've been flush with cash and broke as a stick.  We've lived all over these United States and raised three children; homeschooling them for most of their respective schooling. And had more experiences, good and bad, than I could ever recount here... .
> 
> So, I know something about the subject...  Count me as an expert of understanding the marriage thing.
> 
> With that said, I don't reject anyone happiness or the pursuit of such for themselves.
> 
> But just as I will not be starting as a running back for Miami next week, homosexuals will not be married.
> 
> Because neither of us meet the respective standards...
> 
> 
> Would I like to be the starting back. you bet.  But I don't really want to try... because doing what I would have to do to EVEN BE CONSIDERED:  it hurts... A LOT.   And I'm not willing to pay that price.
> 
> And the same for the homosexual that wants to be married.  To be such, they'd have to marry someone that they're not sexually attracted to.  They don't want to pay that price.
> 
> The difference between us, is that I am not so pathetic that I will sue to force the NFL to let me suit up... .  What's more, is that I understand that if I did... and IF I prevailed... that others would follow me and it would be no time at all before the NFL was no longer a legitimate enterprise.  And everything that I sought to gain from 'being' a professional linebacker, would evaporate.
> 
> Marriage is what it is, and the legitimacy intrinsic to such, comes from the standards that define it.  Strip Marriage of those standards and marriage ceases to be... .
> 
> So... I don't know if that helps you see how I see it, but that's probably as close as I'm going to be able to get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's impossible to take you seriously; someone who gauges society's evolution by his own inadequacies.  And by that I mean your inability to play professional football, which you've stated is your desire.
> "And the same for the homosexual that wants to be married.  To be such, they'd have to marry someone that they're not sexually attracted to.  They don't want to pay that price."  I haven't a clue what you are suggesting here.
> When love found you, were you free to pursue your future with the woman of your dreams or were you stigmatized?  You state it was love at first sight; therefore, you didn't stop to think about it as her beauty overwhelmed you.  Do you actually believe your story is unique.  I have a friend who has fallen in love at first sight seven times now.
> Your analogy comparing a lawsuit against the NFL because they won't let an old man without talent play for them and gay rights is beyond stupid.  As stated above, your inadequacies have absolutely nothing to do with gay rights.
> The unity of marriage is over 4300 thousand years old, and for your information, Nero, twice married men as did others.
> Why should anyone have to live their lives through your eyes?
Click to expand...


Marriage is designed by nature, through the intrinsic design of the human species.  

Normalizing sexual abnormality is NOT evolutionary sweety... it is DEVOLUTIONARY.  

The US is not the first nation to try such...  these times are not the first time such was trotted out.  It has happened throughout human history.

And with every single instance, such was among the last colossal mistakes that those cultures made... 

Now... please, take a moment and THINK...  

Since we know that such has been tried before... and we know that NONE of those culture's that did so, 'lived to tell about it's profound success; meaning that in not a SINGLE ONE of those would-be 'experiments', did ANY ONE of the survivors of those defunct cultures, rebuild their cultures with the adherence to the normalization of sexual abnormality, doesn't it follow that such may not have produced the benefits that you seem to feel will come as a result of it?

There's a reason that homosexuals have run to the closet for MOST of human civilization...   and yes... Homosexuals are the one's that locked themselves in the closet.  

So ask yourself, WHY did they do so?  

Was it because the acceptance of their lifestyle brought success, happiness and prosperity to their respective culture's?  

Or was it because of something less enviable came as a result of it?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Lilah said:


> ...and for your information, Nero, twice married men as did others.



Huh... Ok.  Care to educate me on the result of Nero's reign?  Did it provide Rome with great success, happiness and prosperity?  Was Rome strengthened by Nero's adherence to sexual abnormality? 

Or not...?  And by that I mean, the old saw: Nero fiddled as Rome burned", do ya suppose that came as a result of Nero being one associated with _"inspired reasoning"_ , or something else?

Take your time... .


----------



## Lilah

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> What's 4300 thousand? Thanks for confirming that homosexual pervasiveness lends to the collapse and destruction of civilization. Rome fell due to internal weakness. This is kinda the point.


 
it's goofy to say the least.  Thanks for correcting me.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's interesting.  Your source?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> google it.   I am here to guide you, not to teach you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't exist outside your head then, eh?
> 
> I stand corrected:
> 
> ACLU of Utah to Join Polygamists in Bigamy Fight American Civil Liberties Union
> 
> Interesting read.  But as the article says, there are a few legal hurdles that do not exist with gay marriage........so no, it is not exactly the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It will prevail nonetheless. We've gone from reading the Constitution for what it says to finding hidden meanings and rights. Pedophiles, polygamists, queers, and all other sexual deviants understand that the holes in the dike (no pun intended) mean that the whole thing is about to collapse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah- once again- a bigot who can't tell the difference between raping a child and consensual sex between adults.
> 
> Do they send you to special schools to learn this crap?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your vehement condemnations won't stop the advance of the perverts seeking legal recognition for their right to rape children. What I find amusing is how you people opened those doors and then imagined you would be the last to go through them. Hilariously naive.
Click to expand...


My comments have nothing to do with any 'perverts' seeking legal right to rape children.

I was posting about the Conservative bigots like yourself who cannot tell the difference between child rape and consensual sex between adults.  To you- they are the same things- and I really wonder what kind of school you went to that left you unable to understand what rape is.


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and for your information, Nero, twice married men as did others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh... Ok.  Care to educate me on the result of Nero's reign?  Did it provide Rome with great success, happiness and prosperity?  Was Rome strengthened by Nero's adherence to sexual abnormality?
> 
> Or not...?  And by that I mean, the old saw: Nero fiddled as Rome burned", do ya suppose that came as a result of Nero being one associated with _"inspired reasoning"_ , or something else?
> 
> Take your time... .
Click to expand...


Does the fact that you are married make you an intellectual?  Take your time to think about it.


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> a gay civil union would give them exactly the same govt cash and prizes as a man/woman marriage.
> 
> IT IS ALL ABOUT THE WORD,   DEAL WITH THAT REALITY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They Sexually abnormal NEED it to be MARRIAGE... because they recognize the inherent legitimacy of Marriage.
> 
> What they're not sufficiently heeled, intellectually speaking, is that the standard which provides for the inherent legitimacy of Marriage, precludes their
> participation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of people consider the marriage certificate to be a property-sharing agreement.  A lot of women, and men, get a house, a new car, and an allowance of thousands of dollars a month, all for the simple reason that they hooked up with someone who has money.  Some people will not settle for a regular person.  They want a rich one.  Beauty, a depreciating asset, is the only thing some people bring to the table and when it has outlived its usefulness, the promises made fall by the wayside. In such cases was the marriage legitimate?
> Consider a gay couple who have been together for 30+ years, monogamously of course, who desire the same protections that marriage offers to straight people, such as if one  partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items if they are not married.  Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.
> What does marriage mean to the likes of you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Friend... 35 years ago, I married the most beautiful woman I had ever seen.  I literally fell in love with her, the moment I saw her.  Which is made all the more odd, given that at the time, I was holding the hand of my girl friend, who I'd been 'steady' with for a well over a year.
> 
> We married 5 years later... and spent the next two years in bliss.
> 
> The four subsequent years were hell on earth... we separated and I was presented with divorce papers several times.  But I would not sign them.
> 
> Now in that time, there's been times when she's hated my guts and I've hated that I was forced to breath the same air as her.  We've been cruel to one another, said things that we fully meant at the time, on the surface... but neither of us could let the other go.
> 
> Our marriage is built around that... we're a man and a woman, doing the best we can on this journey.   We've been flush with cash and broke as a stick.  We've lived all over these United States and raised three children; homeschooling them for most of their respective schooling. And had more experiences, good and bad, than I could ever recount here... .
> 
> So, I know something about the subject...  Count me as an expert of understanding the marriage thing.
> 
> With that said, I don't reject anyone happiness or the pursuit of such for themselves.
> 
> But just as I will not be starting as a running back for Miami next week, homosexuals will not be married.
> 
> Because neither of us meet the respective standards...
> 
> 
> Would I like to be the starting back. you bet.  But I don't really want to try... because doing what I would have to do to EVEN BE CONSIDERED:  it hurts... A LOT.   And I'm not willing to pay that price.
> 
> And the same for the homosexual that wants to be married.  To be such, they'd have to marry someone that they're not sexually attracted to.  They don't want to pay that price.
> 
> The difference between us, is that I am not so pathetic that I will sue to force the NFL to let me suit up... .  What's more, is that I understand that if I did... and IF I prevailed... that others would follow me and it would be no time at all before the NFL was no longer a legitimate enterprise.  And everything that I sought to gain from 'being' a professional linebacker, would evaporate.
> 
> Marriage is what it is, and the legitimacy intrinsic to such, comes from the standards that define it.  Strip Marriage of those standards and marriage ceases to be... .
> 
> So... I don't know if that helps you see how I see it, but that's probably as close as I'm going to be able to get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's impossible to take you seriously; someone who gauges society's evolution by his own inadequacies.  And by that I mean your inability to play professional football, which you've stated is your desire.
> "And the same for the homosexual that wants to be married.  To be such, they'd have to marry someone that they're not sexually attracted to.  They don't want to pay that price."  I haven't a clue what you are suggesting here.
> When love found you, were you free to pursue your future with the woman of your dreams or were you stigmatized?  You state it was love at first sight; therefore, you didn't stop to think about it as her beauty overwhelmed you.  Do you actually believe your story is unique.  I have a friend who has fallen in love at first sight seven times now.
> Your analogy comparing a lawsuit against the NFL because they won't let an old man without talent play for them and gay rights is beyond stupid.  As stated above, your inadequacies have absolutely nothing to do with gay rights.
> The unity of marriage is over 4300 thousand years old, and for your information, Nero, twice married men as did others.
> Why should anyone have to live their lives through your eyes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is designed by nature,?
Click to expand...


Marriage has nothing to do with nature. 

'Nature' doesn't care whether people marry or not.


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gender
> 
> There are only two correct answers -* Male and Female * -
> 
> Undecided -
> Both of  the Above
> None of the Above
> are not options on this multiple choice quiz.
> 
> 
> 
> If you tell a white person they can only marry another white person, you are discriminating based on race.
> 
> If you tell a female person they can only marry a male person, you are discriminating based on gender.
> 
> There is no rational basis for either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then so is yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Backed by law and our legal marriage license.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen, Trout, the law doesn't have the power to make you married. It can only reinforce your delusions with the illusion of legitimacy that it cannot now or ever possibly possess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to legal, civil marriage the law most certainly does have the power to make us married...and it did. Gays ARE legally marrying despite your opinion about their legal marriages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law does not have the power to turn wrong into right although it has repeatedly tried throughout the history of civilization. Faux legitimacy is not the same as intrinsic validity. Your delusions are reinforced by politicians, but they are still delusions.
Click to expand...


So said the men opposing letting women vote.

And lots of other bigots who just opposed any change because they didn't like the people that the change would help.


----------



## Syriusly

Vigilante said:


>



LOL.....bigots upset that homosexuals aren't still hiding in the closet to escape persecution, arrest and assault.


----------



## Vigilante

Syriusly said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.....bigots upset that homosexuals aren't still hiding in the closet to escape persecution, arrest and assault.
Click to expand...


Is that how you read it, with your propaganda in mind? I read it as it should be a personal choice about ones sexuality, and should be observed as such!


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you really believe that if you wanted to be attracted to men, instead of women, you could chose to do so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A serious drug addict.
Click to expand...


We are not talking about your drug issues- the question I asked was very straightforward:

*So you really believe that if you wanted to be attracted to men, instead of women, you could chose to do so?*
*
Yes or No?*


----------



## Syriusly

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> no its not,  that is THE PRIMARY question in this debate.   You want gay marriage but you want to prohibit polysexual marriage--------on what legal basis do you want to prohibit multiple marriage?   If you answer truthfully you will repeat the exact reasons many give for opposing gay marriage,  but you won't answer truthfully so its a moot point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you need a rational basis for banning polygamy.
> 
> Here you go: *The Perils of Polygamy*
> 
> You really are attached to your slippery slope!
> 
> What next?  "Then tell me why you can't marry a dog"?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can't you marry a dog?  Specifically?
Click to expand...


Another Conservative unable to understand the concept of 'consent'


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you really believe that if you wanted to be attracted to men, instead of women, you could chose to do so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A serious drug addict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not talking about your drug issues- the question I asked was very straightforward:
> 
> *So you really believe that if you wanted to be attracted to men, instead of women, you could chose to do so?
> 
> Yes or No?*
Click to expand...



In the scientific realm - there is no such thing as a simple answer - only simple people .  If you are too simple minded to comprehend the correlation between the two - may I suggest you limit yourself to conversations pertaining to the color of your eye shadow or what dress you should wear next time you venture out in drag.


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> no its not,  that is THE PRIMARY question in this debate.   You want gay marriage but you want to prohibit polysexual marriage--------on what legal basis do you want to prohibit multiple marriage?   If you answer truthfully you will repeat the exact reasons many give for opposing gay marriage,  but you won't answer truthfully so its a moot point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you need a rational basis for banning polygamy.
> 
> Here you go: *The Perils of Polygamy*
> 
> You really are attached to your slippery slope!
> 
> What next?  "Then tell me why you can't marry a dog"?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can't you marry a dog?  Specifically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another Conservative unable to understand the concept of 'consent'
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that if Rover wags his tail when you display your schwanz - it's not because he thinks it's a snack - it's because he wants you to explore his fecal cavity with it - 
*Is that what you consider consent ?   *

Now ...  what about that toddler in the crib ... when you stick a bottle in his mouth and he stops crying - I would assume you consider that consent to stick something else in .... ???


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> They Sexually abnormal NEED it to be MARRIAGE... because they recognize the inherent legitimacy of Marriage.
> 
> What they're not sufficiently heeled, intellectually speaking, is that the standard which provides for the inherent legitimacy of Marriage, precludes their
> participation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of people consider the marriage certificate to be a property-sharing agreement.  A lot of women, and men, get a house, a new car, and an allowance of thousands of dollars a month, all for the simple reason that they hooked up with someone who has money.  Some people will not settle for a regular person.  They want a rich one.  Beauty, a depreciating asset, is the only thing some people bring to the table and when it has outlived its usefulness, the promises made fall by the wayside. In such cases was the marriage legitimate?
> Consider a gay couple who have been together for 30+ years, monogamously of course, who desire the same protections that marriage offers to straight people, such as if one  partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items if they are not married.  Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.
> What does marriage mean to the likes of you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Friend... 35 years ago, I married the most beautiful woman I had ever seen.  I literally fell in love with her, the moment I saw her.  Which is made all the more odd, given that at the time, I was holding the hand of my girl friend, who I'd been 'steady' with for a well over a year.
> 
> We married 5 years later... and spent the next two years in bliss.
> 
> The four subsequent years were hell on earth... we separated and I was presented with divorce papers several times.  But I would not sign them.
> 
> Now in that time, there's been times when she's hated my guts and I've hated that I was forced to breath the same air as her.  We've been cruel to one another, said things that we fully meant at the time, on the surface... but neither of us could let the other go.
> 
> Our marriage is built around that... we're a man and a woman, doing the best we can on this journey.   We've been flush with cash and broke as a stick.  We've lived all over these United States and raised three children; homeschooling them for most of their respective schooling. And had more experiences, good and bad, than I could ever recount here... .
> 
> So, I know something about the subject...  Count me as an expert of understanding the marriage thing.
> 
> With that said, I don't reject anyone happiness or the pursuit of such for themselves.
> 
> But just as I will not be starting as a running back for Miami next week, homosexuals will not be married.
> 
> Because neither of us meet the respective standards...
> 
> 
> Would I like to be the starting back. you bet.  But I don't really want to try... because doing what I would have to do to EVEN BE CONSIDERED:  it hurts... A LOT.   And I'm not willing to pay that price.
> 
> And the same for the homosexual that wants to be married.  To be such, they'd have to marry someone that they're not sexually attracted to.  They don't want to pay that price.
> 
> The difference between us, is that I am not so pathetic that I will sue to force the NFL to let me suit up... .  What's more, is that I understand that if I did... and IF I prevailed... that others would follow me and it would be no time at all before the NFL was no longer a legitimate enterprise.  And everything that I sought to gain from 'being' a professional linebacker, would evaporate.
> 
> Marriage is what it is, and the legitimacy intrinsic to such, comes from the standards that define it.  Strip Marriage of those standards and marriage ceases to be... .
> 
> So... I don't know if that helps you see how I see it, but that's probably as close as I'm going to be able to get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's impossible to take you seriously; someone who gauges society's evolution by his own inadequacies.  And by that I mean your inability to play professional football, which you've stated is your desire.
> "And the same for the homosexual that wants to be married.  To be such, they'd have to marry someone that they're not sexually attracted to.  They don't want to pay that price."  I haven't a clue what you are suggesting here.
> When love found you, were you free to pursue your future with the woman of your dreams or were you stigmatized?  You state it was love at first sight; therefore, you didn't stop to think about it as her beauty overwhelmed you.  Do you actually believe your story is unique.  I have a friend who has fallen in love at first sight seven times now.
> Your analogy comparing a lawsuit against the NFL because they won't let an old man without talent play for them and gay rights is beyond stupid.  As stated above, your inadequacies have absolutely nothing to do with gay rights.
> The unity of marriage is over 4300 thousand years old, and for your information, Nero, twice married men as did others.
> Why should anyone have to live their lives through your eyes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is designed by nature,?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage has nothing to do with nature.
> 
> 'Nature' doesn't care whether people marry or not.
Click to expand...

Nor does it care whether people die or not - "Nature" is what brings on the plagues of gay disease ....


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  The audio is in that link.  You really do need your hand held every step of the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *That's quite a lengthy audio*.  Do you know about where the Justices "laughed out loud"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not my problem  You want to know...take the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie.  Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments.  That would dispense with any pretense of objectivity.  Such a gross breach of decorum would certainly have made the papers and no audio link would be required.
> 
> In other words, you're lying and you've been found out.
> 
> Stop lying, Fish breath!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you enjoy being proven wrong? This was just recently....
> 
> When Justice Elena Kagan asked whether states could ban couples over the age of 55 because they wouldn't be able to have kids, Cooper argued that "it is very rare that…both parties to the couple are infertile."* The chamber erupted in laughter.* "No really, because…if both the woman and the man are over 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage," Kagan said,* and the chamber filled with laughter again. *Justice Stephen Breyer was more blunt: "I mean, there are lots of people who get married who can't have children."​*At Supreme Court, Marriage Equality Foes' Best Argument Is That They're Losing*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you're being desperate and in the process proving my point and cementing your reputation as a liar. When there is laughter, it's noteworthy and is recorded in print. No such record exists of the justices laughing while the Virginia attorney general was presenting oral arguments like you claimed.  So you told a lie.  Now you even admit it.
Click to expand...


Wow- that is a stunning piece of misrepresentation- even by your own low standards

Here is what you claimed:
_"Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie.*  Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments.....*

*Stop lying, Fish breath!"
*_
*Then Seawitch provided proof that refuted your specific claim that Justices never laugh during oral arguments....and it happened again just a few days ago

Supreme Court justices laugh at Arizona town s church sign laws - Washington Times
*
I have no idea whether or not the Justices during Loving laughed out loud or not- and you didn't either- you just assumed that Justices never do that- and called Seawitch a liar- AND then said specifically that 'justices do not 'laugh out loud' while attorneys are presenting oral arguments.

In other words- you lied. Seawitch caught you in your lie. Maybe she did also- but most certainly you lied. 

Oh and your claim about 

_That would dispense with any pretense of objectivity. _

Here is a whole article about Supreme Court Justices cracking jokes in court.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> no its not,  that is THE PRIMARY question in this debate.   You want gay marriage but you want to prohibit polysexual marriage--------on what legal basis do you want to prohibit multiple marriage?   If you answer truthfully you will repeat the exact reasons many give for opposing gay marriage,  but you won't answer truthfully so its a moot point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you need a rational basis for banning polygamy.
> 
> Here you go: *The Perils of Polygamy*
> 
> You really are attached to your slippery slope!
> 
> What next?  "Then tell me why you can't marry a dog"?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can't you marry a dog?  Specifically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another Conservative unable to understand the concept of 'consent'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what you're saying is that if Rover wags his tail when you display your schwanz - it's not because he thinks it's a snack - it's because he wants you to explore his fecal cavity with it -
> *Is that what you consider consent ?   *
> 
> Now ...  what about that toddler in the crib ... when you stick a bottle in his mouth and he stops crying - I would assume you consider that consent to stick something else in .... ???
Click to expand...



Another Conservative unable to understand the concept of 'consent'. I am seeing a big pattern here.

I can't believe that all Conservatives are unable to tell the difference between rape and sex with a consenting adult- is it just the Conservatives who are also bigots?


----------



## GreenBean

Lilah said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and for your information, Nero, twice married men as did others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh... Ok.  Care to educate me on the result of Nero's reign?  Did it provide Rome with great success, happiness and prosperity?  Was Rome strengthened by Nero's adherence to sexual abnormality?
> 
> Or not...?  And by that I mean, the old saw: Nero fiddled as Rome burned", do ya suppose that came as a result of Nero being one associated with _"inspired reasoning"_ , or something else?
> 
> Take your time... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does the fact that you are married make you an intellectual?  Take your time to think about it.
Click to expand...

Nero was known to ride around his courtyard butt naked - jerking off while people were hung on poles and burnt alive - but hey that was his sexual disposition -  That's how he got his rocks off - who are we to Judge ?


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of people consider the marriage certificate to be a property-sharing agreement.  A lot of women, and men, get a house, a new car, and an allowance of thousands of dollars a month, all for the simple reason that they hooked up with someone who has money.  Some people will not settle for a regular person.  They want a rich one.  Beauty, a depreciating asset, is the only thing some people bring to the table and when it has outlived its usefulness, the promises made fall by the wayside. In such cases was the marriage legitimate?
> Consider a gay couple who have been together for 30+ years, monogamously of course, who desire the same protections that marriage offers to straight people, such as if one  partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items if they are not married.  Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.
> What does marriage mean to the likes of you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friend... 35 years ago, I married the most beautiful woman I had ever seen.  I literally fell in love with her, the moment I saw her.  Which is made all the more odd, given that at the time, I was holding the hand of my girl friend, who I'd been 'steady' with for a well over a year.
> 
> We married 5 years later... and spent the next two years in bliss.
> 
> The four subsequent years were hell on earth... we separated and I was presented with divorce papers several times.  But I would not sign them.
> 
> Now in that time, there's been times when she's hated my guts and I've hated that I was forced to breath the same air as her.  We've been cruel to one another, said things that we fully meant at the time, on the surface... but neither of us could let the other go.
> 
> Our marriage is built around that... we're a man and a woman, doing the best we can on this journey.   We've been flush with cash and broke as a stick.  We've lived all over these United States and raised three children; homeschooling them for most of their respective schooling. And had more experiences, good and bad, than I could ever recount here... .
> 
> So, I know something about the subject...  Count me as an expert of understanding the marriage thing.
> 
> With that said, I don't reject anyone happiness or the pursuit of such for themselves.
> 
> But just as I will not be starting as a running back for Miami next week, homosexuals will not be married.
> 
> Because neither of us meet the respective standards...
> 
> 
> Would I like to be the starting back. you bet.  But I don't really want to try... because doing what I would have to do to EVEN BE CONSIDERED:  it hurts... A LOT.   And I'm not willing to pay that price.
> 
> And the same for the homosexual that wants to be married.  To be such, they'd have to marry someone that they're not sexually attracted to.  They don't want to pay that price.
> 
> The difference between us, is that I am not so pathetic that I will sue to force the NFL to let me suit up... .  What's more, is that I understand that if I did... and IF I prevailed... that others would follow me and it would be no time at all before the NFL was no longer a legitimate enterprise.  And everything that I sought to gain from 'being' a professional linebacker, would evaporate.
> 
> Marriage is what it is, and the legitimacy intrinsic to such, comes from the standards that define it.  Strip Marriage of those standards and marriage ceases to be... .
> 
> So... I don't know if that helps you see how I see it, but that's probably as close as I'm going to be able to get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's impossible to take you seriously; someone who gauges society's evolution by his own inadequacies.  And by that I mean your inability to play professional football, which you've stated is your desire.
> "And the same for the homosexual that wants to be married.  To be such, they'd have to marry someone that they're not sexually attracted to.  They don't want to pay that price."  I haven't a clue what you are suggesting here.
> When love found you, were you free to pursue your future with the woman of your dreams or were you stigmatized?  You state it was love at first sight; therefore, you didn't stop to think about it as her beauty overwhelmed you.  Do you actually believe your story is unique.  I have a friend who has fallen in love at first sight seven times now.
> Your analogy comparing a lawsuit against the NFL because they won't let an old man without talent play for them and gay rights is beyond stupid.  As stated above, your inadequacies have absolutely nothing to do with gay rights.
> The unity of marriage is over 4300 thousand years old, and for your information, Nero, twice married men as did others.
> Why should anyone have to live their lives through your eyes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is designed by nature,?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage has nothing to do with nature.
> 
> 'Nature' doesn't care whether people marry or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nor does it care whether people die or not - "Nature" is what brings on the plagues of gay disease ....
Click to expand...


LOL....well nature brings on all diseases.....including 'straight' diseases like syphillis, which before humans invented anti-biotics was AIDs for the straight community. Nature brings us Ebola- Nature brought us polio- but humans invented a vaccine for that. 

What any of that has to do with marriage? Nothing.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and for your information, Nero, twice married men as did others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh... Ok.  Care to educate me on the result of Nero's reign?  Did it provide Rome with great success, happiness and prosperity?  Was Rome strengthened by Nero's adherence to sexual abnormality?
> 
> Or not...?  And by that I mean, the old saw: Nero fiddled as Rome burned", do ya suppose that came as a result of Nero being one associated with _"inspired reasoning"_ , or something else?
> 
> Take your time... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does the fact that you are married make you an intellectual?  Take your time to think about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nero was known to ride around his courtyard butt naked - jerking off while people were hung on poles and burnt alive - but hey that was his sexual disposition -  That's how he got his rocks off - who are we to Judge ?
Click to expand...


I have no problem judging murderers- or distinguishing between rapists and consenting adults having sex.

You apparently however do.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> google it.   I am here to guide you, not to teach you.
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't exist outside your head then, eh?
> 
> I stand corrected:
> 
> ACLU of Utah to Join Polygamists in Bigamy Fight American Civil Liberties Union
> 
> Interesting read.  But as the article says, there are a few legal hurdles that do not exist with gay marriage........so no, it is not exactly the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It will prevail nonetheless. We've gone from reading the Constitution for what it says to finding hidden meanings and rights. Pedophiles, polygamists, queers, and all other sexual deviants understand that the holes in the dike (no pun intended) mean that the whole thing is about to collapse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah- once again- a bigot who can't tell the difference between raping a child and consensual sex between adults.
> 
> Do they send you to special schools to learn this crap?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your vehement condemnations won't stop the advance of the perverts seeking legal recognition for their right to rape children. What I find amusing is how you people opened those doors and then imagined you would be the last to go through them. Hilariously naive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My comments have nothing to do with any 'perverts' seeking legal right to rape children.
> 
> I was posting about the Conservative bigots like yourself who cannot tell the difference between child rape and consensual sex between adults.  To you- they are the same things- and I really wonder what kind of school you went to that left you unable to understand what rape is.
Click to expand...

Hopefully the federal judges will be bigots just like me and rule according to the repugnant nature of the case rather than a dispassionate reading of the 14th Amendment by today's vector of case law.


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> no its not,  that is THE PRIMARY question in this debate.   You want gay marriage but you want to prohibit polysexual marriage--------on what legal basis do you want to prohibit multiple marriage?   If you answer truthfully you will repeat the exact reasons many give for opposing gay marriage,  but you won't answer truthfully so its a moot point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you need a rational basis for banning polygamy.
> 
> Here you go: *The Perils of Polygamy*
> 
> You really are attached to your slippery slope!
> 
> What next?  "Then tell me why you can't marry a dog"?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can't you marry a dog?  Specifically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another Conservative unable to understand the concept of 'consent'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what you're saying is that if Rover wags his tail when you display your schwanz - it's not because he thinks it's a snack - it's because he wants you to explore his fecal cavity with it -
> *Is that what you consider consent ?   *
> 
> Now ...  what about that toddler in the crib ... when you stick a bottle in his mouth and he stops crying - I would assume you consider that consent to stick something else in .... ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Another Conservative unable to understand the concept of 'consent'. I am seeing a big pattern here.
> 
> I can't believe that all Conservatives are unable to tell the difference between rape and sex with a consenting adult- is it just the Conservatives who are also bigots?
Click to expand...



You sir  are a blithering Idiot - unable to engage in a simple debate - you have no ammunition to work with so you invent things - if you can't conduct yourself like a grownup then will quickly find yourself on many more ignore lists than you are currently on - you're about 2 postys away from mine . regards shithead.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> no its not,  that is THE PRIMARY question in this debate.   You want gay marriage but you want to prohibit polysexual marriage--------on what legal basis do you want to prohibit multiple marriage?   If you answer truthfully you will repeat the exact reasons many give for opposing gay marriage,  but you won't answer truthfully so its a moot point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you need a rational basis for banning polygamy.
> 
> Here you go: *The Perils of Polygamy*
> 
> You really are attached to your slippery slope!
> 
> What next?  "Then tell me why you can't marry a dog"?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What right do you have to deny polygamists and pedophiles equal rights? .
Click to expand...


Here is Saintmichaeldefendthem's actual statement:

_What right do you have to deny polygamists and pedophiles equal rights?_

So Saint- tell us why you are defending pedophiles?


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't exist outside your head then, eh?
> 
> I stand corrected:
> 
> ACLU of Utah to Join Polygamists in Bigamy Fight American Civil Liberties Union
> 
> Interesting read.  But as the article says, there are a few legal hurdles that do not exist with gay marriage........so no, it is not exactly the same.
> 
> 
> 
> It will prevail nonetheless. We've gone from reading the Constitution for what it says to finding hidden meanings and rights. Pedophiles, polygamists, queers, and all other sexual deviants understand that the holes in the dike (no pun intended) mean that the whole thing is about to collapse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah- once again- a bigot who can't tell the difference between raping a child and consensual sex between adults.
> 
> Do they send you to special schools to learn this crap?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your vehement condemnations won't stop the advance of the perverts seeking legal recognition for their right to rape children. What I find amusing is how you people opened those doors and then imagined you would be the last to go through them. Hilariously naive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My comments have nothing to do with any 'perverts' seeking legal right to rape children.
> 
> I was posting about the Conservative bigots like yourself who cannot tell the difference between child rape and consensual sex between adults.  To you- they are the same things- and I really wonder what kind of school you went to that left you unable to understand what rape is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hopefully the federal judges will be bigots just like me and rule according to the repugnant nature of the case rather than a dispassionate reading of the 14th Amendment by today's vector of case law.
Click to expand...


My comments have nothing to do with any 'perverts' seeking legal right to rape children.

I was posting about the Conservative bigots like yourself who cannot tell the difference between child rape and consensual sex between adults. To you- they are the same things- and I really wonder what kind of school you went to that left you unable to understand what rape is.

Hopefully any judge can tell the difference between rape and consensual sex- I just don't know why you can't.


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and for your information, Nero, twice married men as did others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh... Ok.  Care to educate me on the result of Nero's reign?  Did it provide Rome with great success, happiness and prosperity?  Was Rome strengthened by Nero's adherence to sexual abnormality?
> 
> Or not...?  And by that I mean, the old saw: Nero fiddled as Rome burned", do ya suppose that came as a result of Nero being one associated with _"inspired reasoning"_ , or something else?
> 
> Take your time... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does the fact that you are married make you an intellectual?  Take your time to think about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nero was known to ride around his courtyard butt naked - jerking off while people were hung on poles and burnt alive - but hey that was his sexual disposition -  That's how he got his rocks off - who are we to Judge ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem judging murderers- or distinguishing between rapists and consenting adults having sex.
> 
> You apparently however do.
Click to expand...



Do you understand the connection between Homosexuality,Bestiality,Pedophilia,Necrophilia and assorted sexual dysphorias ?   ---- are you aware of the  *"50 shades of Gay"*


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> no its not,  that is THE PRIMARY question in this debate.   You want gay marriage but you want to prohibit polysexual marriage--------on what legal basis do you want to prohibit multiple marriage?   If you answer truthfully you will repeat the exact reasons many give for opposing gay marriage,  but you won't answer truthfully so its a moot point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you need a rational basis for banning polygamy.
> 
> Here you go: *The Perils of Polygamy*
> 
> You really are attached to your slippery slope!
> 
> What next?  "Then tell me why you can't marry a dog"?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can't you marry a dog?  Specifically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another Conservative unable to understand the concept of 'consent'
Click to expand...

If the child consents, there goes your argument. What you on the immoral Left don't understand is that current laws stating that children don't possess the mens rea to consent to sex with an adult is based on moral ramparts. When you keep eroding morality, you have no control over what topples by consequence. I will be among the holdout remnants fighting to preserve the innocence of children, but we won't be enough. When society collectively abandons all moral restraint, anything goes. I mean anything.


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> between child rape and consensual sex between adults. To you- they are the same things- and I really wonder what kind of school you went to that left you unable to understand what rape is.



AS has been stated time and time again in this thread and others - *very few people really give a rats ass what two grownup degenerates do behind closed doors *- that issue is merely the lame attempts of LGBT to frame the argument and deflect from the real issues 

Homosexuality is one aspect of a list of closely related sexual and erotic psychosis which includes Pedophilia - Beastiality - transsexualism -genderism, Sado- Masochism and so forth ...In far too many cases a Gay man out of the closet is masking a pedophile still in the closet


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you tell a white person they can only marry another white person, you are discriminating based on race.
> 
> If you tell a female person they can only marry a male person, you are discriminating based on gender.
> 
> There is no rational basis for either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then so is yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Backed by law and our legal marriage license.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen, Trout, the law doesn't have the power to make you married. It can only reinforce your delusions with the illusion of legitimacy that it cannot now or ever possibly possess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to legal, civil marriage the law most certainly does have the power to make us married...and it did. Gays ARE legally marrying despite your opinion about their legal marriages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law does not have the power to turn wrong into right although it has repeatedly tried throughout the history of civilization. Faux legitimacy is not the same as intrinsic validity. Your delusions are reinforced by politicians, but they are still delusions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So said the men opposing letting women vote.
> 
> And lots of other bigots who just opposed any change because they didn't like the people that the change would help.
Click to expand...


Gender suffrage and lifestyle choice are two different things. Did you forget what we were discussing, 50 First Dates?


----------



## Lilah

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and for your information, Nero, twice married men as did others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh... Ok.  Care to educate me on the result of Nero's reign?  Did it provide Rome with great success, happiness and prosperity?  Was Rome strengthened by Nero's adherence to sexual abnormality?
> 
> Or not...?  And by that I mean, the old saw: Nero fiddled as Rome burned", do ya suppose that came as a result of Nero being one associated with _"inspired reasoning"_ , or something else?
> 
> Take your time... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does the fact that you are married make you an intellectual?  Take your time to think about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nero was known to ride around his courtyard butt naked - jerking off while people were hung on poles and burnt alive - but hey that was his sexual disposition -  That's how he got his rocks off - who are we to Judge ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem judging murderers- or distinguishing between rapists and consenting adults having sex.
> 
> You apparently however do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand the connection between Homosexuality,Bestiality,Pedophilia,Necrophilia and assorted sexual dysphorias ?   ---- are you aware of the  *"50 shades of Gay"*
Click to expand...


Name that connection, please.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> no its not,  that is THE PRIMARY question in this debate.   You want gay marriage but you want to prohibit polysexual marriage--------on what legal basis do you want to prohibit multiple marriage?   If you answer truthfully you will repeat the exact reasons many give for opposing gay marriage,  but you won't answer truthfully so its a moot point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you need a rational basis for banning polygamy.
> 
> Here you go: *The Perils of Polygamy*
> 
> You really are attached to your slippery slope!
> 
> What next?  "Then tell me why you can't marry a dog"?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What right do you have to deny polygamists and pedophiles equal rights? .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is Saintmichaeldefendthem's actual statement:
> 
> _What right do you have to deny polygamists and pedophiles equal rights?_
> 
> So Saint- tell us why you are defending pedophiles?
Click to expand...

Now you're being juvenile....unless you're really too simpleton to understand I was mimicking what will be real legal arguments by your comrades on the perverted Left. Are you confessing to being a dumbass?


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  The audio is in that link.  You really do need your hand held every step of the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *That's quite a lengthy audio*.  Do you know about where the Justices "laughed out loud"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not my problem  You want to know...take the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie.  Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments.  That would dispense with any pretense of objectivity.  Such a gross breach of decorum would certainly have made the papers and no audio link would be required.
> 
> In other words, you're lying and you've been found out.
> 
> Stop lying, Fish breath!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you enjoy being proven wrong? This was just recently....
> 
> When Justice Elena Kagan asked whether states could ban couples over the age of 55 because they wouldn't be able to have kids, Cooper argued that "it is very rare that…both parties to the couple are infertile."* The chamber erupted in laughter.* "No really, because…if both the woman and the man are over 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage," Kagan said,* and the chamber filled with laughter again. *Justice Stephen Breyer was more blunt: "I mean, there are lots of people who get married who can't have children."​*At Supreme Court, Marriage Equality Foes' Best Argument Is That They're Losing*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you're being desperate and in the process proving my point and cementing your reputation as a liar. When there is laughter, it's noteworthy and is recorded in print. No such record exists of the justices laughing while the Virginia attorney general was presenting oral arguments like you claimed.  So you told a lie.  Now you even admit it.
Click to expand...


So you listened to the audio of the 1967 case? You also, quite clearly, made the false claim (and I quote) "Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments. " that is what I responded to.


----------



## GreenBean

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Backed by law and our legal marriage license.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen, Trout, the law doesn't have the power to make you married. It can only reinforce your delusions with the illusion of legitimacy that it cannot now or ever possibly possess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to legal, civil marriage the law most certainly does have the power to make us married...and it did. Gays ARE legally marrying despite your opinion about their legal marriages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law does not have the power to turn wrong into right although it has repeatedly tried throughout the history of civilization. Faux legitimacy is not the same as intrinsic validity. Your delusions are reinforced by politicians, but they are still delusions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So said the men opposing letting women vote.
> 
> And lots of other bigots who just opposed any change because they didn't like the people that the change would help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gender suffrage and lifestyle choice are two different things. Did you forget what we were discussing, 50 First Dates?
Click to expand...


St. Mike -Their constant deflections to "Gender suffrage" and racial issues are weak attempts at framing the argument to depict themselves as victims - when inb fact they are the victimizers.

Framing is a psychological theory which suggests that people will have a different reaction to an idea when it is given a positive spin than they would if it was given a negative spin.

Framing, when properly executed in social discourse short-circuits counter arguments . No one can speak up against an effective frame and say, Why, yes, I do think women should be raped and I do think women should be sex objects. when discussing the Feminist "rape culture" frame .  Or in this case -Yes  women should not be allowed to vote and blacks should still be slaves - *it steals the wind from the sails of the victimized  and portrays perverts as martyrs - when they are in fact tools of the oppressors.*


----------



## GreenBean

Lilah said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh... Ok.  Care to educate me on the result of Nero's reign?  Did it provide Rome with great success, happiness and prosperity?  Was Rome strengthened by Nero's adherence to sexual abnormality?
> 
> Or not...?  And by that I mean, the old saw: Nero fiddled as Rome burned", do ya suppose that came as a result of Nero being one associated with _"inspired reasoning"_ , or something else?
> 
> Take your time... .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the fact that you are married make you an intellectual?  Take your time to think about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nero was known to ride around his courtyard butt naked - jerking off while people were hung on poles and burnt alive - but hey that was his sexual disposition -  That's how he got his rocks off - who are we to Judge ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem judging murderers- or distinguishing between rapists and consenting adults having sex.
> 
> You apparently however do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand the connection between Homosexuality,Bestiality,Pedophilia,Necrophilia and assorted sexual dysphorias ?   ---- are you aware of the  *"50 shades of Gay"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name that connection, please.
Click to expand...


Start Here - let me know if you are able to comprehend it , sorry not too many pictures 

Paraphilias Sexuality and Sexual Disorders Merck Manual Professional


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gender
> 
> There are only two correct answers -* Male and Female * -
> 
> Undecided -
> Both of  the Above
> None of the Above
> are not options on this multiple choice quiz.
> 
> 
> 
> If you tell a white person they can only marry another white person, you are discriminating based on race.
> 
> If you tell a female person they can only marry a male person, you are discriminating based on gender.
> 
> There is no rational basis for either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then so is yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Backed by law and our legal marriage license.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen, Trout, the law doesn't have the power to make you married. It can only reinforce your delusions with the illusion of legitimacy that it cannot now or ever possibly possess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to legal, civil marriage the law most certainly does have the power to make us married...and it did. Gays ARE legally marrying despite your opinion about their legal marriages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law does not have the power to turn wrong into right although it has repeatedly tried throughout the history of civilization. Faux legitimacy is not the same as intrinsic validity. Your delusions are reinforced by politicians, but they are still delusions.
Click to expand...


That you ascribe wrong is your opinion.  Your idea of wrong is not a rational basis upon which to deny equality. 

Your opinion does not change the legal recognition of my civil marriage.


----------



## GreenBean

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you tell a white person they can only marry another white person, you are discriminating based on race.
> 
> If you tell a female person they can only marry a male person, you are discriminating based on gender.
> 
> There is no rational basis for either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then so is yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Backed by law and our legal marriage license.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen, Trout, the law doesn't have the power to make you married. It can only reinforce your delusions with the illusion of legitimacy that it cannot now or ever possibly possess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to legal, civil marriage the law most certainly does have the power to make us married...and it did. Gays ARE legally marrying despite your opinion about their legal marriages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law does not have the power to turn wrong into right although it has repeatedly tried throughout the history of civilization. Faux legitimacy is not the same as intrinsic validity. Your delusions are reinforced by politicians, but they are still delusions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you ascribe wrong is your opinion.  Your idea of wrong is not a rational basis upon which to deny equality.
> 
> Your opinion does not change the legal recognition of my civil marriage.
Click to expand...


Your Marriage may be a legal marriage - and you have every right that all adults have - It's a LEGAL marriage only  and REAL people - SANE people will always laugh at you behind your back .... or in my case, as with the growing number of disgusted sane people - it shant be behind your back . Push the issue and it won't be laughs you get in your face - although you're accustomed to wiping saliva and other bodily fluids I would assume.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you tell a white person they can only marry another white person, you are discriminating based on race.
> 
> If you tell a female person they can only marry a male person, you are discriminating based on gender.
> 
> There is no rational basis for either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then so is yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Backed by law and our legal marriage license.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen, Trout, the law doesn't have the power to make you married. It can only reinforce your delusions with the illusion of legitimacy that it cannot now or ever possibly possess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to legal, civil marriage the law most certainly does have the power to make us married...and it did. Gays ARE legally marrying despite your opinion about their legal marriages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law does not have the power to turn wrong into right although it has repeatedly tried throughout the history of civilization. Faux legitimacy is not the same as intrinsic validity. Your delusions are reinforced by politicians, but they are still delusions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you ascribe wrong is your opinion.  Your idea of wrong is not a rational basis upon which to deny equality.
> 
> Your opinion does not change the legal recognition of my civil marriage.
Click to expand...

Sweetie, I'm not contesting the legal status of your confounded liaison. I'm saying that legal status cannot turn wrong into right or grant true legitimacy. Try to pay attention to people's words, and try not to lie anymore. It causes delays in the conversation as we have to sift fact from fiction. In fact, the justices didn't "laugh out loud" while the Virginia attorney general was presenting oral arguments. You lied about that. 

Stop lying, Leftists!


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> no its not,  that is THE PRIMARY question in this debate.   You want gay marriage but you want to prohibit polysexual marriage--------on what legal basis do you want to prohibit multiple marriage?   If you answer truthfully you will repeat the exact reasons many give for opposing gay marriage,  but you won't answer truthfully so its a moot point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you need a rational basis for banning polygamy.
> 
> Here you go: *The Perils of Polygamy*
> 
> You really are attached to your slippery slope!
> 
> What next?  "Then tell me why you can't marry a dog"?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can't you marry a dog?  Specifically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another Conservative unable to understand the concept of 'consent'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the child consents, there goes your argument. What you on the immoral Left don't understand is that current laws stating that children don't possess the mens rea to consent to sex with an adult is based on moral ramparts. When you keep eroding morality, you have no control over what topples by consequence. I will be among the holdout remnants fighting to preserve the innocence of children, but we won't be enough. When society collectively abandons all moral restraint, anything goes. I mean anything.
Click to expand...


You really should learn the law...and I mean really, REALLY.

Children cannot consent. 

Tell me...with all this "moral depravity" going on, how come states are raising, not lowering, their age of consent?


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Backed by law and our legal marriage license.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen, Trout, the law doesn't have the power to make you married. It can only reinforce your delusions with the illusion of legitimacy that it cannot now or ever possibly possess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to legal, civil marriage the law most certainly does have the power to make us married...and it did. Gays ARE legally marrying despite your opinion about their legal marriages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law does not have the power to turn wrong into right although it has repeatedly tried throughout the history of civilization. Faux legitimacy is not the same as intrinsic validity. Your delusions are reinforced by politicians, but they are still delusions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you ascribe wrong is your opinion.  Your idea of wrong is not a rational basis upon which to deny equality.
> 
> Your opinion does not change the legal recognition of my civil marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sweetie, I'm not contesting the legal status of your confounded liaison. I'm saying that legal status cannot turn wrong into right or grant true legitimacy. Try to pay attention to people's words, and try not to lie anymore. It causes delays in the conversation as we have to sift fact from fiction. In fact, the justices didn't "laugh out loud" while the Virginia attorney general was presenting oral arguments. You lied about that.
> 
> Stop lying, Leftists!
Click to expand...


And what you are "saying" is just a bigot's opinion. Doesn't make my marriage license disappear. 

Justices did laugh out loud. You were mistaken. Let it go.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> no its not,  that is THE PRIMARY question in this debate.   You want gay marriage but you want to prohibit polysexual marriage--------on what legal basis do you want to prohibit multiple marriage?   If you answer truthfully you will repeat the exact reasons many give for opposing gay marriage,  but you won't answer truthfully so its a moot point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you need a rational basis for banning polygamy.
> 
> Here you go: *The Perils of Polygamy*
> 
> You really are attached to your slippery slope!
> 
> What next?  "Then tell me why you can't marry a dog"?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can't you marry a dog?  Specifically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another Conservative unable to understand the concept of 'consent'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the child consents, there goes your argument. What you on the immoral Left don't understand is that current laws stating that children don't possess the mens rea to consent to sex with an adult is based on moral ramparts. When you keep eroding morality, you have no control over what topples by consequence. I will be among the holdout remnants fighting to preserve the innocence of children, but we won't be enough. When society collectively abandons all moral restraint, anything goes. I mean anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really should learn the law...and I mean really, REALLY.
> 
> Children cannot consent.
> 
> Tell me...with all this "moral depravity" going on, how come states are raising, not lowering, their age of consent?
Click to expand...

States are raising the age of consent because 3/4ths of the legislatures and governors are Republican. So now conservatism is being advanced on a state level. You didn't really think you immoral Leftists had anything to do with that, did you?


----------



## Lilah

GreenBean said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the fact that you are married make you an intellectual?  Take your time to think about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Nero was known to ride around his courtyard butt naked - jerking off while people were hung on poles and burnt alive - but hey that was his sexual disposition -  That's how he got his rocks off - who are we to Judge ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem judging murderers- or distinguishing between rapists and consenting adults having sex.
> 
> You apparently however do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand the connection between Homosexuality,Bestiality,Pedophilia,Necrophilia and assorted sexual dysphorias ?   ---- are you aware of the  *"50 shades of Gay"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name that connection, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Start Here - let me know if you are able to comprehend it , sorry not too many pictures
> 
> Paraphilias Sexuality and Sexual Disorders Merck Manual Professional
Click to expand...


You are quite smug, aren't you.  If you believe there is a connection between homosexuality, ,beastialality, pedophilia, necrophilia and assorted sexual (dysphorias), including authors such as E.L. James, then surely you must also believe that there is a connection between depression, apathy and murder.  What would you say is the connection between sociopathic serial killers and gender dysphoria serial killers?
What would you say is the connection between a man who sits in front of his computer all day and watches porn and a woman who has read *Fifty Shades of Gray*  and wants to participate in sexual games or a President who likes to play sexual games in the Oval Office?


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you need a rational basis for banning polygamy.
> 
> Here you go: *The Perils of Polygamy*
> 
> You really are attached to your slippery slope!
> 
> What next?  "Then tell me why you can't marry a dog"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't you marry a dog?  Specifically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another Conservative unable to understand the concept of 'consent'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the child consents, there goes your argument. What you on the immoral Left don't understand is that current laws stating that children don't possess the mens rea to consent to sex with an adult is based on moral ramparts. When you keep eroding morality, you have no control over what topples by consequence. I will be among the holdout remnants fighting to preserve the innocence of children, but we won't be enough. When society collectively abandons all moral restraint, anything goes. I mean anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really should learn the law...and I mean really, REALLY.
> 
> Children cannot consent.
> 
> Tell me...with all this "moral depravity" going on, how come states are raising, not lowering, their age of consent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States are raising the age of consent because 3/4ths of the legislatures and governors are Republican. So now conservatism is being advanced on a state level. You didn't really think you immoral Leftists had anything to do with that, did you?
Click to expand...



 They aren't being changed by the current kooky crop. Man, you just can't help yourself can you?

Age of consent laws have ONLY been going up in the US. You made the claim that marriage equality will cause them to be lowered. You're "mistaken" again. (Gays have been marrying for a decade in Massachusetts.)


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't you marry a dog?  Specifically?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another Conservative unable to understand the concept of 'consent'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the child consents, there goes your argument. What you on the immoral Left don't understand is that current laws stating that children don't possess the mens rea to consent to sex with an adult is based on moral ramparts. When you keep eroding morality, you have no control over what topples by consequence. I will be among the holdout remnants fighting to preserve the innocence of children, but we won't be enough. When society collectively abandons all moral restraint, anything goes. I mean anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really should learn the law...and I mean really, REALLY.
> 
> Children cannot consent.
> 
> Tell me...with all this "moral depravity" going on, how come states are raising, not lowering, their age of consent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States are raising the age of consent because 3/4ths of the legislatures and governors are Republican. So now conservatism is being advanced on a state level. You didn't really think you immoral Leftists had anything to do with that, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't being changed by the current kooky crop. Man, you just can't help yourself can you?
> 
> Age of consent laws have ONLY been going up in the US. You made the claim that marriage equality will cause them to be lowered. You're "mistaken" again. (Gays have been marrying for a decade in Massachusetts.)
Click to expand...

Yes. Age of consent going up, states controlled by Republican governors and legislatures. Shall I connect the dots for you?


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another Conservative unable to understand the concept of 'consent'
> 
> 
> 
> If the child consents, there goes your argument. What you on the immoral Left don't understand is that current laws stating that children don't possess the mens rea to consent to sex with an adult is based on moral ramparts. When you keep eroding morality, you have no control over what topples by consequence. I will be among the holdout remnants fighting to preserve the innocence of children, but we won't be enough. When society collectively abandons all moral restraint, anything goes. I mean anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really should learn the law...and I mean really, REALLY.
> 
> Children cannot consent.
> 
> Tell me...with all this "moral depravity" going on, how come states are raising, not lowering, their age of consent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States are raising the age of consent because 3/4ths of the legislatures and governors are Republican. So now conservatism is being advanced on a state level. You didn't really think you immoral Leftists had anything to do with that, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't being changed by the current kooky crop. Man, you just can't help yourself can you?
> 
> Age of consent laws have ONLY been going up in the US. You made the claim that marriage equality will cause them to be lowered. You're "mistaken" again. (Gays have been marrying for a decade in Massachusetts.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Age of consent going up, states controlled by Republican governors and legislatures. Shall I connect the dots for you?
Click to expand...


Proof of your assertions would be great!


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another Conservative unable to understand the concept of 'consent'
> 
> 
> 
> If the child consents, there goes your argument. What you on the immoral Left don't understand is that current laws stating that children don't possess the mens rea to consent to sex with an adult is based on moral ramparts. When you keep eroding morality, you have no control over what topples by consequence. I will be among the holdout remnants fighting to preserve the innocence of children, but we won't be enough. When society collectively abandons all moral restraint, anything goes. I mean anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really should learn the law...and I mean really, REALLY.
> 
> Children cannot consent.
> 
> Tell me...with all this "moral depravity" going on, how come states are raising, not lowering, their age of consent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States are raising the age of consent because 3/4ths of the legislatures and governors are Republican. So now conservatism is being advanced on a state level. You didn't really think you immoral Leftists had anything to do with that, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't being changed by the current kooky crop. Man, you just can't help yourself can you?
> 
> Age of consent laws have ONLY been going up in the US. You made the claim that marriage equality will cause them to be lowered. You're "mistaken" again. (Gays have been marrying for a decade in Massachusetts.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Age of consent going up, states controlled by Republican governors and legislatures. Shall I connect the dots for you?
Click to expand...


Nope...

Primary Source Text
Age Limit in Age of Consent Laws. First number is the age in 1880, the second is 1920 and the third 2007.


United States			
Alabama	10	16	16
Alaska	-	16	16
Arizona	12	18	18
Arkansas	 10	16	16
California	10	18	18
Colorado	10	18	15
Connecticut	10	16	16
District of Columbia	12	16	16
Delaware	7	16	16
Florida	10	18	18
Georgia	10	14	16
Hawaii	-	-	16
Idaho	10	18	18
Illinois	10	16	17
Indiana	12	16	16
Iowa	10	16	16
Kansas	10	18	16
Kentucky	12	16	16
Louisiana	12	18	17
Maine	10	16	16
Maryland	10	16	16
Massachusetts	10	16	16
Michigan	10	16	16
Minnesota	10	18	16
Mississippi	10	18	16
Missouri	12	18	17
Montana	10	18	16
Nebraska	10	18	17
Nevada	12	18	16
New Hampshire	10	16	16
New Jersey	10	16	16
New Mexico	10	16	17
New York	10	18	17
North Carolina	10	16	16
North Dakota	10	18	18
Ohio	10	16	16
Oklahoma	-	-	16
Oregon	10	16	18
Pennsylvania	10	16	16
Rhode Island	10	16	16
South Carolina	10	16	16
South Dakota	10	18	16
Tennessee	10	18	18
Texas	10	18	17
Utah	10	18	16
Vermont	10	16	16
Virginia	12	16	18
Washington	12	18	16
West Virginia	12	16	16
Wisconsin	10	16	18
Wyoming	10	16	16

Children and Youth in History Age of Consent Laws Table


----------



## Syriusly

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the child consents, there goes your argument. What you on the immoral Left don't understand is that current laws stating that children don't possess the mens rea to consent to sex with an adult is based on moral ramparts. When you keep eroding morality, you have no control over what topples by consequence. I will be among the holdout remnants fighting to preserve the innocence of children, but we won't be enough. When society collectively abandons all moral restraint, anything goes. I mean anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really should learn the law...and I mean really, REALLY.
> 
> Children cannot consent.
> 
> Tell me...with all this "moral depravity" going on, how come states are raising, not lowering, their age of consent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States are raising the age of consent because 3/4ths of the legislatures and governors are Republican. So now conservatism is being advanced on a state level. You didn't really think you immoral Leftists had anything to do with that, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't being changed by the current kooky crop. Man, you just can't help yourself can you?
> 
> Age of consent laws have ONLY been going up in the US. You made the claim that marriage equality will cause them to be lowered. You're "mistaken" again. (Gays have been marrying for a decade in Massachusetts.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Age of consent going up, states controlled by Republican governors and legislatures. Shall I connect the dots for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope...
> 
> Primary Source Text
> Age Limit in Age of Consent Laws. First number is the age in 1880, the second is 1920 and the third 2007.
> 
> 
> United States
> Alabama    10    16    16
> Alaska    -    16    16
> Arizona    12    18    18
> Arkansas     10    16    16
> California    10    18    18
> Colorado    10    18    15
> Connecticut    10    16    16
> District of Columbia    12    16    16
> Delaware    7    16    16
> Florida    10    18    18
> Georgia    10    14    16
> Hawaii    -    -    16
> Idaho    10    18    18
> Illinois    10    16    17
> Indiana    12    16    16
> Iowa    10    16    16
> Kansas    10    18    16
> Kentucky    12    16    16
> Louisiana    12    18    17
> Maine    10    16    16
> Maryland    10    16    16
> Massachusetts    10    16    16
> Michigan    10    16    16
> Minnesota    10    18    16
> Mississippi    10    18    16
> Missouri    12    18    17
> Montana    10    18    16
> Nebraska    10    18    17
> Nevada    12    18    16
> New Hampshire    10    16    16
> New Jersey    10    16    16
> New Mexico    10    16    17
> New York    10    18    17
> North Carolina    10    16    16
> North Dakota    10    18    18
> Ohio    10    16    16
> Oklahoma    -    -    16
> Oregon    10    16    18
> Pennsylvania    10    16    16
> Rhode Island    10    16    16
> South Carolina    10    16    16
> South Dakota    10    18    16
> Tennessee    10    18    18
> Texas    10    18    17
> Utah    10    18    16
> Vermont    10    16    16
> Virginia    12    16    18
> Washington    12    18    16
> West Virginia    12    16    16
> Wisconsin    10    16    18
> Wyoming    10    16    16
> 
> Children and Youth in History Age of Consent Laws Table
Click to expand...


This has been pointed out to Saintboy when he has made these claims before.

He just lies about it.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't you marry a dog?  Specifically?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another Conservative unable to understand the concept of 'consent'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the child consents, there goes your argument. What you on the immoral Left don't understand is that current laws stating that children don't possess the mens rea to consent to sex with an adult is based on moral ramparts. When you keep eroding morality, you have no control over what topples by consequence. I will be among the holdout remnants fighting to preserve the innocence of children, but we won't be enough. When society collectively abandons all moral restraint, anything goes. I mean anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really should learn the law...and I mean really, REALLY.
> 
> Children cannot consent.
> 
> Tell me...with all this "moral depravity" going on, how come states are raising, not lowering, their age of consent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States are raising the age of consent because 3/4ths of the legislatures and governors are Republican. So now conservatism is being advanced on a state level. You didn't really think you immoral Leftists had anything to do with that, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't being changed by the current kooky crop. Man, you just can't help yourself can you?
> 
> Age of consent laws have ONLY been going up in the US. You made the claim that marriage equality will cause them to be lowered. You're "mistaken" again. (Gays have been marrying for a decade in Massachusetts.)
Click to expand...


Huh... 

So tell me, when the APA declares that children are not injured through a loving sexual relationship with a caring adult, removing all stigmatic criteria from the Scrolls of Mental Health and through such counsel the legislatures that children who have long since been sexualized by the Media at 6 and 8 years old... and age of consent is lifted, as were the sodomy laws... where will you come down on that?

Will you proudly report to "it's LEGAL!" or not?

Now folks, 20 years ago, she would have returned to inform us that such a thought is "SICK!" and that children are not capable of consenting to sexual behavior with anyone... but that was then, back before Relativism had completely rinsed all sense of morality from the Left.

Today, we know for a fact that she will not be able to answer in the affirmative, because to do so presents a moral sense and where a sense of morality exists, there's no place for open homosexuality.

See how that works?


----------



## GreenBean

Lilah said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nero was known to ride around his courtyard butt naked - jerking off while people were hung on poles and burnt alive - but hey that was his sexual disposition -  That's how he got his rocks off - who are we to Judge ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem judging murderers- or distinguishing between rapists and consenting adults having sex.
> 
> You apparently however do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand the connection between Homosexuality,Bestiality,Pedophilia,Necrophilia and assorted sexual dysphorias ?   ---- are you aware of the  *"50 shades of Gay"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name that connection, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Start Here - let me know if you are able to comprehend it , sorry not too many pictures
> 
> Paraphilias Sexuality and Sexual Disorders Merck Manual Professional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are quite smug, aren't you.  If you believe there is a connection between homosexuality, ,beastialality, pedophilia, necrophilia and assorted sexual (dysphorias), including authors such as E.L. James, then surely you must also believe that there is a connection between depression, apathy and murder.  What would you say is the connection between sociopathic serial killers and gender dysphoria serial killers?
> What would you say is the connection between a man who sits in front of his computer all day and watches porn and a woman who has read *Fifty Shades of Gray*  and wants to participate in sexual games or a President who likes to play sexual games in the Oval Office?
Click to expand...





> You are quite smug, aren't you.



"Smug" like many adjectives, is a relative term. If you define smug as demonstrating an excessive pride in ones knowledge of a particular subject as opposed to ones adversaries - you bet your sweet ass I am  - I mean look at the adversaries I'm dealing with here - roll all their IQs together and you'd be lucky if you got into the triple digits.  Now,  I am excluding you from that comment - because so far you are an unknown value. 



> If you believe there is a connection between homosexuality, ,beastialality, pedophilia, necrophilia and assorted sexual (dysphorias)....then surely you must also believe that there is a connection between depression, apathy and murder.



You're making absolutely no sense whatsoever - take a deep breath - count to 10 - think it out - collect your thoughts into a cohesive and organized blurb and then shoot it at me again - *Thank You 
*


> including authors such as E.L. James



E.L. James !!??  -  My reference to her work 50 shades of Gray was a play on words  - she wrote 50 shades of gray - i said 50 shades of Gay  - This discussion is not about her literary work . 



> What would you say is the connection between a man who sits in front of his computer all day and watches porn and a woman who has read *Fifty Shades of Gray*  and wants to participate in sexual games



Who cares ?  and what is your point - they're grown ass people and can do as they please .  

Again you seem to be missing the entire point - or perhaps I and others have failed to convey the issue to you correctly - I do apologize , but I don't have a degree in elementary education. 

They say a picture is worth a thousand words - you seem to have a reading comprehension problem so perhaps the following imagery will help to clarify things a tad - although thats not likely.










> or a President who likes to play sexual games in the Oval Office?



Define Sex


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the child consents, there goes your argument. What you on the immoral Left don't understand is that current laws stating that children don't possess the mens rea to consent to sex with an adult is based on moral ramparts. When you keep eroding morality, you have no control over what topples by consequence. I will be among the holdout remnants fighting to preserve the innocence of children, but we won't be enough. When society collectively abandons all moral restraint, anything goes. I mean anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really should learn the law...and I mean really, REALLY.
> 
> Children cannot consent.
> 
> Tell me...with all this "moral depravity" going on, how come states are raising, not lowering, their age of consent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States are raising the age of consent because 3/4ths of the legislatures and governors are Republican. So now conservatism is being advanced on a state level. You didn't really think you immoral Leftists had anything to do with that, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't being changed by the current kooky crop. Man, you just can't help yourself can you?
> 
> Age of consent laws have ONLY been going up in the US. You made the claim that marriage equality will cause them to be lowered. You're "mistaken" again. (Gays have been marrying for a decade in Massachusetts.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Age of consent going up, states controlled by Republican governors and legislatures. Shall I connect the dots for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope...
> 
> Primary Source Text
> Age Limit in Age of Consent Laws. First number is the age in 1880, the second is 1920 and the third 2007.
> 
> 
> United States
> Alabama    10    16    16
> Alaska    -    16    16
> Arizona    12    18    18
> Arkansas     10    16    16
> California    10    18    18
> Colorado    10    18    15
> Connecticut    10    16    16
> District of Columbia    12    16    16
> Delaware    7    16    16
> Florida    10    18    18
> Georgia    10    14    16
> Hawaii    -    -    16
> Idaho    10    18    18
> Illinois    10    16    17
> Indiana    12    16    16
> Iowa    10    16    16
> Kansas    10    18    16
> Kentucky    12    16    16
> Louisiana    12    18    17
> Maine    10    16    16
> Maryland    10    16    16
> Massachusetts    10    16    16
> Michigan    10    16    16
> Minnesota    10    18    16
> Mississippi    10    18    16
> Missouri    12    18    17
> Montana    10    18    16
> Nebraska    10    18    17
> Nevada    12    18    16
> New Hampshire    10    16    16
> New Jersey    10    16    16
> New Mexico    10    16    17
> New York    10    18    17
> North Carolina    10    16    16
> North Dakota    10    18    18
> Ohio    10    16    16
> Oklahoma    -    -    16
> Oregon    10    16    18
> Pennsylvania    10    16    16
> Rhode Island    10    16    16
> South Carolina    10    16    16
> South Dakota    10    18    16
> Tennessee    10    18    18
> Texas    10    18    17
> Utah    10    18    16
> Vermont    10    16    16
> Virginia    12    16    18
> Washington    12    18    16
> West Virginia    12    16    16
> Wisconsin    10    16    18
> Wyoming    10    16    16
> 
> Children and Youth in History Age of Consent Laws Table
Click to expand...


Did you happen to notice even in your list that some states went up and others went down?  And it's immaterial to what we're discussion because none of this pertains to what happens when judges strike down state laws in the name if imaginary rights, rendering your list meaningless.  It isn't about what state laws were in 1920, it's about how meaningless state laws will be when NAMBLA and other hyper libertarian groups argue that their clients aren't being treated equally under the law.

So now that you're caught up with what we're actually discussing, how your pervert movement has laid down important groundwork for other pervert groups to push their own agenda, we can discuss your role in what will soon be a sex free for all that victimizes children.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> *That's quite a lengthy audio*.  Do you know about where the Justices "laughed out loud"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not my problem  You want to know...take the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie.  Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments.  That would dispense with any pretense of objectivity.  Such a gross breach of decorum would certainly have made the papers and no audio link would be required.
> 
> In other words, you're lying and you've been found out.
> 
> Stop lying, Fish breath!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you enjoy being proven wrong? This was just recently....
> 
> When Justice Elena Kagan asked whether states could ban couples over the age of 55 because they wouldn't be able to have kids, Cooper argued that "it is very rare that…both parties to the couple are infertile."* The chamber erupted in laughter.* "No really, because…if both the woman and the man are over 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage," Kagan said,* and the chamber filled with laughter again. *Justice Stephen Breyer was more blunt: "I mean, there are lots of people who get married who can't have children."​*At Supreme Court, Marriage Equality Foes' Best Argument Is That They're Losing*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you're being desperate and in the process proving my point and cementing your reputation as a liar. When there is laughter, it's noteworthy and is recorded in print. No such record exists of the justices laughing while the Virginia attorney general was presenting oral arguments like you claimed.  So you told a lie.  Now you even admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- that is a stunning piece of misrepresentation- even by your own low standards
> 
> Here is what you claimed:
> _"Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie.*  Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments.....*
> 
> *Stop lying, Fish breath!"
> *_
> *Then Seawitch provided proof that refuted your specific claim that Justices never laugh during oral arguments....and it happened again just a few days ago
> 
> Supreme Court justices laugh at Arizona town s church sign laws - Washington Times
> *
> I have no idea whether or not the Justices during Loving laughed out loud or not- and you didn't either- you just assumed that Justices never do that- and called Seawitch a liar- AND then said specifically that 'justices do not 'laugh out loud' while attorneys are presenting oral arguments.
> 
> In other words- you lied. Seawitch caught you in your lie. Maybe she did also- but most certainly you lied.
> 
> Oh and your claim about
> 
> _That would dispense with any pretense of objectivity. _
> 
> Here is a whole article about Supreme Court Justices cracking jokes in court.
Click to expand...


Can you present a case where justices "laughed out loud" during the serious portions of proceedings such as when oral arguments are being presented?

No? Then STFU!


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> no its not,  that is THE PRIMARY question in this debate.   You want gay marriage but you want to prohibit polysexual marriage--------on what legal basis do you want to prohibit multiple marriage?   If you answer truthfully you will repeat the exact reasons many give for opposing gay marriage,  but you won't answer truthfully so its a moot point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you need a rational basis for banning polygamy.
> 
> Here you go: *The Perils of Polygamy*
> 
> You really are attached to your slippery slope!
> 
> What next?  "Then tell me why you can't marry a dog"?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can't you marry a dog?  Specifically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another Conservative unable to understand the concept of 'consent'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what you're saying is that if Rover wags his tail when you display your schwanz - it's not because he thinks it's a snack - it's because he wants you to explore his fecal cavity with it -
> *Is that what you consider consent ?   *
> 
> Now ...  what about that toddler in the crib ... when you stick a bottle in his mouth and he stops crying - I would assume you consider that consent to stick something else in .... ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Another Conservative unable to understand the concept of 'consent'. I am seeing a big pattern here.
> 
> I can't believe that all Conservatives are unable to tell the difference between rape and sex with a consenting adult- is it just the Conservatives who are also bigots?
Click to expand...


We do know the difference, subsumed into a broader knowledge of the difference between right and wrong, something that you on the Left do not possess.   We're saying that the people who don't know the difference, NAMBLA and other child-adult sex advocacy groups are in your camp and will gratefully be using your playbook to legalize sex with minors.  What you faggots don't understand is that you can't say, "We want our brand of immorality, but we don't want it to go any further."  You can't control that any more than you can control a wildfire that you started.  You think that your depravity should enjoy legal status but somebody else's should not.  Guess what?  There are other perverts who think they deserve the same rights as you perverts.

Big freakin surprise!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Lilah said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nero was known to ride around his courtyard butt naked - jerking off while people were hung on poles and burnt alive - but hey that was his sexual disposition -  That's how he got his rocks off - who are we to Judge ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem judging murderers- or distinguishing between rapists and consenting adults having sex.
> 
> You apparently however do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand the connection between Homosexuality,Bestiality,Pedophilia,Necrophilia and assorted sexual dysphorias ?   ---- are you aware of the  *"50 shades of Gay"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name that connection, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Start Here - let me know if you are able to comprehend it , sorry not too many pictures
> 
> Paraphilias Sexuality and Sexual Disorders Merck Manual Professional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are quite smug, aren't you.  If you believe there is a connection between homosexuality, ,beastialality, pedophilia, necrophilia and assorted sexual (dysphorias)...
Click to expand...


They're sexual abnormalities... that's the connection.  They all share the connection that their reasoning is a perverse variant of human reasoning.


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really should learn the law...and I mean really, REALLY.
> 
> Children cannot consent.
> 
> Tell me...with all this "moral depravity" going on, how come states are raising, not lowering, their age of consent?
> 
> 
> 
> States are raising the age of consent because 3/4ths of the legislatures and governors are Republican. So now conservatism is being advanced on a state level. You didn't really think you immoral Leftists had anything to do with that, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't being changed by the current kooky crop. Man, you just can't help yourself can you?
> 
> Age of consent laws have ONLY been going up in the US. You made the claim that marriage equality will cause them to be lowered. You're "mistaken" again. (Gays have been marrying for a decade in Massachusetts.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Age of consent going up, states controlled by Republican governors and legislatures. Shall I connect the dots for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope...
> 
> Primary Source Text
> Age Limit in Age of Consent Laws. First number is the age in 1880, the second is 1920 and the third 2007.
> 
> 
> United States
> Alabama    10    16    16
> Alaska    -    16    16
> Arizona    12    18    18
> Arkansas     10    16    16
> California    10    18    18
> Colorado    10    18    15
> Connecticut    10    16    16
> District of Columbia    12    16    16
> Delaware    7    16    16
> Florida    10    18    18
> Georgia    10    14    16
> Hawaii    -    -    16
> Idaho    10    18    18
> Illinois    10    16    17
> Indiana    12    16    16
> Iowa    10    16    16
> Kansas    10    18    16
> Kentucky    12    16    16
> Louisiana    12    18    17
> Maine    10    16    16
> Maryland    10    16    16
> Massachusetts    10    16    16
> Michigan    10    16    16
> Minnesota    10    18    16
> Mississippi    10    18    16
> Missouri    12    18    17
> Montana    10    18    16
> Nebraska    10    18    17
> Nevada    12    18    16
> New Hampshire    10    16    16
> New Jersey    10    16    16
> New Mexico    10    16    17
> New York    10    18    17
> North Carolina    10    16    16
> North Dakota    10    18    18
> Ohio    10    16    16
> Oklahoma    -    -    16
> Oregon    10    16    18
> Pennsylvania    10    16    16
> Rhode Island    10    16    16
> South Carolina    10    16    16
> South Dakota    10    18    16
> Tennessee    10    18    18
> Texas    10    18    17
> Utah    10    18    16
> Vermont    10    16    16
> Virginia    12    16    18
> Washington    12    18    16
> West Virginia    12    16    16
> Wisconsin    10    16    18
> Wyoming    10    16    16
> 
> Children and Youth in History Age of Consent Laws Table
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you happen to notice even in your list that some states went up and others went down?  And it's immaterial to what we're discussion because none of this pertains to what happens when judges strike down state laws in the name if imaginary rights, rendering your list meaningless.  It isn't about what state laws were in 1920, it's about how meaningless state laws will be when NAMBLA and other hyper libertarian groups argue that their clients aren't being treated equally under the law.
> 
> So now that you're caught up with what we're actually discussing, how your pervert movement has laid down important groundwork for other pervert groups to push their own agenda, we can discuss your role in what will soon be a sex free for all that victimizes children.
Click to expand...


What I noticed is that it did not support your claim. What I noticed is that historically the age of consent has been going up. What I know is that your hyperbole is just a manifestation of your anti gay bigotry.


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not my problem  You want to know...take the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie.  Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments.  That would dispense with any pretense of objectivity.  Such a gross breach of decorum would certainly have made the papers and no audio link would be required.
> 
> In other words, you're lying and you've been found out.
> 
> Stop lying, Fish breath!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you enjoy being proven wrong? This was just recently....
> 
> When Justice Elena Kagan asked whether states could ban couples over the age of 55 because they wouldn't be able to have kids, Cooper argued that "it is very rare that…both parties to the couple are infertile."* The chamber erupted in laughter.* "No really, because…if both the woman and the man are over 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage," Kagan said,* and the chamber filled with laughter again. *Justice Stephen Breyer was more blunt: "I mean, there are lots of people who get married who can't have children."​*At Supreme Court, Marriage Equality Foes' Best Argument Is That They're Losing*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you're being desperate and in the process proving my point and cementing your reputation as a liar. When there is laughter, it's noteworthy and is recorded in print. No such record exists of the justices laughing while the Virginia attorney general was presenting oral arguments like you claimed.  So you told a lie.  Now you even admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- that is a stunning piece of misrepresentation- even by your own low standards
> 
> Here is what you claimed:
> _"Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie.*  Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments.....*
> 
> *Stop lying, Fish breath!"
> *_
> *Then Seawitch provided proof that refuted your specific claim that Justices never laugh during oral arguments....and it happened again just a few days ago
> 
> Supreme Court justices laugh at Arizona town s church sign laws - Washington Times
> *
> I have no idea whether or not the Justices during Loving laughed out loud or not- and you didn't either- you just assumed that Justices never do that- and called Seawitch a liar- AND then said specifically that 'justices do not 'laugh out loud' while attorneys are presenting oral arguments.
> 
> In other words- you lied. Seawitch caught you in your lie. Maybe she did also- but most certainly you lied.
> 
> Oh and your claim about
> 
> _That would dispense with any pretense of objectivity. _
> 
> Here is a whole article about Supreme Court Justices cracking jokes in court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you present a case where justices "laughed out loud" during the serious portions of proceedings such as when oral arguments are being presented?
> 
> No? Then STFU!
Click to expand...


You made a claim, it was proven false. Move on.


----------



## GreenBean

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really should learn the law...and I mean really, REALLY.
> 
> Children cannot consent.
> 
> Tell me...with all this "moral depravity" going on, how come states are raising, not lowering, their age of consent?
> 
> 
> 
> States are raising the age of consent because 3/4ths of the legislatures and governors are Republican. So now conservatism is being advanced on a state level. You didn't really think you immoral Leftists had anything to do with that, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't being changed by the current kooky crop. Man, you just can't help yourself can you?
> 
> Age of consent laws have ONLY been going up in the US. You made the claim that marriage equality will cause them to be lowered. You're "mistaken" again. (Gays have been marrying for a decade in Massachusetts.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Age of consent going up, states controlled by Republican governors and legislatures. Shall I connect the dots for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope...
> 
> Primary Source Text
> Age Limit in Age of Consent Laws. First number is the age in 1880, the second is 1920 and the third 2007.
> 
> 
> United States
> Alabama    10    16    16
> Alaska    -    16    16
> Arizona    12    18    18
> Arkansas     10    16    16
> California    10    18    18
> Colorado    10    18    15
> Connecticut    10    16    16
> District of Columbia    12    16    16
> Delaware    7    16    16
> Florida    10    18    18
> Georgia    10    14    16
> Hawaii    -    -    16
> Idaho    10    18    18
> Illinois    10    16    17
> Indiana    12    16    16
> Iowa    10    16    16
> Kansas    10    18    16
> Kentucky    12    16    16
> Louisiana    12    18    17
> Maine    10    16    16
> Maryland    10    16    16
> Massachusetts    10    16    16
> Michigan    10    16    16
> Minnesota    10    18    16
> Mississippi    10    18    16
> Missouri    12    18    17
> Montana    10    18    16
> Nebraska    10    18    17
> Nevada    12    18    16
> New Hampshire    10    16    16
> New Jersey    10    16    16
> New Mexico    10    16    17
> New York    10    18    17
> North Carolina    10    16    16
> North Dakota    10    18    18
> Ohio    10    16    16
> Oklahoma    -    -    16
> Oregon    10    16    18
> Pennsylvania    10    16    16
> Rhode Island    10    16    16
> South Carolina    10    16    16
> South Dakota    10    18    16
> Tennessee    10    18    18
> Texas    10    18    17
> Utah    10    18    16
> Vermont    10    16    16
> Virginia    12    16    18
> Washington    12    18    16
> West Virginia    12    16    16
> Wisconsin    10    16    18
> Wyoming    10    16    16
> 
> Children and Youth in History Age of Consent Laws Table
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you happen to notice even in your list that some states went up and others went down?  And it's immaterial to what we're discussion because none of this pertains to what happens when judges strike down state laws in the name if imaginary rights, rendering your list meaningless.  It isn't about what state laws were in 1920, it's about how meaningless state laws will be when NAMBLA and other hyper libertarian groups argue that their clients aren't being treated equally under the law.
> 
> So now that you're caught up with what we're actually discussing, how your pervert movement has laid down important groundwork for other pervert groups to push their own agenda, we can discuss your role in what will soon be a sex free for all that victimizes children.
Click to expand...


During the time frames when age of consent was significantly lower than today - faggots and dikes were kept where they belong - in the closet.

Today , in many cases - a Fag "out of the closet"  is merely a pedophile with one foot still in it - salivating at the thought of getting his other foot out so he can finally be free of the yoke of heterosexual oppression .  


*The LGBT next crusade: Normalizing adult-child sex*

NAMBLA, ACLU, MSNBC, GLSEN and elsewhere have been ramping-up efforts to downsize from “consenting adults” to merely “consenting” – a far less cumbersome qualifier in the noble struggle for unrestrained sexual license.

Tolerating “intergenerational romance” for “minor-attracted” adults is all the rage these days.  The rhetoric that the SeaHag has been using is one of their initial steps 


Ref: The next homosexualist goal elimination of 8220 age of consent 8221 license for pedophiles Fr. Z s Blog


----------



## GreenBean

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Guess what? There are other perverts who think they deserve the same rights as you perverts.




*"other perverts" ??  A Pervert is a Pervert -* although there are varying degrees of degeneracy -[50 Shades of Gay] so long as the perverts are banded together and align themselves with one another - one is as guilty as the other .  

Enabling a pervert is tantamount to handing the murderer the gun he uses to perpetrate his crime .  The Vatican was an accomplice by enabling those Gay Priests in molesting all those little boys - just as  people such as SeaHag and Syriously are accomplices in defending LGBT.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> States are raising the age of consent because 3/4ths of the legislatures and governors are Republican. So now conservatism is being advanced on a state level. You didn't really think you immoral Leftists had anything to do with that, did you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't being changed by the current kooky crop. Man, you just can't help yourself can you?
> 
> Age of consent laws have ONLY been going up in the US. You made the claim that marriage equality will cause them to be lowered. You're "mistaken" again. (Gays have been marrying for a decade in Massachusetts.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Age of consent going up, states controlled by Republican governors and legislatures. Shall I connect the dots for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope...
> 
> Primary Source Text
> Age Limit in Age of Consent Laws. First number is the age in 1880, the second is 1920 and the third 2007.
> 
> 
> United States
> Alabama    10    16    16
> Alaska    -    16    16
> Arizona    12    18    18
> Arkansas     10    16    16
> California    10    18    18
> Colorado    10    18    15
> Connecticut    10    16    16
> District of Columbia    12    16    16
> Delaware    7    16    16
> Florida    10    18    18
> Georgia    10    14    16
> Hawaii    -    -    16
> Idaho    10    18    18
> Illinois    10    16    17
> Indiana    12    16    16
> Iowa    10    16    16
> Kansas    10    18    16
> Kentucky    12    16    16
> Louisiana    12    18    17
> Maine    10    16    16
> Maryland    10    16    16
> Massachusetts    10    16    16
> Michigan    10    16    16
> Minnesota    10    18    16
> Mississippi    10    18    16
> Missouri    12    18    17
> Montana    10    18    16
> Nebraska    10    18    17
> Nevada    12    18    16
> New Hampshire    10    16    16
> New Jersey    10    16    16
> New Mexico    10    16    17
> New York    10    18    17
> North Carolina    10    16    16
> North Dakota    10    18    18
> Ohio    10    16    16
> Oklahoma    -    -    16
> Oregon    10    16    18
> Pennsylvania    10    16    16
> Rhode Island    10    16    16
> South Carolina    10    16    16
> South Dakota    10    18    16
> Tennessee    10    18    18
> Texas    10    18    17
> Utah    10    18    16
> Vermont    10    16    16
> Virginia    12    16    18
> Washington    12    18    16
> West Virginia    12    16    16
> Wisconsin    10    16    18
> Wyoming    10    16    16
> 
> Children and Youth in History Age of Consent Laws Table
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you happen to notice even in your list that some states went up and others went down?  And it's immaterial to what we're discussion because none of this pertains to what happens when judges strike down state laws in the name if imaginary rights, rendering your list meaningless.  It isn't about what state laws were in 1920, it's about how meaningless state laws will be when NAMBLA and other hyper libertarian groups argue that their clients aren't being treated equally under the law.
> 
> So now that you're caught up with what we're actually discussing, how your pervert movement has laid down important groundwork for other pervert groups to push their own agenda, we can discuss your role in what will soon be a sex free for all that victimizes children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I noticed is that it did not support your claim. What I noticed is that historically the age of consent has been going up. What I know is that your hyperbole is just a manifestation of your anti gay bigotry.
Click to expand...


What I noticed, is that you didn't respond to the simple question, wherein you were asked that when "SCIENCE!" claims that _'There is no potential injury to a child who willingly engages in a loving sexual relationship with a caring adult' and when that "SCIENCE!" is used to remove the age of consent, *will you support the removal of the age of consent laws, as you've supported the removal of the sodomy laws?' *

_


----------



## rcfieldz

Marriage is between a man and woman. The U.S. government has been taken over by Satan lovers!!!


----------



## Lilah

GreenBean said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem judging murderers- or distinguishing between rapists and consenting adults having sex.
> 
> You apparently however do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand the connection between Homosexuality,Bestiality,Pedophilia,Necrophilia and assorted sexual dysphorias ?   ---- are you aware of the  *"50 shades of Gay"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name that connection, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Start Here - let me know if you are able to comprehend it , sorry not too many pictures
> 
> Paraphilias Sexuality and Sexual Disorders Merck Manual Professional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are quite smug, aren't you.  If you believe there is a connection between homosexuality, ,beastialality, pedophilia, necrophilia and assorted sexual (dysphorias), including authors such as E.L. James, then surely you must also believe that there is a connection between depression, apathy and murder.  What would you say is the connection between sociopathic serial killers and gender dysphoria serial killers?
> What would you say is the connection between a man who sits in front of his computer all day and watches porn and a woman who has read *Fifty Shades of Gray*  and wants to participate in sexual games or a President who likes to play sexual games in the Oval Office?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are quite smug, aren't you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Smug" like many adjectives, is a relative term. If you define smug as demonstrating an excessive pride in ones knowledge of a particular subject as opposed to ones adversaries - you bet your sweet ass I am  - I mean look at the adversaries I'm dealing with here - roll all their IQs together and you'd be lucky if you got into the triple digits.  Now,  I am excluding you from that comment - because so far you are an unknown value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe there is a connection between homosexuality, ,beastialality, pedophilia, necrophilia and assorted sexual (dysphorias)....then surely you must also believe that there is a connection between depression, apathy and murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making absolutely no sense whatsoever - take a deep breath - count to 10 - think it out - collect your thoughts into a cohesive and organized blurb and then shoot it at me again - *Thank You
> *
> 
> 
> 
> including authors such as E.L. James
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> E.L. James !!??  -  My reference to her work 50 shades of Gray was a play on words  - she wrote 50 shades of gray - i said 50 shades of Gay  - This discussion is not about her literary work .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would you say is the connection between a man who sits in front of his computer all day and watches porn and a woman who has read *Fifty Shades of Gray*  and wants to participate in sexual games
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares ?  and what is your point - they're grown ass people and can do as they please .
> 
> Again you seem to be missing the entire point - or perhaps I and others have failed to convey the issue to you correctly - I do apologize , but I don't have a degree in elementary education.
> 
> They say a picture is worth a thousand words - you seem to have a reading comprehension problem so perhaps the following imagery will help to clarify things a tad - although thats not likely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or a President who likes to play sexual games in the Oval Office?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define Sex
Click to expand...


"A picture is worth a thousand words."  Wake up, Inspector Clouseau.  Today, photos can be digitally edited to show a completely different image, much like you.


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem judging murderers- or distinguishing between rapists and consenting adults having sex.
> 
> You apparently however do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand the connection between Homosexuality,Bestiality,Pedophilia,Necrophilia and assorted sexual dysphorias ?   ---- are you aware of the  *"50 shades of Gay"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name that connection, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Start Here - let me know if you are able to comprehend it , sorry not too many pictures
> 
> Paraphilias Sexuality and Sexual Disorders Merck Manual Professional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are quite smug, aren't you.  If you believe there is a connection between homosexuality, ,beastialality, pedophilia, necrophilia and assorted sexual (dysphorias)...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're sexual abnormalities... that's the connection.  They all share the connection that their reasoning is a perverse variant of human reasoning.
Click to expand...


Would you go so far as to say Bill Cosby shares a link in that connection?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie.  Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments.  That would dispense with any pretense of objectivity.  Such a gross breach of decorum would certainly have made the papers and no audio link would be required.
> 
> In other words, you're lying and you've been found out.
> 
> Stop lying, Fish breath!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you enjoy being proven wrong? This was just recently....
> 
> When Justice Elena Kagan asked whether states could ban couples over the age of 55 because they wouldn't be able to have kids, Cooper argued that "it is very rare that…both parties to the couple are infertile."* The chamber erupted in laughter.* "No really, because…if both the woman and the man are over 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage," Kagan said,* and the chamber filled with laughter again. *Justice Stephen Breyer was more blunt: "I mean, there are lots of people who get married who can't have children."​*At Supreme Court, Marriage Equality Foes' Best Argument Is That They're Losing*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you're being desperate and in the process proving my point and cementing your reputation as a liar. When there is laughter, it's noteworthy and is recorded in print. No such record exists of the justices laughing while the Virginia attorney general was presenting oral arguments like you claimed.  So you told a lie.  Now you even admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- that is a stunning piece of misrepresentation- even by your own low standards
> 
> Here is what you claimed:
> _"Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie.*  Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments.....*
> 
> *Stop lying, Fish breath!"
> *_
> *Then Seawitch provided proof that refuted your specific claim that Justices never laugh during oral arguments....and it happened again just a few days ago
> 
> Supreme Court justices laugh at Arizona town s church sign laws - Washington Times
> *
> I have no idea whether or not the Justices during Loving laughed out loud or not- and you didn't either- you just assumed that Justices never do that- and called Seawitch a liar- AND then said specifically that 'justices do not 'laugh out loud' while attorneys are presenting oral arguments.
> 
> In other words- you lied. Seawitch caught you in your lie. Maybe she did also- but most certainly you lied.
> 
> Oh and your claim about
> 
> _That would dispense with any pretense of objectivity. _
> 
> Here is a whole article about Supreme Court Justices cracking jokes in court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you present a case where justices "laughed out loud" during the serious portions of proceedings such as when oral arguments are being presented?
> 
> No? Then STFU!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made a claim, it was proven false. Move on.
Click to expand...


No, you made a claim that was proven false.  Now you're just being a child. Good bye child.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

GreenBean said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess what? There are other perverts who think they deserve the same rights as you perverts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"other perverts" ??  A Pervert is a Pervert -* although there are varying degrees of degeneracy -[50 Shades of Gay] so long as the perverts are banded together and align themselves with one another - one is as guilty as the other .
> 
> Enabling a pervert is tantamount to handing the murderer the gun he uses to perpetrate his crime .  The Vatican was an accomplice by enabling those Gay Priests in molesting all those little boys - just as  people such as SeaHag and Syriously are accomplices in defending LGBT.
Click to expand...


I agree. Though one small correction, it was bishops and cardinals of certain diocese that covered for offending priests, moving them around instead of alerting the authorities and defrocking them.  The strong effort to reform the Church's practice came from the Vatican, including the wise move to prohibit homosexuals from entering the priesthood anymore whereas before sexual orientation was considered a private manner.  It seems the Catholic Church drew the same connections that you, I, and other experts did, that homosexuality is virtually indistinguishable from pederasty and the only way to prevent pederasty is to remove the homosexuals from the priesthood. For a brief synopsis, the problem came from bishops and cardinals, the solution came from the Vatican.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Lilah said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand the connection between Homosexuality,Bestiality,Pedophilia,Necrophilia and assorted sexual dysphorias ?   ---- are you aware of the  *"50 shades of Gay"*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name that connection, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Start Here - let me know if you are able to comprehend it , sorry not too many pictures
> 
> Paraphilias Sexuality and Sexual Disorders Merck Manual Professional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are quite smug, aren't you.  If you believe there is a connection between homosexuality, ,beastialality, pedophilia, necrophilia and assorted sexual (dysphorias)...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're sexual abnormalities... that's the connection.  They all share the connection that their reasoning is a perverse variant of human reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you go so far as to say Bill Cosby shares a link in that connection?
Click to expand...


What does Bill Cosby have to do with this discussion?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Lilah said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand the connection between Homosexuality,Bestiality,Pedophilia,Necrophilia and assorted sexual dysphorias ?   ---- are you aware of the  *"50 shades of Gay"*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name that connection, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Start Here - let me know if you are able to comprehend it , sorry not too many pictures
> 
> Paraphilias Sexuality and Sexual Disorders Merck Manual Professional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are quite smug, aren't you.  If you believe there is a connection between homosexuality, ,beastialality, pedophilia, necrophilia and assorted sexual (dysphorias)...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're sexual abnormalities... that's the connection.  They all share the connection that their reasoning is a perverse variant of human reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you go so far as to say Bill Cosby shares a link in that connection?
Click to expand...


LOL!  What?  

_Ibhuh, dunbah knowbah whatbuh you be talkin the fuck aboutbuh.
_
Can you clairify?


----------



## Lilah

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name that connection, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Start Here - let me know if you are able to comprehend it , sorry not too many pictures
> 
> Paraphilias Sexuality and Sexual Disorders Merck Manual Professional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are quite smug, aren't you.  If you believe there is a connection between homosexuality, ,beastialality, pedophilia, necrophilia and assorted sexual (dysphorias)...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're sexual abnormalities... that's the connection.  They all share the connection that their reasoning is a perverse variant of human reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you go so far as to say Bill Cosby shares a link in that connection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does Bill Cosby have to do with this discussion?
Click to expand...


According to Tina Fey, he put de pills into de peoples, and de peoples didn't want them.


----------



## Redfish

Seawytch said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the mandate is safe.  If not, it will be fixed within two weeks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> obamacare is terrible legislation.  it is hurting the people it claimed to be trying to help.  it is costing the country billions and is driving doctors out of medicine.  It must be repealed or drastically changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except none of that is true. The Affordable Care Act is helping people. Lives have actually been saved by this legislation. People who never had health insurance now have it.
> 
> 7 Charts That Prove Obamacare Is Working
> 
> *More people have insurance:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *People who are getting health insurance are almost certainly better off.*
> 
> 
> 
> The Real Numbers On 'The Obamacare Effect' Are In-Now Let The Crow Eating Begin
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There are at least 4 “losers” for every “winner” under Obamacare;
> Even excluding “minimal losers” and “minimal winners,” there are more than 2 “losers” for every “winner”
> Similarly, there are at least three times as many “big losers” as “big winners.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Health policy wonks are likely familiar with a chart that got wide circulation in the blogosphere in late October (especially among progressives)–characterized by David Weigel at _Slate_as “The Chart That Could Save Obamacare.” Originally created by Brookings fellow Justin Wolfers and Tweeted on Halloween, the chart was based on estimates provided by Jonathan Gruber in an interview with Ryan Lizza that appeared in  _The New Yorker_. Here’s the “bottom line” as summarized by Lizza:
> 
> Gruber summarized his stats: ninety-seven per cent of Americans are either left alone or are clear winners, while three per cent are arguably losers. “We have to as a society be able to accept that,” he said. “Don’t get me wrong, that’s a shame, but no law in the history of America makes everyone better off.”
> 
> Over at _Business Insider_, Josh Barro quibbled with the details, but nevertheless concurred: “It’s clear that Obamacare creates more winners than losers.”  This assessment echoed the conclusionof _Washington Post_‘s fact checker, Glenn Kessler (admittedly, made 2 weeks before Justin Wolfers’ chart had been Tweeted): ”quite likely the number of winners from the law is larger than the losers.” At Bloomberg, Megan McArdle pointed out that Mr. Barro was far too optimistic but she didn’t attempt to recalculate a more accurate number (or ratio) of winners or losers.  In reality, the number of winners is far smaller than Gruber claims, while the number of losers is far larger.
> 
> And even though I believe that as of mid-January, _chances are better than even that Obamacare has not reduced the net number uninsured by a single person_[1] this post makes a much stronger claim. While Obamacare unquestionably will do some good, the best evidence suggests that even if the law is fully implemented (something that at this juncture surely is in doubt), the number of losers almost certainly will outweigh the number of winners:
> 
> The Chart That Could Sink Obamacare - Forbes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your chart doesn't make your case, you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This one makes the case for "Obamacare":
Click to expand...

 

yes, the people who are now getting free (subsidized) insurance are better off.  Everyone paying a premium is worse off.  Their premiums may be unchanged but their coverage is less, their deductibles are higher and they cannot use the doctors they choose.

obama care is terrible legislation that was passsed in the most corrupt way.


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name that connection, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Start Here - let me know if you are able to comprehend it , sorry not too many pictures
> 
> Paraphilias Sexuality and Sexual Disorders Merck Manual Professional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are quite smug, aren't you.  If you believe there is a connection between homosexuality, ,beastialality, pedophilia, necrophilia and assorted sexual (dysphorias)...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're sexual abnormalities... that's the connection.  They all share the connection that their reasoning is a perverse variant of human reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you go so far as to say Bill Cosby shares a link in that connection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  What?
> 
> _Ibhuh, dunbah knowbah whatbuh you be talkin the fuck aboutbuh.
> _
> Can you clairify?
Click to expand...


Twenty-six plus women have accused Cosby of drugging them and raping them; the oldest being 71 years-old.  Would you consider him to be a sexual deviant?  And why is someone of your righteous status talking trash?  Remember, you have a ticket on the first bus to Heaven.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Lilah said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Start Here - let me know if you are able to comprehend it , sorry not too many pictures
> 
> Paraphilias Sexuality and Sexual Disorders Merck Manual Professional
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are quite smug, aren't you.  If you believe there is a connection between homosexuality, ,beastialality, pedophilia, necrophilia and assorted sexual (dysphorias)...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're sexual abnormalities... that's the connection.  They all share the connection that their reasoning is a perverse variant of human reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you go so far as to say Bill Cosby shares a link in that connection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does Bill Cosby have to do with this discussion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Tina Fey, he put de pills into de peoples, and de peoples didn't want them.
Click to expand...


So you're grafting Bill Cosby into the conversation based on that?  An accusation is a foregone conclusion for you? That's not even remotely a standard of proof needed for intelligent conversation.  You just outed yourself as an idiot.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Lilah said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Start Here - let me know if you are able to comprehend it , sorry not too many pictures
> 
> Paraphilias Sexuality and Sexual Disorders Merck Manual Professional
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are quite smug, aren't you.  If you believe there is a connection between homosexuality, ,beastialality, pedophilia, necrophilia and assorted sexual (dysphorias)...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're sexual abnormalities... that's the connection.  They all share the connection that their reasoning is a perverse variant of human reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you go so far as to say Bill Cosby shares a link in that connection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  What?
> 
> _Ibhuh, dunbah knowbah whatbuh you be talkin the fuck aboutbuh.
> _
> Can you clairify?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twenty-six plus women have accused Cosby of drugging them and raping them; the oldest being 71 years-old.  Would you consider him to be a sexual deviant?  And why is someone of your righteous status talking trash?  Remember, you have a ticket on the first bus to Heaven.
Click to expand...


Sexual predation, is sexual deviancy... .  

Can you site an example of my talking trash?  Not sure what you're speaking of.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Lilah said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Start Here - let me know if you are able to comprehend it , sorry not too many pictures
> 
> Paraphilias Sexuality and Sexual Disorders Merck Manual Professional
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are quite smug, aren't you.  If you believe there is a connection between homosexuality, ,beastialality, pedophilia, necrophilia and assorted sexual (dysphorias)...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're sexual abnormalities... that's the connection.  They all share the connection that their reasoning is a perverse variant of human reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you go so far as to say Bill Cosby shares a link in that connection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  What?
> 
> _Ibhuh, dunbah knowbah whatbuh you be talkin the fuck aboutbuh.
> _
> Can you clairify?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twenty-six plus women have accused Cosby of drugging them and raping them; the oldest being 71 years-old.  Would you consider him to be a sexual deviant?  And why is someone of your righteous status talking trash?  Remember, you have a ticket on the first bus to Heaven.
Click to expand...


26 accusations are still just accusations. Not proof.  You don't get to cite Bill Cosby as an example of sexual deviancy based on accusations.  That doesn't fly here.


----------



## Lilah

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are quite smug, aren't you.  If you believe there is a connection between homosexuality, ,beastialality, pedophilia, necrophilia and assorted sexual (dysphorias)...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're sexual abnormalities... that's the connection.  They all share the connection that their reasoning is a perverse variant of human reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you go so far as to say Bill Cosby shares a link in that connection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does Bill Cosby have to do with this discussion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Tina Fey, he put de pills into de peoples, and de peoples didn't want them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're grafting Bill Cosby into the conversation based on that?  An accusation is a foregone conclusion for you? That's not even remotely a standard of proof needed for intelligent conversation.  You just outed yourself as an idiot.
Click to expand...


When twenty-six women come forward to tell their stories about an American icon without seeking monetary damages, I for one, believe them..  When a 90 year-old man, who worked for NBC during the Cosby Show as Cosby's facilities manager, says Cosby had everybody fooled because he was in charge of arranging payments to the women Cosby had affairs with, I believe him.
I'm including Cosby into the conversation because I believe him to be a sexual pervert; someone who has hurt many, many women.
Why doesn't Cosby face the accusers, look them in face, and deny the charges instead of hiding behind high-priced lawyers?


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are quite smug, aren't you.  If you believe there is a connection between homosexuality, ,beastialality, pedophilia, necrophilia and assorted sexual (dysphorias)...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're sexual abnormalities... that's the connection.  They all share the connection that their reasoning is a perverse variant of human reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you go so far as to say Bill Cosby shares a link in that connection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  What?
> 
> _Ibhuh, dunbah knowbah whatbuh you be talkin the fuck aboutbuh.
> _
> Can you clairify?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twenty-six plus women have accused Cosby of drugging them and raping them; the oldest being 71 years-old.  Would you consider him to be a sexual deviant?  And why is someone of your righteous status talking trash?  Remember, you have a ticket on the first bus to Heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sexual predation, is sexual deviancy... .
> 
> Can you site an example of my talking trash?  Not sure what you're speaking of.
Click to expand...


If you want to pretend to be naïve, go ahead.


----------



## Lilah

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are quite smug, aren't you.  If you believe there is a connection between homosexuality, ,beastialality, pedophilia, necrophilia and assorted sexual (dysphorias)...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're sexual abnormalities... that's the connection.  They all share the connection that their reasoning is a perverse variant of human reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you go so far as to say Bill Cosby shares a link in that connection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  What?
> 
> _Ibhuh, dunbah knowbah whatbuh you be talkin the fuck aboutbuh.
> _
> Can you clairify?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twenty-six plus women have accused Cosby of drugging them and raping them; the oldest being 71 years-old.  Would you consider him to be a sexual deviant?  And why is someone of your righteous status talking trash?  Remember, you have a ticket on the first bus to Heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 26 accusations are still just accusations. Not proof.  You don't get to cite Bill Cosby as an example of sexual deviancy based on accusations.  That doesn't fly here.
Click to expand...


I hate bullies, so stop bullying me.  As I've mentioned, if Cosby is an innocent little lamb, then he should stand before his accusers, look them in the eye, and call them liars.  He can't do it because he's guilty.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Lilah said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're sexual abnormalities... that's the connection.  They all share the connection that their reasoning is a perverse variant of human reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you go so far as to say Bill Cosby shares a link in that connection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does Bill Cosby have to do with this discussion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Tina Fey, he put de pills into de peoples, and de peoples didn't want them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're grafting Bill Cosby into the conversation based on that?  An accusation is a foregone conclusion for you? That's not even remotely a standard of proof needed for intelligent conversation.  You just outed yourself as an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When twenty-six women come forward to tell their stories about an American icon without seeking monetary damages, I for one, believe them..  When a 90 year-old man, who worked for NBC during the Cosby Show as Cosby's facilities manager, says Cosby had everybody fooled because he was in charge of arranging payments to the women Cosby had affairs with, I believe him.
> I'm including Cosby into the conversation because I believe him to be a sexual pervert; someone who has hurt many, many women.
> Why doesn't Cosby face the accusers, look them in face, and deny the charges instead of hiding behind high-priced lawyers?
Click to expand...


You believing them is not proof.  Bill Cosby is not an example of sexual deviancy based on accusations.  You really suck at intellectual conversation don't you? We discuss facts, not accusations and rumors.  You're too stupid to see the futility in your strategy so I have to point it out to you.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Lilah said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're sexual abnormalities... that's the connection.  They all share the connection that their reasoning is a perverse variant of human reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you go so far as to say Bill Cosby shares a link in that connection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  What?
> 
> _Ibhuh, dunbah knowbah whatbuh you be talkin the fuck aboutbuh.
> _
> Can you clairify?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twenty-six plus women have accused Cosby of drugging them and raping them; the oldest being 71 years-old.  Would you consider him to be a sexual deviant?  And why is someone of your righteous status talking trash?  Remember, you have a ticket on the first bus to Heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 26 accusations are still just accusations. Not proof.  You don't get to cite Bill Cosby as an example of sexual deviancy based on accusations.  That doesn't fly here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate bullies, so stop bullying me.  As I've mentioned, if Cosby is an innocent little lamb, then he should stand before his accusers, look them in the eye, and call them liars.  He can't do it because he's guilty.
Click to expand...


That's your opinion.  You can't introduce your opinion as fact.  If you can't cite proven sexual deviants, then you have nothing to offer this conversation.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you go so far as to say Bill Cosby shares a link in that connection?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does Bill Cosby have to do with this discussion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Tina Fey, he put de pills into de peoples, and de peoples didn't want them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're grafting Bill Cosby into the conversation based on that?  An accusation is a foregone conclusion for you? That's not even remotely a standard of proof needed for intelligent conversation.  You just outed yourself as an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When twenty-six women come forward to tell their stories about an American icon without seeking monetary damages, I for one, believe them..  When a 90 year-old man, who worked for NBC during the Cosby Show as Cosby's facilities manager, says Cosby had everybody fooled because he was in charge of arranging payments to the women Cosby had affairs with, I believe him.
> I'm including Cosby into the conversation because I believe him to be a sexual pervert; someone who has hurt many, many women.
> Why doesn't Cosby face the accusers, look them in face, and deny the charges instead of hiding behind high-priced lawyers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believing them is not proof.  Bill Cosby is not an example of sexual deviancy based on accusations.  You really suck at intellectual conversation don't you? We discuss facts, not accusations and rumors.  You're too stupid to see the futility in your strategy so I have to point it out to you.
Click to expand...


Well, I feel I should interject here... we discuss rumors and accusations, all the time.  We just usually do so because _the intellectually less fortunate_ present them_ as fact_.


----------



## JakeStarkey

This " Their premiums may be unchanged but their coverage is less, their deductibles are higher and they cannot use the doctors they choose" is mere opinion with no broad investigation.

If investigated, the quoted above becomes a lie.


----------



## JakeStarkey

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you go so far as to say Bill Cosby shares a link in that connection?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  What?
> 
> _Ibhuh, dunbah knowbah whatbuh you be talkin the fuck aboutbuh.
> _
> Can you clairify?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twenty-six plus women have accused Cosby of drugging them and raping them; the oldest being 71 years-old.  Would you consider him to be a sexual deviant?  And why is someone of your righteous status talking trash?  Remember, you have a ticket on the first bus to Heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 26 accusations are still just accusations. Not proof.  You don't get to cite Bill Cosby as an example of sexual deviancy based on accusations.  That doesn't fly here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate bullies, so stop bullying me.  As I've mentioned, if Cosby is an innocent little lamb, then he should stand before his accusers, look them in the eye, and call them liars.  He can't do it because he's guilty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's your opinion.  You can't introduce your opinion as fact.  If you can't cite proven sexual deviants, then you have nothing to offer this conversation.
Click to expand...


Oh, fuck off, son, until you can talk honestly.


----------



## Lilah

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you go so far as to say Bill Cosby shares a link in that connection?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does Bill Cosby have to do with this discussion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Tina Fey, he put de pills into de peoples, and de peoples didn't want them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're grafting Bill Cosby into the conversation based on that?  An accusation is a foregone conclusion for you? That's not even remotely a standard of proof needed for intelligent conversation.  You just outed yourself as an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When twenty-six women come forward to tell their stories about an American icon without seeking monetary damages, I for one, believe them..  When a 90 year-old man, who worked for NBC during the Cosby Show as Cosby's facilities manager, says Cosby had everybody fooled because he was in charge of arranging payments to the women Cosby had affairs with, I believe him.
> I'm including Cosby into the conversation because I believe him to be a sexual pervert; someone who has hurt many, many women.
> Why doesn't Cosby face the accusers, look them in face, and deny the charges instead of hiding behind high-priced lawyers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believing them is not proof.  Bill Cosby is not an example of sexual deviancy based on accusations.  You really suck at intellectual conversation don't you? We discuss facts, not accusations and rumors.  You're too stupid to see the futility in your strategy so I have to point it out to you.
Click to expand...


Haven't you yet learned that your bullying tactics serve only to make you look weak and impotent?
Men and women have been sentenced to prison for murder without proof of a body?
What's it to you if I choose to believe a 90 year-old man, who was an eyewitness to what Cosby was doing to harm women?  Are you attempting to tell me what I can and cannot believe?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does Bill Cosby have to do with this discussion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to Tina Fey, he put de pills into de peoples, and de peoples didn't want them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're grafting Bill Cosby into the conversation based on that?  An accusation is a foregone conclusion for you? That's not even remotely a standard of proof needed for intelligent conversation.  You just outed yourself as an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When twenty-six women come forward to tell their stories about an American icon without seeking monetary damages, I for one, believe them..  When a 90 year-old man, who worked for NBC during the Cosby Show as Cosby's facilities manager, says Cosby had everybody fooled because he was in charge of arranging payments to the women Cosby had affairs with, I believe him.
> I'm including Cosby into the conversation because I believe him to be a sexual pervert; someone who has hurt many, many women.
> Why doesn't Cosby face the accusers, look them in face, and deny the charges instead of hiding behind high-priced lawyers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believing them is not proof.  Bill Cosby is not an example of sexual deviancy based on accusations.  You really suck at intellectual conversation don't you? We discuss facts, not accusations and rumors.  You're too stupid to see the futility in your strategy so I have to point it out to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I feel I should interject here... we discuss rumors and accusations, all the time.  We just usually do so because _the intellectually less fortunate_ present them_ as fact_.
Click to expand...


What she's trying to do is discuss Bill Cosby as a sexual deviant as if that were a foregone conclusion.  There's a reason that virtuous people don't allow accusations to stand as proof, because anybody can be accused, and the more money you have (Bill Cosby) the more accusations will be made.  We saw this play out with Michael Jackson who, after all was said and done, was not guilty of sexually abusing children.  I never fall for it.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Lilah said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does Bill Cosby have to do with this discussion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to Tina Fey, he put de pills into de peoples, and de peoples didn't want them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're grafting Bill Cosby into the conversation based on that?  An accusation is a foregone conclusion for you? That's not even remotely a standard of proof needed for intelligent conversation.  You just outed yourself as an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When twenty-six women come forward to tell their stories about an American icon without seeking monetary damages, I for one, believe them..  When a 90 year-old man, who worked for NBC during the Cosby Show as Cosby's facilities manager, says Cosby had everybody fooled because he was in charge of arranging payments to the women Cosby had affairs with, I believe him.
> I'm including Cosby into the conversation because I believe him to be a sexual pervert; someone who has hurt many, many women.
> Why doesn't Cosby face the accusers, look them in face, and deny the charges instead of hiding behind high-priced lawyers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believing them is not proof.  Bill Cosby is not an example of sexual deviancy based on accusations.  You really suck at intellectual conversation don't you? We discuss facts, not accusations and rumors.  You're too stupid to see the futility in your strategy so I have to point it out to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haven't you yet learned that your bullying tactics serve only to make you look weak and impotent?
> Men and women have been sentenced to prison for murder without proof of a body?
> What's it to you if I choose to believe a 90 year-old man, who was an eyewitness to what Cosby was doing to harm women?  Are you attempting to tell me what I can and cannot believe?
Click to expand...


Accusations in the media are not courtroom convictions.  Still too stupid to see the difference, I see. You're also hard up for actual proven cases of sexual deviants to fuel your arguments, so can we conclude at this point you have nothing?


----------



## Lilah

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you go so far as to say Bill Cosby shares a link in that connection?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  What?
> 
> _Ibhuh, dunbah knowbah whatbuh you be talkin the fuck aboutbuh.
> _
> Can you clairify?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twenty-six plus women have accused Cosby of drugging them and raping them; the oldest being 71 years-old.  Would you consider him to be a sexual deviant?  And why is someone of your righteous status talking trash?  Remember, you have a ticket on the first bus to Heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 26 accusations are still just accusations. Not proof.  You don't get to cite Bill Cosby as an example of sexual deviancy based on accusations.  That doesn't fly here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate bullies, so stop bullying me.  As I've mentioned, if Cosby is an innocent little lamb, then he should stand before his accusers, look them in the eye, and call them liars.  He can't do it because he's guilty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's your opinion.  You can't introduce your opinion as fact.  If you can't cite proven sexual deviants, then you have nothing to offer this conversation.
Click to expand...


I don't have to prove Cosby's sexual deviant behavior; the witnesses have done that, including the 90 year-old man.  If a person is not guilty of what he is being accused, he should come forward and face his accusers.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Lilah said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  What?
> 
> _Ibhuh, dunbah knowbah whatbuh you be talkin the fuck aboutbuh.
> _
> Can you clairify?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty-six plus women have accused Cosby of drugging them and raping them; the oldest being 71 years-old.  Would you consider him to be a sexual deviant?  And why is someone of your righteous status talking trash?  Remember, you have a ticket on the first bus to Heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 26 accusations are still just accusations. Not proof.  You don't get to cite Bill Cosby as an example of sexual deviancy based on accusations.  That doesn't fly here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate bullies, so stop bullying me.  As I've mentioned, if Cosby is an innocent little lamb, then he should stand before his accusers, look them in the eye, and call them liars.  He can't do it because he's guilty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's your opinion.  You can't introduce your opinion as fact.  If you can't cite proven sexual deviants, then you have nothing to offer this conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove Cosby's sexual deviant behavior; the witnesses have done that, including the 90 year-old man.  If a person is not guilty of what he is being accused, he should come forward and face his accusers.
Click to expand...


Wrong again.  People who are accused are not under obligation to answer their accusers.  The burden of proof rests on the accusers alone.  And you just idiotically claimed yet again that somebody's accusation was "proof".  You just said it and I wanted to get it in quotes before you could edit your post.  Aren't you embarrassed to expose your stupidity like that?  I guess stupidity and shamelessness in the exhibition of ignorance go hand in hand.


----------



## Lilah

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Tina Fey, he put de pills into de peoples, and de peoples didn't want them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're grafting Bill Cosby into the conversation based on that?  An accusation is a foregone conclusion for you? That's not even remotely a standard of proof needed for intelligent conversation.  You just outed yourself as an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When twenty-six women come forward to tell their stories about an American icon without seeking monetary damages, I for one, believe them..  When a 90 year-old man, who worked for NBC during the Cosby Show as Cosby's facilities manager, says Cosby had everybody fooled because he was in charge of arranging payments to the women Cosby had affairs with, I believe him.
> I'm including Cosby into the conversation because I believe him to be a sexual pervert; someone who has hurt many, many women.
> Why doesn't Cosby face the accusers, look them in face, and deny the charges instead of hiding behind high-priced lawyers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believing them is not proof.  Bill Cosby is not an example of sexual deviancy based on accusations.  You really suck at intellectual conversation don't you? We discuss facts, not accusations and rumors.  You're too stupid to see the futility in your strategy so I have to point it out to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haven't you yet learned that your bullying tactics serve only to make you look weak and impotent?
> Men and women have been sentenced to prison for murder without proof of a body?
> What's it to you if I choose to believe a 90 year-old man, who was an eyewitness to what Cosby was doing to harm women?  Are you attempting to tell me what I can and cannot believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Accusations in the media are not courtroom convictions.  Still too stupid to see the difference, I see. You're also hard up for actual proven cases of sexual deviants to fuel your arguments, so can we conclude at this point you have nothing?
Click to expand...


Again, I believe the women and the 90 year-old man.  Did you believe Sandusky?


----------



## Lilah

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty-six plus women have accused Cosby of drugging them and raping them; the oldest being 71 years-old.  Would you consider him to be a sexual deviant?  And why is someone of your righteous status talking trash?  Remember, you have a ticket on the first bus to Heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 26 accusations are still just accusations. Not proof.  You don't get to cite Bill Cosby as an example of sexual deviancy based on accusations.  That doesn't fly here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate bullies, so stop bullying me.  As I've mentioned, if Cosby is an innocent little lamb, then he should stand before his accusers, look them in the eye, and call them liars.  He can't do it because he's guilty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's your opinion.  You can't introduce your opinion as fact.  If you can't cite proven sexual deviants, then you have nothing to offer this conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove Cosby's sexual deviant behavior; the witnesses have done that, including the 90 year-old man.  If a person is not guilty of what he is being accused, he should come forward and face his accusers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  People who are accused are not under obligation to answer their accusers.  The burden of proof rests on the accusers alone.  And you just idiotically claimed yet again that somebody's accusation was "proof".  You just said it and I wanted to get it in quotes before you could edit your post.  Aren't you embarrassed to expose your stupidity like that?  I guess stupidity and shamelessness in the exhibition of ignorance go hand in hand.
Click to expand...


If 26 women or men accused you of drugging and raping them, would you hide?


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does Bill Cosby have to do with this discussion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to Tina Fey, he put de pills into de peoples, and de peoples didn't want them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're grafting Bill Cosby into the conversation based on that?  An accusation is a foregone conclusion for you? That's not even remotely a standard of proof needed for intelligent conversation.  You just outed yourself as an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When twenty-six women come forward to tell their stories about an American icon without seeking monetary damages, I for one, believe them..  When a 90 year-old man, who worked for NBC during the Cosby Show as Cosby's facilities manager, says Cosby had everybody fooled because he was in charge of arranging payments to the women Cosby had affairs with, I believe him.
> I'm including Cosby into the conversation because I believe him to be a sexual pervert; someone who has hurt many, many women.
> Why doesn't Cosby face the accusers, look them in face, and deny the charges instead of hiding behind high-priced lawyers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believing them is not proof.  Bill Cosby is not an example of sexual deviancy based on accusations.  You really suck at intellectual conversation don't you? We discuss facts, not accusations and rumors.  You're too stupid to see the futility in your strategy so I have to point it out to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I feel I should interject here... we discuss rumors and accusations, all the time.  We just usually do so because _the intellectually less fortunate_ present them_ as fact_.
Click to expand...


I'm impressed that you stood up and confessed that you are among the* intellectually less fortunate*.  Bravo!


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Lilah said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 26 accusations are still just accusations. Not proof.  You don't get to cite Bill Cosby as an example of sexual deviancy based on accusations.  That doesn't fly here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate bullies, so stop bullying me.  As I've mentioned, if Cosby is an innocent little lamb, then he should stand before his accusers, look them in the eye, and call them liars.  He can't do it because he's guilty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's your opinion.  You can't introduce your opinion as fact.  If you can't cite proven sexual deviants, then you have nothing to offer this conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove Cosby's sexual deviant behavior; the witnesses have done that, including the 90 year-old man.  If a person is not guilty of what he is being accused, he should come forward and face his accusers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  People who are accused are not under obligation to answer their accusers.  The burden of proof rests on the accusers alone.  And you just idiotically claimed yet again that somebody's accusation was "proof".  You just said it and I wanted to get it in quotes before you could edit your post.  Aren't you embarrassed to expose your stupidity like that?  I guess stupidity and shamelessness in the exhibition of ignorance go hand in hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If 26 women or men accused you of drugging and raping them, would you hide?
Click to expand...


What you think an accused person should or shouldn't do is irrelevant.  Even that you're too stupid to see for yourself.


----------



## Lilah

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate bullies, so stop bullying me.  As I've mentioned, if Cosby is an innocent little lamb, then he should stand before his accusers, look them in the eye, and call them liars.  He can't do it because he's guilty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's your opinion.  You can't introduce your opinion as fact.  If you can't cite proven sexual deviants, then you have nothing to offer this conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove Cosby's sexual deviant behavior; the witnesses have done that, including the 90 year-old man.  If a person is not guilty of what he is being accused, he should come forward and face his accusers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  People who are accused are not under obligation to answer their accusers.  The burden of proof rests on the accusers alone.  And you just idiotically claimed yet again that somebody's accusation was "proof".  You just said it and I wanted to get it in quotes before you could edit your post.  Aren't you embarrassed to expose your stupidity like that?  I guess stupidity and shamelessness in the exhibition of ignorance go hand in hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If 26 women or men accused you of drugging and raping them, would you hide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you think an accused person should or shouldn't do is irrelevant.  Even that you're too stupid to see for yourself.
Click to expand...


Alan Dershowitz is a shinning example of what an accused person should do; he's fighting the rape charges filed against him.  He's not hiding in the shadows or behind his lawyers.  And what I think is very important to me.  What a bully like you thinks of me is irrelevant.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Lilah said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's your opinion.  You can't introduce your opinion as fact.  If you can't cite proven sexual deviants, then you have nothing to offer this conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove Cosby's sexual deviant behavior; the witnesses have done that, including the 90 year-old man.  If a person is not guilty of what he is being accused, he should come forward and face his accusers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  People who are accused are not under obligation to answer their accusers.  The burden of proof rests on the accusers alone.  And you just idiotically claimed yet again that somebody's accusation was "proof".  You just said it and I wanted to get it in quotes before you could edit your post.  Aren't you embarrassed to expose your stupidity like that?  I guess stupidity and shamelessness in the exhibition of ignorance go hand in hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If 26 women or men accused you of drugging and raping them, would you hide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you think an accused person should or shouldn't do is irrelevant.  Even that you're too stupid to see for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alan Dershowitz is a shinning example of what an accused person should do; he's fighting the rape charges filed against him.  He's not hiding in the shadows or behind his lawyers.  And what I think is very important to me.  What a bully like you thinks of me is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


What you think an accused person should or shouldn't do is irrelevant.  Even that you're too stupid to see for yourself.


----------



## Lilah

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove Cosby's sexual deviant behavior; the witnesses have done that, including the 90 year-old man.  If a person is not guilty of what he is being accused, he should come forward and face his accusers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  People who are accused are not under obligation to answer their accusers.  The burden of proof rests on the accusers alone.  And you just idiotically claimed yet again that somebody's accusation was "proof".  You just said it and I wanted to get it in quotes before you could edit your post.  Aren't you embarrassed to expose your stupidity like that?  I guess stupidity and shamelessness in the exhibition of ignorance go hand in hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If 26 women or men accused you of drugging and raping them, would you hide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you think an accused person should or shouldn't do is irrelevant.  Even that you're too stupid to see for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alan Dershowitz is a shinning example of what an accused person should do; he's fighting the rape charges filed against him.  He's not hiding in the shadows or behind his lawyers.  And what I think is very important to me.  What a bully like you thinks of me is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you think an accused person should or shouldn't do is irrelevant.  Even that you're too stupid to see for yourself.
Click to expand...


You're a bully who can only appeal to name calling rather than intellect.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Lilah said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Tina Fey, he put de pills into de peoples, and de peoples didn't want them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're grafting Bill Cosby into the conversation based on that?  An accusation is a foregone conclusion for you? That's not even remotely a standard of proof needed for intelligent conversation.  You just outed yourself as an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When twenty-six women come forward to tell their stories about an American icon without seeking monetary damages, I for one, believe them..  When a 90 year-old man, who worked for NBC during the Cosby Show as Cosby's facilities manager, says Cosby had everybody fooled because he was in charge of arranging payments to the women Cosby had affairs with, I believe him.
> I'm including Cosby into the conversation because I believe him to be a sexual pervert; someone who has hurt many, many women.
> Why doesn't Cosby face the accusers, look them in face, and deny the charges instead of hiding behind high-priced lawyers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believing them is not proof.  Bill Cosby is not an example of sexual deviancy based on accusations.  You really suck at intellectual conversation don't you? We discuss facts, not accusations and rumors.  You're too stupid to see the futility in your strategy so I have to point it out to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I feel I should interject here... we discuss rumors and accusations, all the time.  We just usually do so because _the intellectually less fortunate_ present them_ as fact_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm impressed that you stood up and confessed that you are among the* intellectually less fortunate*.  Bravo!
Click to expand...


Well... that's the best you could've done.  And you should be comforted through the knowledge that no one here expects any more from ya. 

Deflection: Yields to the standing point; default concession.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you enjoy being proven wrong? This was just recently....
> 
> When Justice Elena Kagan asked whether states could ban couples over the age of 55 because they wouldn't be able to have kids, Cooper argued that "it is very rare that…both parties to the couple are infertile."* The chamber erupted in laughter.* "No really, because…if both the woman and the man are over 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage," Kagan said,* and the chamber filled with laughter again. *Justice Stephen Breyer was more blunt: "I mean, there are lots of people who get married who can't have children."​*At Supreme Court, Marriage Equality Foes' Best Argument Is That They're Losing*
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're being desperate and in the process proving my point and cementing your reputation as a liar. When there is laughter, it's noteworthy and is recorded in print. No such record exists of the justices laughing while the Virginia attorney general was presenting oral arguments like you claimed.  So you told a lie.  Now you even admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- that is a stunning piece of misrepresentation- even by your own low standards
> 
> Here is what you claimed:
> _"Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie.*  Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments.....*
> 
> *Stop lying, Fish breath!"
> *_
> *Then Seawitch provided proof that refuted your specific claim that Justices never laugh during oral arguments....and it happened again just a few days ago
> 
> Supreme Court justices laugh at Arizona town s church sign laws - Washington Times
> *
> I have no idea whether or not the Justices during Loving laughed out loud or not- and you didn't either- you just assumed that Justices never do that- and called Seawitch a liar- AND then said specifically that 'justices do not 'laugh out loud' while attorneys are presenting oral arguments.
> 
> In other words- you lied. Seawitch caught you in your lie. Maybe she did also- but most certainly you lied.
> 
> Oh and your claim about
> 
> _That would dispense with any pretense of objectivity. _
> 
> Here is a whole article about Supreme Court Justices cracking jokes in court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you present a case where justices "laughed out loud" during the serious portions of proceedings such as when oral arguments are being presented?
> 
> No? Then STFU!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made a claim, it was proven false. Move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you made a claim that was proven false.  Now you're just being a child. Good bye child.
Click to expand...


I didn't make a claim, Pee Wee, you did. You claimed that justices didn't laugh in chambers. I proved you wrong and then you tried to move the goalposts. So pathetic.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're being desperate and in the process proving my point and cementing your reputation as a liar. When there is laughter, it's noteworthy and is recorded in print. No such record exists of the justices laughing while the Virginia attorney general was presenting oral arguments like you claimed.  So you told a lie.  Now you even admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow- that is a stunning piece of misrepresentation- even by your own low standards
> 
> Here is what you claimed:
> _"Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie.*  Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments.....*
> 
> *Stop lying, Fish breath!"
> *_
> *Then Seawitch provided proof that refuted your specific claim that Justices never laugh during oral arguments....and it happened again just a few days ago
> 
> Supreme Court justices laugh at Arizona town s church sign laws - Washington Times
> *
> I have no idea whether or not the Justices during Loving laughed out loud or not- and you didn't either- you just assumed that Justices never do that- and called Seawitch a liar- AND then said specifically that 'justices do not 'laugh out loud' while attorneys are presenting oral arguments.
> 
> In other words- you lied. Seawitch caught you in your lie. Maybe she did also- but most certainly you lied.
> 
> Oh and your claim about
> 
> _That would dispense with any pretense of objectivity. _
> 
> Here is a whole article about Supreme Court Justices cracking jokes in court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you present a case where justices "laughed out loud" during the serious portions of proceedings such as when oral arguments are being presented?
> 
> No? Then STFU!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made a claim, it was proven false. Move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you made a claim that was proven false.  Now you're just being a child. Good bye child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't make a claim, Pee Wee, you did. You claimed that justices didn't laugh in chambers. I proved you wrong and then you tried to move the goalposts. So pathetic.
Click to expand...


No, actually you claimed that they "laughed out loud" hearing oral arguments from the Virginia AG.  Your claim, which was bullshit.  Now we know you're a liar.


----------



## Edgetho

Lilah said:


> I hate bullies, so stop bullying me.  As I've mentioned, if Cosby is an innocent little lamb, then he should stand before his accusers, look them in the eye, and call them liars.  He can't do it because he's guilty.



Cosby doesn't have to defend himself, the DISGUSTING FILTH in the Lame Stream Media is doing that for him.

No way 30+ older women, many of them now married and/or with adult children, are going to come forward and claim 'rape' with the stigma that accusation places on them personally.

Do I think it happens once in a while between one woman crying rape to try to shake down one man?  Usually for money?

No.  I think it happens A LOT.

But not here.  Cosby is a rapist and the DISGUSTING FILTH is going to protect him until they can't anymore.  If that day ever comes.

He's one of them.  And we all know how scumbags stick together.  The entire leftist movement sticks together like thieves because......  Well, that's what they are.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Edgetho said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate bullies, so stop bullying me.  As I've mentioned, if Cosby is an innocent little lamb, then he should stand before his accusers, look them in the eye, and call them liars.  He can't do it because he's guilty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosby doesn't have to defend himself, the DISGUSTING FILTH in the Lame Stream Media is doing that for him.
> 
> No way 30+ older women, many of them now married and/or with adult children, are going to come forward and claim 'rape' with the stigma that accusation places on them personally.
> 
> Do I think it happens once in a while between one woman crying rape to try to shake down one man?  Usually for money?
> 
> No.  I think it happens A LOT.
> 
> But not here.  Cosby is a rapist and the DISGUSTING FILTH is going to protect him until they can't anymore.  If that day ever comes.
> 
> He's one of them.  And we all know how scumbags stick together.  The entire leftist movement sticks together like thieves because......  Well, that's what they are.
Click to expand...


Man, I don't know if its true or not and neither do you.

I'd like to think not, but that's not a defense... 

I can tell you that I had a friend who went through a painful period with his wife because a High School Girl friend who was home visiting, told his wife that he raped her in High School.  

I found out because my wife came home and told me... .

She was all freaked out because the guy is one of my old HS crew and is my oldest and closest friend and was at the time routinely at our house.  

As she's telling me what she been told, she recounted a trip that is legendary within our HS crew... wherein we went on a camping trip for long week end.

My buddy and this gal were BF and GF and had been for some time.  They were screwin' like rabbits... I don't know how many times I or another brother caught them going at it, in the car, the book room, the auditorium, my house in my parents bed... in our pool, at other brothers house, in their beds and their pools and on and on.

The _"alleged rape"_...  occurred in the middle of the first night with the two of them were zipped up, nude, in a single sleeping bag.  He wakes up in the middle of the night, takes a run at it and she's irritated, and mumbles a 'Nooo', but he persists and helps himself and falls back to sleep... the next morning she wakes him up with a blow job and they repeat.

Fast forward 20+ years and she's telling everyone that he 'raped her'. 

I'm telling you that it was literally impossible for him to rape her... as she was full time, good-to-go with this knucklehead.  

She was judging him on the Politically Correct rules of the subsequent generation.  

I don't know if this is what's going on with Cosby, but my sense is that it is.  

The Playmate thing, seems fairly similar... and those gals are all damaged goods, with major Daddy issues demonstrably groping for attention.  So I wouldn't have any problem believing that they're sending strong 'come hither signals and when the vultures start circling, they run to get in on the party.

'could be wrong... it just seems to me that there's something twisted going on here and Cosby isn't the most twisted element of whatever that is.


----------



## JakeStarkey

StMike is a deviant when it comes to integrity.

When he writes, "What she's trying to do is discuss Bill Cosby as a sexual deviant as if that were a foregone conclusion," when, in fact, there is plenty of evidence to suggest Mr Cosby has a big problem, AND when StMike tries to do the same thing to LGBT when he does not have the evidence.

StMike, like Where r my Keys and Sil, lacks integrity.


----------



## GreenBean

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are quite smug, aren't you.  If you believe there is a connection between homosexuality, ,beastialality, pedophilia, necrophilia and assorted sexual (dysphorias)...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're sexual abnormalities... that's the connection.  They all share the connection that their reasoning is a perverse variant of human reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you go so far as to say Bill Cosby shares a link in that connection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  What?
> 
> _Ibhuh, dunbah knowbah whatbuh you be talkin the fuck aboutbuh.
> _
> Can you clairify?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twenty-six plus women have accused Cosby of drugging them and raping them; the oldest being 71 years-old.  Would you consider him to be a sexual deviant?  And why is someone of your righteous status talking trash?  Remember, you have a ticket on the first bus to Heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 26 accusations are still just accusations. Not proof.  You don't get to cite Bill Cosby as an example of sexual deviancy based on accusations.  That doesn't fly here.
Click to expand...



Mr Cosby is guilty of being in possession of a heterosexual penis - that makes him* guilty by default*  - its a sticky wicket for the lefties because he is also a minority-  which generally trumps the penis factor - but paper scissors rock - lets see what happens. .....


----------



## GreenBean

Lilah said:


> He can't do it because he's guilty.


So what makes him guilty - his penis or your vegina ??


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> I read it. It was meaningless. Racists always claim to have a black best friend. If you wish to deny gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage, you're an anti gay bigot regardless of your motivation.





GreenBean said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> He can't do it because he's guilty.
> 
> 
> 
> So what makes him guilty - his penis or your vegina ??
Click to expand...


Good question.  Feminist women can't think outside their vagina, I've found that to be true.


----------



## GreenBean

Lilah said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're sexual abnormalities... that's the connection.  They all share the connection that their reasoning is a perverse variant of human reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you go so far as to say Bill Cosby shares a link in that connection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does Bill Cosby have to do with this discussion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Tina Fey, he put de pills into de peoples, and de peoples didn't want them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're grafting Bill Cosby into the conversation based on that?  An accusation is a foregone conclusion for you? That's not even remotely a standard of proof needed for intelligent conversation.  You just outed yourself as an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When twenty-six women come forward to tell their stories about an American icon without seeking monetary damages, I for one, believe them..  When a 90 year-old man, who worked for NBC during the Cosby Show as Cosby's facilities manager, says Cosby had everybody fooled because he was in charge of arranging payments to the women Cosby had affairs with, I believe him.
> I'm including Cosby into the conversation because I believe him to be a sexual pervert; someone who has hurt many, many women.
> Why doesn't Cosby face the accusers, look them in face, and deny the charges instead of hiding behind high-priced lawyers?
Click to expand...


Okay - so I'm following this thread with a reverse flow - good to see that you put some thought and facts into your logic other than the usual lefty feminist bullshit of presumption of guilt against all males ....


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

I actually think it's possible for 26 women to go after the same man, telling the same lie and for the same reason.  Money.  Look how many women told their children to say Michael Jackson molested them.  Because women are not as economically able to care for themselves, they are the majority of plaintiffs in frivolous lawsuits.  The woman who "found" a finger in a bowl of Wendy's chili is a good example.  I'm surprised that it isn't 50 women trying to stake their claim in the Cosby estate.  All they have to do is make a consenting interaction with him a "rape" and then cash in..

The problem they have is that the statute of limitations has expired.  So enters Gloria Allred to demand that Cosby do the "right thing", attempting to shame him into throwing money at the problem like Michael Jackson did. All of this will die down when the gold diggers find out they can't get anyone except the far Left jackals to believe their bullshit story and their transparent grab for personal enrichment.


----------



## Redfish

Lilah said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Start Here - let me know if you are able to comprehend it , sorry not too many pictures
> 
> Paraphilias Sexuality and Sexual Disorders Merck Manual Professional
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are quite smug, aren't you.  If you believe there is a connection between homosexuality, ,beastialality, pedophilia, necrophilia and assorted sexual (dysphorias)...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're sexual abnormalities... that's the connection.  They all share the connection that their reasoning is a perverse variant of human reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you go so far as to say Bill Cosby shares a link in that connection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  What?
> 
> _Ibhuh, dunbah knowbah whatbuh you be talkin the fuck aboutbuh.
> _
> Can you clairify?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twenty-six plus women have accused Cosby of drugging them and raping them; the oldest being 71 years-old.  Would you consider him to be a sexual deviant?  And why is someone of your righteous status talking trash?  Remember, you have a ticket on the first bus to Heaven.
Click to expand...

 

why did they wait 40 years?    Do you know what the word "accuse" means?  This is a polical attack because Cosby left the ghetto and told the truth about the black ghetto culture.


----------



## Redfish

Edgetho said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate bullies, so stop bullying me.  As I've mentioned, if Cosby is an innocent little lamb, then he should stand before his accusers, look them in the eye, and call them liars.  He can't do it because he's guilty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosby doesn't have to defend himself, the DISGUSTING FILTH in the Lame Stream Media is doing that for him.
> 
> No way 30+ older women, many of them now married and/or with adult children, are going to come forward and claim 'rape' with the stigma that accusation places on them personally.
> 
> Do I think it happens once in a while between one woman crying rape to try to shake down one man?  Usually for money?
> 
> No.  I think it happens A LOT.
> 
> But not here.  Cosby is a rapist and the DISGUSTING FILTH is going to protect him until they can't anymore.  If that day ever comes.
> 
> He's one of them.  And we all know how scumbags stick together.  The entire leftist movement sticks together like thieves because......  Well, that's what they are.
Click to expand...

 

Wake up dude,  they smell money.  Thats all this is about, shaking down a rich black guy who spoke out against the black ghetto culture.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Redfish and stmike talk like typical far right brainiacs a form of incurable dementia.


----------



## Redfish

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish and stmike talk like typical far right brainiacs a form of incurable dementia.


 

No, Jake.   That would be you.   We talk from facts, biology, common sense, and logical thinking.  

Anyone who believes that homosexuality is a normal human condition is clearly demented.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Edgetho said:


> Cosby doesn't have to defend himself, the DISGUSTING FILTH in the Lame Stream Media is doing that for him.


  Right...by being a willing conduit for these accusations to be brought to light?  Why don't they suppress it like they did Fast and Furious?  Oh yeah, they're really defending somebody who tells blacks to stop listening to liberals and start taking responsibility for themselves. 


Edgetho said:


> No way 30+ older women, many of them now married and/or with adult children, are going to come forward and claim 'rape' with the stigma that accusation places on them personally.



They will if there's enough money.


Edgetho said:


> Do I think it happens once in a while between one woman crying rape to try to shake down one man?  Usually for money?
> 
> No.  I think it happens A LOT.
> 
> 
> But not here.  Cosby is a rapist and the DISGUSTING FILTH is going to protect him until they can't anymore.  If that day ever comes.
> 
> He's one of them.  And we all know how scumbags stick together.  The entire leftist movement sticks together like thieves because......  Well, that's what they are.



So you admit that women often have a motive to cry rape for money but you're sure that this isn't the case with Cosby....based on what? And the fact that all these women are saying the same thing is unremarkable unless they revealed it separately and unaware of the others' accusations.  Each accusation was all over the news, and any women who also had sex with Cosby already had the way paved for them to add their own claim.  Of course the details are the same.

Each of these women coming forward with "details" about being raped by Cosby have those ahead of them to copy from, so their credibility is shot. The first woman originated the lie, the rest of them just repeated it. Nothing remarkable there.


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're grafting Bill Cosby into the conversation based on that?  An accusation is a foregone conclusion for you? That's not even remotely a standard of proof needed for intelligent conversation.  You just outed yourself as an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When twenty-six women come forward to tell their stories about an American icon without seeking monetary damages, I for one, believe them..  When a 90 year-old man, who worked for NBC during the Cosby Show as Cosby's facilities manager, says Cosby had everybody fooled because he was in charge of arranging payments to the women Cosby had affairs with, I believe him.
> I'm including Cosby into the conversation because I believe him to be a sexual pervert; someone who has hurt many, many women.
> Why doesn't Cosby face the accusers, look them in face, and deny the charges instead of hiding behind high-priced lawyers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believing them is not proof.  Bill Cosby is not an example of sexual deviancy based on accusations.  You really suck at intellectual conversation don't you? We discuss facts, not accusations and rumors.  You're too stupid to see the futility in your strategy so I have to point it out to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I feel I should interject here... we discuss rumors and accusations, all the time.  We just usually do so because _the intellectually less fortunate_ present them_ as fact_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm impressed that you stood up and confessed that you are among the* intellectually less fortunate*.  Bravo!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well... that's the best you could've done.  And you should be comforted through the knowledge that no one here expects any more from ya.
> 
> Deflection: Yields to the standing point; default concession.
> 
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
Click to expand...


How is it possible for someone of your dimwitted level to expect anything above your pay grade?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Lilah said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> When twenty-six women come forward to tell their stories about an American icon without seeking monetary damages, I for one, believe them..  When a 90 year-old man, who worked for NBC during the Cosby Show as Cosby's facilities manager, says Cosby had everybody fooled because he was in charge of arranging payments to the women Cosby had affairs with, I believe him.
> I'm including Cosby into the conversation because I believe him to be a sexual pervert; someone who has hurt many, many women.
> Why doesn't Cosby face the accusers, look them in face, and deny the charges instead of hiding behind high-priced lawyers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You believing them is not proof.  Bill Cosby is not an example of sexual deviancy based on accusations.  You really suck at intellectual conversation don't you? We discuss facts, not accusations and rumors.  You're too stupid to see the futility in your strategy so I have to point it out to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I feel I should interject here... we discuss rumors and accusations, all the time.  We just usually do so because _the intellectually less fortunate_ present them_ as fact_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm impressed that you stood up and confessed that you are among the* intellectually less fortunate*.  Bravo!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well... that's the best you could've done.  And you should be comforted through the knowledge that no one here expects any more from ya.
> 
> Deflection: Yields to the standing point; default concession.
> 
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it possible for someone of your dimwitted level to expect anything above your pay grade?
Click to expand...


This coming from somebody who thinks accusations can be submitted as facts during a debate.  You take stupid to championship level.


----------



## Lilah

GreenBean said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> He can't do it because he's guilty.
> 
> 
> 
> So what makes him guilty - his penis or your vegina ??
Click to expand...


Do you always hide behind your scatological humor?  Sickening!


----------



## Lilah

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> I actually think it's possible for 26 women to go after the same man, telling the same lie and for the same reason.  Money.  Look how many women told their children to say Michael Jackson molested them.  Because women are not as economically able to care for themselves, they are the majority of plaintiffs in frivolous lawsuits.  The woman who "found" a finger in a bowl of Wendy's chili is a good example.  I'm surprised that it isn't 50 women trying to stake their claim in the Cosby estate.  All they have to do is make a consenting interaction with him a "rape" and then cash in..
> 
> The problem they have is that the statute of limitations has expired.  So enters Gloria Allred to demand that Cosby do the "right thing", attempting to shame him into throwing money at the problem like Michael Jackson did. All of this will die down when the gold diggers find out they can't get anyone except the far Left jackals to believe their bullshit story and their transparent grab for personal enrichment.



Thankfully, most people are intelligent and don't predicate their decisions on a woman who found a finger in a bowl.  The only woman who received money from a lawsuit regarding Cosby's sexual abuse of her was Andrea Constand.  Why do you think he gave her money?  Maybe she found his finger in her ....


----------



## Lilah

Redfish said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate bullies, so stop bullying me.  As I've mentioned, if Cosby is an innocent little lamb, then he should stand before his accusers, look them in the eye, and call them liars.  He can't do it because he's guilty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosby doesn't have to defend himself, the DISGUSTING FILTH in the Lame Stream Media is doing that for him.
> 
> No way 30+ older women, many of them now married and/or with adult children, are going to come forward and claim 'rape' with the stigma that accusation places on them personally.
> 
> Do I think it happens once in a while between one woman crying rape to try to shake down one man?  Usually for money?
> 
> No.  I think it happens A LOT.
> 
> But not here.  Cosby is a rapist and the DISGUSTING FILTH is going to protect him until they can't anymore.  If that day ever comes.
> 
> He's one of them.  And we all know how scumbags stick together.  The entire leftist movement sticks together like thieves because......  Well, that's what they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wake up dude,  they smell money.  Thats all this is about, shaking down a rich black guy who spoke out against the black ghetto culture.
Click to expand...


Why is the 90 year-old man coming forth?  For the money and fame?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Lilah said:


> How is it possible for someone of your dimwitted level to expect anything above your pay grade?



OH!  ...  Hmmm ... nope...  I have no idea what you were gropin' for in that mess. 

Take another stab at it and this time...  maybe look up 'cogency' and set that as your goal.


----------



## Lilah

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believing them is not proof.  Bill Cosby is not an example of sexual deviancy based on accusations.  You really suck at intellectual conversation don't you? We discuss facts, not accusations and rumors.  You're too stupid to see the futility in your strategy so I have to point it out to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I feel I should interject here... we discuss rumors and accusations, all the time.  We just usually do so because _the intellectually less fortunate_ present them_ as fact_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm impressed that you stood up and confessed that you are among the* intellectually less fortunate*.  Bravo!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well... that's the best you could've done.  And you should be comforted through the knowledge that no one here expects any more from ya.
> 
> Deflection: Yields to the standing point; default concession.
> 
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it possible for someone of your dimwitted level to expect anything above your pay grade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!  ...  Hmmm ... nope...  I have no idea what you were gropin' for in that mess.
> 
> Take another stab at it and this time...  maybe look up 'cogency' and set that as your goal.
Click to expand...


I really don't know how stabbing you again would allow you to get the point since you have the intellectual capacity of a chicken.  OMG, I just insulted a chicken.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Lilah said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I feel I should interject here... we discuss rumors and accusations, all the time.  We just usually do so because _the intellectually less fortunate_ present them_ as fact_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm impressed that you stood up and confessed that you are among the* intellectually less fortunate*.  Bravo!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well... that's the best you could've done.  And you should be comforted through the knowledge that no one here expects any more from ya.
> 
> Deflection: Yields to the standing point; default concession.
> 
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it possible for someone of your dimwitted level to expect anything above your pay grade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!  ...  Hmmm ... nope...  I have no idea what you were gropin' for in that mess.
> 
> Take another stab at it and this time...  maybe look up 'cogency' and set that as your goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really don't know how stabbing you again would allow you to get the point since you have the intellectual capacity of a chicken.  OMG, I just insulted a chicken.
Click to expand...


Oh my... ya didn't look it up.  

Oh well.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Lilah said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually think it's possible for 26 women to go after the same man, telling the same lie and for the same reason.  Money.  Look how many women told their children to say Michael Jackson molested them.  Because women are not as economically able to care for themselves, they are the majority of plaintiffs in frivolous lawsuits.  The woman who "found" a finger in a bowl of Wendy's chili is a good example.  I'm surprised that it isn't 50 women trying to stake their claim in the Cosby estate.  All they have to do is make a consenting interaction with him a "rape" and then cash in..
> 
> The problem they have is that the statute of limitations has expired.  So enters Gloria Allred to demand that Cosby do the "right thing", attempting to shame him into throwing money at the problem like Michael Jackson did. All of this will die down when the gold diggers find out they can't get anyone except the far Left jackals to believe their bullshit story and their transparent grab for personal enrichment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully, most people are intelligent and don't predicate their decisions on a woman who found a finger in a bowl.  The only woman who received money from a lawsuit regarding Cosby's sexual abuse of her was Andrea Constand.  Why do you think he gave her money?  Maybe she found his finger in her ....
Click to expand...


Rich people throw money at their problems.  You and I aren't rich, so we don't understand that money trumps principle in the world of rich people.  Michael Jackson threw money at his problems and they went away...for a little while.  Then other accusations came and his lawyers advised him if he didn't fight them, there would be no end in sight.  So fight them he did, and he prevailed because the accusers were gold digging lying assholes, just like the women who accused Bill Cosby.  Fortunately Cosby has come to the same epiphany as Michael Jackson did and he's not giving them anything. And Gloria Allred can stuff that one up her snatch.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow- that is a stunning piece of misrepresentation- even by your own low standards
> 
> Here is what you claimed:
> _"Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie.*  Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments.....*
> 
> *Stop lying, Fish breath!"
> *_
> *Then Seawitch provided proof that refuted your specific claim that Justices never laugh during oral arguments....and it happened again just a few days ago
> 
> Supreme Court justices laugh at Arizona town s church sign laws - Washington Times
> *
> I have no idea whether or not the Justices during Loving laughed out loud or not- and you didn't either- you just assumed that Justices never do that- and called Seawitch a liar- AND then said specifically that 'justices do not 'laugh out loud' while attorneys are presenting oral arguments.
> 
> In other words- you lied. Seawitch caught you in your lie. Maybe she did also- but most certainly you lied.
> 
> Oh and your claim about
> 
> _That would dispense with any pretense of objectivity. _
> 
> Here is a whole article about Supreme Court Justices cracking jokes in court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you present a case where justices "laughed out loud" during the serious portions of proceedings such as when oral arguments are being presented?
> 
> No? Then STFU!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made a claim, it was proven false. Move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you made a claim that was proven false.  Now you're just being a child. Good bye child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't make a claim, Pee Wee, you did. You claimed that justices didn't laugh in chambers. I proved you wrong and then you tried to move the goalposts. So pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, actually you claimed that they "laughed out loud" hearing oral arguments from the Virginia AG.  Your claim, which was bullshit.  Now we know you're a liar.
Click to expand...


Like I pointed out before Saintboy- 

Here is what you claimed:
_"Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie.*  Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments.....*

*Stop lying, Fish breath!"
*_
*Then Seawitch provided proof that refuted your specific claim that Justices never laugh during oral arguments....and it happened again just a few days ago

Supreme Court justices laugh at Arizona town s church sign laws - Washington Times
*
I have no idea whether or not the Justices during Loving laughed out loud or not- and you didn't either- you just assumed that Justices never do that- and called Seawitch a liar- AND then said specifically that 'justices do not 'laugh out loud' while attorneys are presenting oral arguments.

*In other words- you lied. Seawitch caught you in your lie. Maybe she did also- but most certainly you lied.*


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> [ that homosexuality is virtually indistinguishable from pederasty .



You mean you think that the Vatican= like you and Greenboy also cannot tell the difference between rape and adults who happen to be attracted to the same gender?

What is it about homophobes that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you present a case where justices "laughed out loud" during the serious portions of proceedings such as when oral arguments are being presented?
> 
> No? Then STFU!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You made a claim, it was proven false. Move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you made a claim that was proven false.  Now you're just being a child. Good bye child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't make a claim, Pee Wee, you did. You claimed that justices didn't laugh in chambers. I proved you wrong and then you tried to move the goalposts. So pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, actually you claimed that they "laughed out loud" hearing oral arguments from the Virginia AG.  Your claim, which was bullshit.  Now we know you're a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I pointed out before Saintboy-
> 
> Here is what you claimed:
> _"Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie.*  Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments.....*
> 
> *Stop lying, Fish breath!"
> *_
> *Then Seawitch provided proof that refuted your specific claim that Justices never laugh during oral arguments....and it happened again just a few days ago
> 
> Supreme Court justices laugh at Arizona town s church sign laws - Washington Times
> *
> I have no idea whether or not the Justices during Loving laughed out loud or not- and you didn't either- you just assumed that Justices never do that- and called Seawitch a liar- AND then said specifically that 'justices do not 'laugh out loud' while attorneys are presenting oral arguments.
> 
> *In other words- you lied. Seawitch caught you in your lie. Maybe she did also- but most certainly you lied.*
Click to expand...


Supreme Court justices do not laugh out loud when oral arguments are being presented.  Either find a case that refutes that or STFU.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ that homosexuality is virtually indistinguishable from pederasty .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you think that the Vatican= like you and Greenboy also cannot tell the difference between rape and adults who happen to be attracted to the same gender?
> 
> What is it about homophobes that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender?
Click to expand...


Actually, the Vatican deferred to the same expert research that I do which indicates a strong link between homosexuality and pederasty.  It's not to say all homosexuals bugger boys, but that enough of them do that homosexuals should not be allowed to be priests out of an abundance of caution. 

50 shades of gay.  You can't escape from the truth.


----------



## GreenBean

Lilah said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> He can't do it because he's guilty.
> 
> 
> 
> So what makes him guilty - his penis or your vegina ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you always hide behind your scatological humor?  Sickening!
Click to expand...


You didn't answer the question sweetheart - should I rephrase it for you ?

Do you believe he is guilty because he is a male ? .... and you are prejudiced against all males a/k/a thinking with your c*nt


----------



## GreenBean

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> I actually think it's possible for 26 women to go after the same man, telling the same lie and for the same reason.  Money.  Look how many women told their children to say Michael Jackson molested them.  Because women are not as economically able to care for themselves, they are the majority of plaintiffs in frivolous lawsuits.  The woman who "found" a finger in a bowl of Wendy's chili is a good example.  I'm surprised that it isn't 50 women trying to stake their claim in the Cosby estate.  All they have to do is make a consenting interaction with him a "rape" and then cash in..
> 
> The problem they have is that the statute of limitations has expired.  So enters Gloria Allred to demand that Cosby do the "right thing", attempting to shame him into throwing money at the problem like Michael Jackson did. All of this will die down when the gold diggers find out they can't get anyone except the far Left jackals to believe their bullshit story and their transparent grab for personal enrichment.



I don't really believe that they are all lying -I think he is probably guilty - what I do believe is that he is being pre-judged by Leftists, libtards and feminazis based on his masculinity . He is a man- his accusers are female therefore he is guilty based on masculinity alone  -  their convoluted logic as well as the liberal narrative dictates such - and I hope you do forgive me if my posts this night are not up to my usual queer bashing standards -but I've been downing Jack daniels since ...... whenever ....and I fell  .... groovy baby


----------



## GreenBean

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> somebody who tells blacks to stop listening to liberals and start taking responsibility for themselves.




Under the Fascist Liberal  machine , firmly controlled by the Democrats, even during Republican administrations, the Liberal Fascists dictate, manipulate and devastate the poor, and poor families, in particular African Americans. The bumbling Fascists and liberal bureaucracy which on the surface claims that it attempts to end poverty are a fucking sick joke vomited onto society and have only succeeded in forming a new type of slavery , *slavery to the Liberal machine.*


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

GreenBean said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually think it's possible for 26 women to go after the same man, telling the same lie and for the same reason.  Money.  Look how many women told their children to say Michael Jackson molested them.  Because women are not as economically able to care for themselves, they are the majority of plaintiffs in frivolous lawsuits.  The woman who "found" a finger in a bowl of Wendy's chili is a good example.  I'm surprised that it isn't 50 women trying to stake their claim in the Cosby estate.  All they have to do is make a consenting interaction with him a "rape" and then cash in..
> 
> The problem they have is that the statute of limitations has expired.  So enters Gloria Allred to demand that Cosby do the "right thing", attempting to shame him into throwing money at the problem like Michael Jackson did. All of this will die down when the gold diggers find out they can't get anyone except the far Left jackals to believe their bullshit story and their transparent grab for personal enrichment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really believe that they are all lying -I think he is probably guilty - what I do believe is that he is being pre-judged by Leftists, libtards and feminazis based on his masculinity . He is a man- his accusers are female therefore he is guilty based on masculinity alone  -  their convoluted logic as well as the liberal narrative dictates such - and I hope you do forgive me if my posts this night are not up to my usual queer bashing standards -but I've been downing Jack daniels since ...... whenever ....and I fell  .... groovy baby
Click to expand...


Southern Comfort for me tonight.  100 proof.


----------



## GreenBean

Lilah said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate bullies, so stop bullying me.  As I've mentioned, if Cosby is an innocent little lamb, then he should stand before his accusers, look them in the eye, and call them liars.  He can't do it because he's guilty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosby doesn't have to defend himself, the DISGUSTING FILTH in the Lame Stream Media is doing that for him.
> 
> No way 30+ older women, many of them now married and/or with adult children, are going to come forward and claim 'rape' with the stigma that accusation places on them personally.
> 
> Do I think it happens once in a while between one woman crying rape to try to shake down one man?  Usually for money?
> 
> No.  I think it happens A LOT.
> 
> But not here.  Cosby is a rapist and the DISGUSTING FILTH is going to protect him until they can't anymore.  If that day ever comes.
> 
> He's one of them.  And we all know how scumbags stick together.  The entire leftist movement sticks together like thieves because......  Well, that's what they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wake up dude,  they smell money.  Thats all this is about, shaking down a rich black guy who spoke out against the black ghetto culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is the 90 year-old man coming forth?  For the money and fame?
Click to expand...



Even though I'm drunk as a mother fkin skunk  -its pretty fkin obvious that whatever you intended to convey with that half sassed post was a classic fail  - what "90 year-old man" are you referring to ? Big Billy Boy cosby - ....he came forward ?with what ?  -  he may have cum ... but he didn't come forward with anything but denials... so WTF are you talking about !?


----------



## GreenBean

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually think it's possible for 26 women to go after the same man, telling the same lie and for the same reason.  Money.  Look how many women told their children to say Michael Jackson molested them.  Because women are not as economically able to care for themselves, they are the majority of plaintiffs in frivolous lawsuits.  The woman who "found" a finger in a bowl of Wendy's chili is a good example.  I'm surprised that it isn't 50 women trying to stake their claim in the Cosby estate.  All they have to do is make a consenting interaction with him a "rape" and then cash in..
> 
> The problem they have is that the statute of limitations has expired.  So enters Gloria Allred to demand that Cosby do the "right thing", attempting to shame him into throwing money at the problem like Michael Jackson did. All of this will die down when the gold diggers find out they can't get anyone except the far Left jackals to believe their bullshit story and their transparent grab for personal enrichment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really believe that they are all lying -I think he is probably guilty - what I do believe is that he is being pre-judged by Leftists, libtards and feminazis based on his masculinity . He is a man- his accusers are female therefore he is guilty based on masculinity alone  -  their convoluted logic as well as the liberal narrative dictates such - and I hope you do forgive me if my posts this night are not up to my usual queer bashing standards -but I've been downing Jack daniels since ...... whenever ....and I fell  .... groovy baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Southern Comfort for me tonight.  100 proof.
Click to expand...



Southern comfort is cool -wild turkey too - but I like my Jack daniels sour mash Tennessee whiskey .... straight out the bottle ... I'd run my ass up the liquor store and get me another fifth but I don't drink and drive ....*Happy MLK Day *  to all my Republican brothers  ..... In honor of our fellow Republican murdered by a liberal Democratic piece of shit scumbag


----------



## GreenBean

Lilah said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Tina Fey, he put de pills into de peoples, and de peoples didn't want them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're grafting Bill Cosby into the conversation based on that?  An accusation is a foregone conclusion for you? That's not even remotely a standard of proof needed for intelligent conversation.  You just outed yourself as an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When twenty-six women come forward to tell their stories about an American icon without seeking monetary damages, I for one, believe them..  When a 90 year-old man, who worked for NBC during the Cosby Show as Cosby's facilities manager, says Cosby had everybody fooled because he was in charge of arranging payments to the women Cosby had affairs with, I believe him.
> I'm including Cosby into the conversation because I believe him to be a sexual pervert; someone who has hurt many, many women.
> Why doesn't Cosby face the accusers, look them in face, and deny the charges instead of hiding behind high-priced lawyers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believing them is not proof.  Bill Cosby is not an example of sexual deviancy based on accusations.  You really suck at intellectual conversation don't you? We discuss facts, not accusations and rumors.  You're too stupid to see the futility in your strategy so I have to point it out to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I feel I should interject here... we discuss rumors and accusations, all the time.  We just usually do so because _the intellectually less fortunate_ present them_ as fact_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm impressed that you stood u and confessed that you are among the* intellectually less fortunate*.  Bravo!
Click to expand...



So what say the Fag queen about Bryan Sanger  -molester of little boys and darling of Hollywood gay mafioso - I guess that the bitch is innocent of the molestation charges leveled against him .....  based on what logic ? .... well he is a faggot of course ...and the liberal narrative demands that "thou shalt not suffer a faggot to die"  die faggot die ..... Director Bryan Singer Accused of Sexually Abusing 17-Year-Old Boy in 1999 - The Hollywood Reporter


Ands what about that lowlife piece of sh*t sc*mbag poster boy fore the Queers  Harvey MF Milk dirt bag scum...drug pedaling , child molestor  Google Groups


----------



## MaryL

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Heterosexuals just keep on keepin' on having babies and all that. DAMN, gays need special rights and special biological engineering, and social engineering. And  lots of money an lawyers. That is all equal rights are about. How much money  do  you have? And does that buy you rights? You like little girls? or Animals?  Polygamy? What is next?


----------



## GreenBean

Hey  Faggot LIberal Muthafukkers ... go to hell ... eat shit and drop dead soon.  Oh yeah...... sleep tight ...don't let the bed bugs bite ....ya fkn sc*mbags


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow- that is a stunning piece of misrepresentation- even by your own low standards
> 
> Here is what you claimed:
> _"Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie.*  Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments.....*
> 
> *Stop lying, Fish breath!"
> *_
> *Then Seawitch provided proof that refuted your specific claim that Justices never laugh during oral arguments....and it happened again just a few days ago
> 
> Supreme Court justices laugh at Arizona town s church sign laws - Washington Times
> *
> I have no idea whether or not the Justices during Loving laughed out loud or not- and you didn't either- you just assumed that Justices never do that- and called Seawitch a liar- AND then said specifically that 'justices do not 'laugh out loud' while attorneys are presenting oral arguments.
> 
> In other words- you lied. Seawitch caught you in your lie. Maybe she did also- but most certainly you lied.
> 
> Oh and your claim about
> 
> _That would dispense with any pretense of objectivity. _
> 
> Here is a whole article about Supreme Court Justices cracking jokes in court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you present a case where justices "laughed out loud" during the serious portions of proceedings such as when oral arguments are being presented?
> 
> No? Then STFU!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made a claim, it was proven false. Move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you made a claim that was proven false.  Now you're just being a child. Good bye child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't make a claim, Pee Wee, you did. You claimed that justices didn't laugh in chambers. I proved you wrong and then you tried to move the goalposts. So pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, actually you claimed that they "laughed out loud" hearing oral arguments from the Virginia AG.  Your claim, which was bullshit.  Now we know you're a liar.
Click to expand...



You're mistaken...again. That was not me that made that claim. I simply refuted your claim that justices don't laugh out loud and provided recent evidence of the SCOTUS doing just that, laughing out loud at something stupid some bigot said.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

GreenBean said:


> Hey  Faggot LIberal Muthafukkers ... go to hell ... eat shit and drop dead soon.  Oh yeah...... sleep tight ...don't let the bed bugs bite ....ya fkn sc*mbags



Mean drunk?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Seawytch said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you present a case where justices "laughed out loud" during the serious portions of proceedings such as when oral arguments are being presented?
> 
> No? Then STFU!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You made a claim, it was proven false. Move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you made a claim that was proven false.  Now you're just being a child. Good bye child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't make a claim, Pee Wee, you did. You claimed that justices didn't laugh in chambers. I proved you wrong and then you tried to move the goalposts. So pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, actually you claimed that they "laughed out loud" hearing oral arguments from the Virginia AG.  Your claim, which was bullshit.  Now we know you're a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're mistaken...again. That was not me that made that claim. I simply refuted your claim that justices don't laugh out loud and provided recent evidence of the SCOTUS doing just that, laughing out loud at something stupid some bigot said.
Click to expand...


Your lies have been exposed. I'm moving on.


----------



## Seawytch

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made a claim, it was proven false. Move on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you made a claim that was proven false.  Now you're just being a child. Good bye child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't make a claim, Pee Wee, you did. You claimed that justices didn't laugh in chambers. I proved you wrong and then you tried to move the goalposts. So pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, actually you claimed that they "laughed out loud" hearing oral arguments from the Virginia AG.  Your claim, which was bullshit.  Now we know you're a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're mistaken...again. That was not me that made that claim. I simply refuted your claim that justices don't laugh out loud and provided recent evidence of the SCOTUS doing just that, laughing out loud at something stupid some bigot said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your lies have been exposed. I'm moving on.
Click to expand...


Classic projection. I've not lied, I simply pointed out where you were mistaken. Here's the timeline of events:

1. Another poster claimed that justices laughed out loud at an argument made that was similar to yours and then provided audio of the 1967 case in question. You did not listen to the audio and still denied it happened.

2. You then claimed, and I quote: "_Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments."_

3. I then provided evidence where, during oral arguments in the Prop 8 case, the justices did, in fact, laugh out loud...proving you mistaken in your claims. 

It's no wonder you wish to move on...as I suggested when I first pointed out you were mistaken in your claims.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

GreenBean said:


> Hey  Faggot LIberal Muthafukkers ... go to hell ... eat shit and drop dead soon.  Oh yeah...... sleep tight ...don't let the bed bugs bite ....ya fkn sc*mbags



*Try a better bourbon.  The cheap stuff clearly kills more brain cells.*


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made a claim, it was proven false. Move on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you made a claim that was proven false.  Now you're just being a child. Good bye child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't make a claim, Pee Wee, you did. You claimed that justices didn't laugh in chambers. I proved you wrong and then you tried to move the goalposts. So pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, actually you claimed that they "laughed out loud" hearing oral arguments from the Virginia AG.  Your claim, which was bullshit.  Now we know you're a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're mistaken...again. That was not me that made that claim. I simply refuted your claim that justices don't laugh out loud and provided recent evidence of the SCOTUS doing just that, laughing out loud at something stupid some bigot said.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


*The only dilemma for homosexuals is in the small minds of Catholics.  

Ever have a priest put his hand down your pants, Saint Mike?  NOW that's a dilemma.*


----------



## GreenBean

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey  Faggot LIberal Muthafukkers ... go to hell ... eat shit and drop dead soon.  Oh yeah...... sleep tight ...don't let the bed bugs bite ....ya fkn sc*mbags
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Try a better bourbon.  The cheap stuff clearly kills more brain cells.*
Click to expand...

Not a problem - I have plenty to spare - but thanks for your concern


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you made a claim that was proven false.  Now you're just being a child. Good bye child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't make a claim, Pee Wee, you did. You claimed that justices didn't laugh in chambers. I proved you wrong and then you tried to move the goalposts. So pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, actually you claimed that they "laughed out loud" hearing oral arguments from the Virginia AG.  Your claim, which was bullshit.  Now we know you're a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're mistaken...again. That was not me that made that claim. I simply refuted your claim that justices don't laugh out loud and provided recent evidence of the SCOTUS doing just that, laughing out loud at something stupid some bigot said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The only dilemma for homosexuals is in the small minds of Catholics.
> 
> Ever have a priest put his hand down your pants, Saint Mike?  NOW that's a dilemma.*
Click to expand...


The only dilemma is your trollish posts which fortunately is easily solved.  Permanent ignore.


----------



## GreenBean

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you made a claim that was proven false.  Now you're just being a child. Good bye child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't make a claim, Pee Wee, you did. You claimed that justices didn't laugh in chambers. I proved you wrong and then you tried to move the goalposts. So pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, actually you claimed that they "laughed out loud" hearing oral arguments from the Virginia AG.  Your claim, which was bullshit.  Now we know you're a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're mistaken...again. That was not me that made that claim. I simply refuted your claim that justices don't laugh out loud and provided recent evidence of the SCOTUS doing just that, laughing out loud at something stupid some bigot said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The only dilemma for homosexuals is in the small minds of Catholics.
> 
> Ever have a priest put his hand down your pants, Saint Mike?  NOW that's a dilemma.*
Click to expand...

Yes - those *gay pedophiles* have certainly infiltrated some upstanding organizations ...and they're fight  tooth and nail to stay there and be in control.

*War against the Boy Scouts.*


----------



## GreenBean

Seawytch said:


> . I've not lied, I simply pointed out where you were mistaken.




And the truly sad part is - that she actually half believes some of the shit she posts ... sad ... very sad indeed ..what a waste of a human life.


----------



## GreenBean

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey  Faggot LIberal Muthafukkers ... go to hell ... eat shit and drop dead soon.  Oh yeah...... sleep tight ...don't let the bed bugs bite ....ya fkn sc*mbags
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mean drunk?
Click to expand...



LOL


----------



## JakeStarkey

stmike puts on Ignore those who make him look that the fool he is so adamantly determined to be.

Soon he will be talking only to Sil and Where r my Keys.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't make a claim, Pee Wee, you did. You claimed that justices didn't laugh in chambers. I proved you wrong and then you tried to move the goalposts. So pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually you claimed that they "laughed out loud" hearing oral arguments from the Virginia AG.  Your claim, which was bullshit.  Now we know you're a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're mistaken...again. That was not me that made that claim. I simply refuted your claim that justices don't laugh out loud and provided recent evidence of the SCOTUS doing just that, laughing out loud at something stupid some bigot said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The only dilemma for homosexuals is in the small minds of Catholics.
> 
> Ever have a priest put his hand down your pants, Saint Mike?  NOW that's a dilemma.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only dilemma is your trollish posts which fortunately is easily solved.  Permanent ignore.
Click to expand...


*Bring up that pesty priest problem and you hit the ignore button.....Catholics DO so love their uneven playing ground.   *


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

JakeStarkey said:


> stmike puts on Ignore those who make him look that the fool he is so adamantly determined to be.
> 
> Soon he will be talking only to Sil and Where r my Keys.



*And pretty soon it will be just Saint Mike and the guy in his mirror.  

So let's discuss that pesty priest problem.....I suspect that only 15% of the actual molestation by Catholic priests has been reported.  And....[[[shocker]]]] I think same said priests are .....HOMOSEXUALS!*


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

GreenBean said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey  Faggot LIberal Muthafukkers ... go to hell ... eat shit and drop dead soon.  Oh yeah...... sleep tight ...don't let the bed bugs bite ....ya fkn sc*mbags
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Try a better bourbon.  The cheap stuff clearly kills more brain cells.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a problem - I have plenty to spare - but thanks for your concern
Click to expand...



*This is the best, or at least one of them:*





*And it is swilling in my carefully crafted Manhattan as we speak.

Pure ambrosia.*


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

GreenBean said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't make a claim, Pee Wee, you did. You claimed that justices didn't laugh in chambers. I proved you wrong and then you tried to move the goalposts. So pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually you claimed that they "laughed out loud" hearing oral arguments from the Virginia AG.  Your claim, which was bullshit.  Now we know you're a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're mistaken...again. That was not me that made that claim. I simply refuted your claim that justices don't laugh out loud and provided recent evidence of the SCOTUS doing just that, laughing out loud at something stupid some bigot said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The only dilemma for homosexuals is in the small minds of Catholics.
> 
> Ever have a priest put his hand down your pants, Saint Mike?  NOW that's a dilemma.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes - those *gay pedophiles* have certainly infiltrated some upstanding organizations ...and they're fight  tooth and nail to stay there and be in control.
> 
> *War against the Boy Scouts.*
Click to expand...



*That links to a blog called loonybird.com  

My advice:  Put down the glass and back away from the table.*


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

*Where did everybody go?  Did I expose a gaping hole of hypocrisy in the O/P?  

Saint Mike, here's the deal.  Fix your own house first.*


----------



## GreenBean

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually you claimed that they "laughed out loud" hearing oral arguments from the Virginia AG.  Your claim, which was bullshit.  Now we know you're a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're mistaken...again. That was not me that made that claim. I simply refuted your claim that justices don't laugh out loud and provided recent evidence of the SCOTUS doing just that, laughing out loud at something stupid some bigot said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The only dilemma for homosexuals is in the small minds of Catholics.
> 
> Ever have a priest put his hand down your pants, Saint Mike?  NOW that's a dilemma.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes - those *gay pedophiles* have certainly infiltrated some upstanding organizations ...and they're fight  tooth and nail to stay there and be in control.
> 
> *War against the Boy Scouts.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *That links to a blog called loonybird.com
> 
> My advice:  Put down the glass and back away from the table.*
Click to expand...


My advice to you - stop trolling , if you can't refute the facts than STFU - you've already lost - regardless of what a sites url is 

*The Wall Street Journal* stated in its Nov. 26, 2004 editorial page titled "*Bashing the Boy Scouts*," that:
"Legal historians may someday explain how the once-great American Civil Liberties Union came to see the Boy Scouts as public enemy number one. In the meantime, the ACLU keeps on bringing its absurd First Amendment challenges against the Scouts....The question no one seems to be asking is, who's better off as a result of these lawsuits? Surely not the 3.2 million Boy Scouts, whose venerable organization is part of the web of voluntary associations once considered the bedrock of American life. If anything, the purpose of the ACLU attacks is to paint Scouts as religious bigots. Other losers are communities themselves, which are forced to sever ties to an organization that helps to build character in young men.  It's been 20 years since the ACLU brought its first suit against the Scouts. If there's one thing we've learned by now, it's that the ACLU offensive says more about the degraded status of the civil liberties group than it does about the Boy Scouts."

*Not only the ACLU , but *

Lambda [Pedophiles and Child Molesters Group]

Mexican-American Legal Defense

NOW

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

American Federation of Teachers

Anti-Defamation League, California Women's Law Center

Center for Women Policy Studies

Equal Rights Advocates, Human Rights Campaign

National Partnership for Women and Families

National Women's Law Center

Northwest Women's Law Center

People for the American Way Foundation

Women Employed and the Women's Law Project

And a battalions of other Loony left and liberal organizations have ganged up on this stalwart of American Morals and Decency. The cost to the Boy Scouts has been tremendous, and they show signs of crumbling under at the very least the tremendous financial burden


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ that homosexuality is virtually indistinguishable from pederasty .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you think that the Vatican= like you and Greenboy also cannot tell the difference between rape and adults who happen to be attracted to the same gender?
> 
> What is it about homophobes that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the Vatican deferred to the same expert research that I do which indicates a strong link between homosexuality and pederasty.  It's not to say all homosexuals bugger boys, but that enough of them do that homosexuals should not be allowed to be priests out of an abundance of caution.
> 
> 50 shades of gay.  You can't escape from the truth.
Click to expand...


Two things: 

Why is it homophobes only care about child molestation when they can call it 'pederasty'?  Why do you always ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?

_''I can only assume that women victims simply aren't newsworthy, regardless of what we have to say," concluded a dispirited Ann Hagan Webb, a psychologist who heads the New England chapter of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. Fifty percent of the organization's members are women. ''The Vatican's decision to ban gay men from the priesthood is an insult to survivors of either gender. The vast number of girls and women abused by priests underscores the obvious, that banning gay priests will not solve the problem of sexual abuse in the church."_

And what is it about homophobes that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender? Your words: "homosexuality is virtually indistinguishable from pederasty"- yet homosexuality is attraction to the same gender, but pederasty is child rape.  

Since you consider them the same thing- do you think that any man(you seem to confine your condemnation to men) who is attracted to other men should be arrested, convicted and imprisoned like I hope you think child molesters should be?


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're mistaken...again. That was not me that made that claim. I simply refuted your claim that justices don't laugh out loud and provided recent evidence of the SCOTUS doing just that, laughing out loud at something stupid some bigot said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The only dilemma for homosexuals is in the small minds of Catholics.
> 
> Ever have a priest put his hand down your pants, Saint Mike?  NOW that's a dilemma.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes - those *gay pedophiles* have certainly infiltrated some upstanding organizations ...and they're fight  tooth and nail to stay there and be in control.
> 
> *War against the Boy Scouts.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *That links to a blog called loonybird.com
> 
> My advice:  Put down the glass and back away from the table.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My advice to you - stop trolling ,
Click to expand...


LOL.....coming from you.....that is hilarious.....next I expect you to advise posters to watch their profanity....


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> . I've not lied, I simply pointed out where you were mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the truly sad part is - that she actually half believes some of the shit she posts ... sad ... very sad indeed ..what a waste of a human life.
Click to expand...


And the truly sad part is - that Greenbean actually believes some of the shit she posts ... sad ... very sad indeed ..what a waste of a human life


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't make a claim, Pee Wee, you did. You claimed that justices didn't laugh in chambers. I proved you wrong and then you tried to move the goalposts. So pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually you claimed that they "laughed out loud" hearing oral arguments from the Virginia AG.  Your claim, which was bullshit.  Now we know you're a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're mistaken...again. That was not me that made that claim. I simply refuted your claim that justices don't laugh out loud and provided recent evidence of the SCOTUS doing just that, laughing out loud at something stupid some bigot said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The only dilemma for homosexuals is in the small minds of Catholics.
> 
> Ever have a priest put his hand down your pants, Saint Mike?  NOW that's a dilemma.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes - those *gay pedophiles* have certainly infiltrated some upstanding organizations ...and they're fight  tooth and nail to stay there and be in control.
> 
> *War against the Boy Scouts.*
Click to expand...


LOL- citing your own website of homophobia again?

What is the history of the Boy Scouts?

The Boy Scouts have always banned homosexuals from being scout leaders. And that clearly didn't protect scouts since
 the Boy Scouts  had a long  history of child sex abuse that the BSA covered up. 

Boy Scout files reveal long history of child sex abuse cases - Chicago Tribune

_Since at least 1919, the Boy Scouts has maintained the internal files to keep suspected pedophiles from re-entering the organization. But in a number of cases, the files show, the organization failed to take proper steps in suspected cases of abuse.

The organization currently requires even suspected cases of child molestation to be reported immediately to law enforcement officials, conducts criminal background checks, and prohibits one-on-one contact between an adult and a Scout. The group now rigorously trains volunteers and leaders to spot signs of abuse.

Local police were involved in nearly two-thirds of the 1965-1985 cases, according to a recently-released analysis by the Boy Scouts.

But in scores of other cases, local Boy Scout leaders urged accused and admitted pedophiles to quietly resign without notifying authorities, or allowed them to return to scouting after being treated by doctors or clergy.

In one case, the files show that after a volunteer in Texas was expelled when he confessed to molesting Scouts in 1965, a local Scouting official wrote to the national office and said a minister that knew the man "is doing his best to protect Boy Scouting and trying to keep this incident as quiet as possible.

"However, if some parents file charges, of course it will come out into the public."

In 1980, the files show, another Colorado Scout leader was accused of sexually molesting three Scout brothers. He was arrested and charged with sex abuse after the boys' father went to police. Months later, the father learned the man - out on bail - had been allowed to return to Scouting.
_
This is another example of where homophobic bigots like yourself endanger children.

You telling parents that the only child molesters that they need to fear are homosexuals puts all children at risk. Most of these scout leaders were married husbands and fathers- openly heterosexual- who molested boys. Your kind of homophobia provides cover for them.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ that homosexuality is virtually indistinguishable from pederasty .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you think that the Vatican= like you and Greenboy also cannot tell the difference between rape and adults who happen to be attracted to the same gender?
> 
> What is it about homophobes that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the Vatican deferred to the same expert research that I do which indicates a strong link between homosexuality and pederasty.  It's not to say all homosexuals bugger boys, but that enough of them do that homosexuals should not be allowed to be priests out of an abundance of caution.
> 
> 50 shades of gay.  You can't escape from the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two things:
> 
> Why is it homophobes only care about child molestation when they can call it 'pederasty'?  Why do you always ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?
> 
> _''I can only assume that women victims simply aren't newsworthy, regardless of what we have to say," concluded a dispirited Ann Hagan Webb, a psychologist who heads the New England chapter of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. Fifty percent of the organization's members are women. ''The Vatican's decision to ban gay men from the priesthood is an insult to survivors of either gender. The vast number of girls and women abused by priests underscores the obvious, that banning gay priests will not solve the problem of sexual abuse in the church."_
> 
> And what is it about homophobes that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender? Your words: "homosexuality is virtually indistinguishable from pederasty"- yet homosexuality is attraction to the same gender, but pederasty is child rape.
> 
> Since you consider them the same thing- do you think that any man(you seem to confine your condemnation to men) who is attracted to other men should be arrested, convicted and imprisoned like I hope you think child molesters should be?
Click to expand...

Sorry. Didn't make it past "homophobes". I don't know what that is and suspect you are accidentally addressing me instead of someone else.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made a claim, it was proven false. Move on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you made a claim that was proven false.  Now you're just being a child. Good bye child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't make a claim, Pee Wee, you did. You claimed that justices didn't laugh in chambers. I proved you wrong and then you tried to move the goalposts. So pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, actually you claimed that they "laughed out loud" hearing oral arguments from the Virginia AG.  Your claim, which was bullshit.  Now we know you're a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I pointed out before Saintboy-
> 
> Here is what you claimed:
> _"Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie.*  Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments.....*
> 
> *Stop lying, Fish breath!"
> *_
> *Then Seawitch provided proof that refuted your specific claim that Justices never laugh during oral arguments....and it happened again just a few days ago
> 
> Supreme Court justices laugh at Arizona town s church sign laws - Washington Times
> *
> I have no idea whether or not the Justices during Loving laughed out loud or not- and you didn't either- you just assumed that Justices never do that- and called Seawitch a liar- AND then said specifically that 'justices do not 'laugh out loud' while attorneys are presenting oral arguments.
> 
> *In other words- you lied. Seawitch caught you in your lie. Maybe she did also- but most certainly you lied.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supreme Court justices do not laugh out loud when oral arguments are being presented.  Either find a case that refutes that or STFU.
Click to expand...


http://commlawreview.org/archives/c...ghter at the u.s. supreme court clr v10i2.pdf

_ In Chief Justice Robert’s
first term on Halloween, a light bulb exploded during the oral arguments for Central Virginia Community College v. Katz.
The gunshot-like sound frightened the Court, rattling the nerves of both the justices and the advocates. To ease the
tension, Chief Justice Roberts joked “I think we’re… I think it’s safe. It’s a trick they play on new Chief Justices all
the time.” His comment drew laughter and relief, but Justice Scalia’s welcoming reply of “Happy Halloween,”
brought about even more laughter from the audience and the Court. Not to be outdone, Chief Justice Roberts
replied “We’re even more in the dark now than before” (37-38:ln 18-25, ln1-2). 

....In her oral arguments, before the Court as Solicitor General, she often drew laughter from the Court
and attendees. In United States v. Comstock, General Kagan mistakenly called Justice Scalia “Mr. Chief,” but with the
same breath wryly corrected herself “excuse me, Justice Scalia -- I didn't mean to promote you quite so quickly.”
Her comments drew a round of laughter and prompted Chief Justice Roberts to respond “Thanks for thinking it was
a promotion,” causing Justice Scalia to continue the joking, turning to Chief Justice Roberts and sarcastically
remarking “And I'm sure you didn't” (26, ln: 6-14). These comments from the justices clearly offer a lighter side to
the Court’s serious nature

.....In some situations, advocates or justices will offer a serious
statement that provokes laughter. Justice Breyer’s underwear comment was delivered without any intent toward
humor; his immediate embarrassment and attempt to move past the comment was evidence of his blunder and
invited further laughter. And yet, the audience, advocates, and* the justices howled with laughter from his statement. *_

_...As previously stated, justices’ “laughter” tags appeared in the transcripts of 51 out of 71 oral arguments, or
in about 72% of the cases during the 2006-2007 court term. More instances of laughter were probably not captured
in the other 20 transcripts, but likely occurred. The justices were responsible for at least 131 moments of laughter,
both captured in transcript “laughter” tags, as well as instances I noted independently when listening to audio files.
Justice Scalia led the justices with 60 statements that generated laughter, Justice Breyer came in a far second with 35
statements, Chief Justice Roberts had 12, Justice Souter 9, Justice Kennedy 7, Justice Stevens 4, Justice Ginsburg 4,
Justice Alito 2, and Justice Thomas 0. Sixteen advocates were responsible for a total of 21 instances of laughter, with
Mr. Dreeben leading the pack by drawing laughter 3 times.

_There are whole blogs devoted to Justice's humor:
The funniest justice DC Dicta

_When Paul Clement, the attorney for the respondent in the case American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, wrapped up his oral argument Wednesday, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. told him: “We’ll afford you some rebuttal time.”

Puzzled, the Clement looked at the chief justice and slowly took his seat. Roberts, realizing his mistake – only the petitioner’s attorney gets rebuttal time – corrected himself: “Oh, no we won’t!”
_
_

_
_*As the justices and onlookers laughed*, Justice Antonin G. Scalia jumped in.

“You should have said, ‘I accept,’ very quickly,” Scalia said to Clement, drawing more laughter.
_
In conclusion- Justices do laugh during oral arguments- and Justices do crack jokes during oral arguments.
_


_


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ that homosexuality is virtually indistinguishable from pederasty .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you think that the Vatican= like you and Greenboy also cannot tell the difference between rape and adults who happen to be attracted to the same gender?
> 
> What is it about homophobes that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the Vatican deferred to the same expert research that I do which indicates a strong link between homosexuality and pederasty.  It's not to say all homosexuals bugger boys, but that enough of them do that homosexuals should not be allowed to be priests out of an abundance of caution.
> 
> 50 shades of gay.  You can't escape from the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two things:
> 
> Why is it homophobes only care about child molestation when they can call it 'pederasty'?  Why do you always ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?
> 
> _''I can only assume that women victims simply aren't newsworthy, regardless of what we have to say," concluded a dispirited Ann Hagan Webb, a psychologist who heads the New England chapter of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. Fifty percent of the organization's members are women. ''The Vatican's decision to ban gay men from the priesthood is an insult to survivors of either gender. The vast number of girls and women abused by priests underscores the obvious, that banning gay priests will not solve the problem of sexual abuse in the church."_
> 
> And what is it about homophobes that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender? Your words: "homosexuality is virtually indistinguishable from pederasty"- yet homosexuality is attraction to the same gender, but pederasty is child rape.
> 
> Since you consider them the same thing- do you think that any man(you seem to confine your condemnation to men) who is attracted to other men should be arrested, convicted and imprisoned like I hope you think child molesters should be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry. Didn't make it past "homophobes". I don't know what that is and suspect you are accidentally addressing me instead of someone else.
Click to expand...


No problem- let me rephrase 

Two things:

Why is it SaintMikey and other bigots only care about child molestation when they can call it 'pederasty'?  Why does Saintboy always ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?

_''I can only assume that women victims simply aren't newsworthy, regardless of what we have to say," concluded a dispirited Ann Hagan Webb, a psychologist who heads the New England chapter of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. Fifty percent of the organization's members are women. ''The Vatican's decision to ban gay men from the priesthood is an insult to survivors of either gender. The vast number of girls and women abused by priests underscores the obvious, that banning gay priests will not solve the problem of sexual abuse in the church."_

And what is it about Saintmikey and other bigots that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender? Saintmikey words: "homosexuality is virtually indistinguishable from pederasty"- yet homosexuality is attraction to the same gender, but pederasty is child rape.

Since Saintmikey consider's them the same thing- does he  think that any man(he confines his condemnation to men) who is attracted to other men should be arrested, convicted and imprisoned like I hope he  thinks child molesters should be?


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Hey  Faggot LIberal Muthafukkers ... go to hell ... eat shit and drop dead soon.  Oh yeah...... sleep tight ...don't let the bed bugs bite ....ya fkn sc*mbags



LOL....its like watching the guy on the street yelling obsenities at passing cars.....keyboard Tourette's Syndrome. ....


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> Why do you always ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?


Because the discussion at hand relates to homosexuality ... Lesbians are NOT child Molesters.  The rate of occurrence among Dykes is so infinitesimally small that it is not even a factor .

Gay Men are the issue when it comes top Children - The odds are about 300X more likely that a boy will be molested if left in the company of a queer as opposed to a normal person.

I hope that clarified things in your muddled little mind perhaps a wee bit .  And based on your post ....  *are you trying to insult homosexuals by claiming that Lesbians are Child Molesters ??!!*


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> Justices do laugh during oral arguments- and Justices do crack jokes during oral arguments.


Who gives a fkn rats ass ?  I mean really ... give it up


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justices do laugh during oral arguments- and Justices do crack jokes during oral arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a fkn rats ass ?  I mean really ... give it up
Click to expand...


I think I should just copy and paste that for every single post of yours......so completely applicable.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you always ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?
> 
> 
> 
> Because the discussion at hand relates to homosexuality ... Lesbians are NOT child Molesters.  The rate of occurrence among Dykes is so infinitesimally small that it is not even a factor .
> 
> Gay Men are the issue when it comes top Children - The odds are about 300X more likely that a boy will be molested if left in the company of a queer as opposed to a normal person.
> 
> I hope that clarified things in your muddled little mind perhaps a wee bit .  And based on your post ....  *are you trying to insult homosexuals by claiming that Lesbians are Child Molesters ??!!*
Click to expand...


Why do you ignore child molestation victims if they are girls? 

More specifically- why do you ignore the majority of child molestation victims?

Why? 

Because all of your posts are intended only to attack homosexuals, and you don't give a rat's ass about how much that will harm children.

Bigots like you lead to parents leaving their kids with openly heterosexual fathers and husbands like Jerry Sandusky- because those boys and girls will be 'safe' as long as the guy is not a homosexual.....according to you bigots.


----------



## GreenBean

Syriusly said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you always ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?
> 
> 
> 
> Because the discussion at hand relates to homosexuality ... Lesbians are NOT child Molesters.  The rate of occurrence among Dykes is so infinitesimally small that it is not even a factor .
> 
> Gay Men are the issue when it comes top Children - The odds are about 300X more likely that a boy will be molested if left in the company of a queer as opposed to a normal person.
> 
> I hope that clarified things in your muddled little mind perhaps a wee bit .  And based on your post ....  *are you trying to insult homosexuals by claiming that Lesbians are Child Molesters ??!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?
> 
> More specifically- why do you ignore the majority of child molestation victims?
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because all of your posts are intended only to attack homosexuals, and you don't give a rat's ass about how much that will harm children.
> 
> Bigots like you lead to parents leaving their kids with openly heterosexual fathers and husbands like Jerry Sandusky- because those boys and girls will be 'safe' as long as the guy is not a homosexual.....according to you bigots.
Click to expand...



I guess you just don't get it do you ?  ...Of course you don't - you're a faggot , and no a very bright one at that.   

The Title of this thread - *THE HOMOSEXUAL DILEMMA*
The Topic of this thread -  *THE DAMAGE CAUSED TO SOCIETY BY HOMOSEXUALS  *


You're bringing in remotely relevant facts re: heterosexual molestation is merely an attempt to distract from the fact that Homosexual males are the most prolific child molestors within the Human Race .  Do heterosexuals do it also ?  ...of course they do HOWEVER Homosexual males represent about 3% of the population , yet are responsible for abou 1/3 of all child molestation case ... in effect the chances of your child being molested by a Homosexual are aproximately 300X greater than a heterosexual.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you made a claim that was proven false.  Now you're just being a child. Good bye child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't make a claim, Pee Wee, you did. You claimed that justices didn't laugh in chambers. I proved you wrong and then you tried to move the goalposts. So pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, actually you claimed that they "laughed out loud" hearing oral arguments from the Virginia AG.  Your claim, which was bullshit.  Now we know you're a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I pointed out before Saintboy-
> 
> Here is what you claimed:
> _"Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie.*  Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments.....*
> 
> *Stop lying, Fish breath!"
> *_
> *Then Seawitch provided proof that refuted your specific claim that Justices never laugh during oral arguments....and it happened again just a few days ago
> 
> Supreme Court justices laugh at Arizona town s church sign laws - Washington Times
> *
> I have no idea whether or not the Justices during Loving laughed out loud or not- and you didn't either- you just assumed that Justices never do that- and called Seawitch a liar- AND then said specifically that 'justices do not 'laugh out loud' while attorneys are presenting oral arguments.
> 
> *In other words- you lied. Seawitch caught you in your lie. Maybe she did also- but most certainly you lied.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supreme Court justices do not laugh out loud when oral arguments are being presented.  Either find a case that refutes that or STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://commlawreview.org/archives/clrv10i2/the function of laughter at the u.s. supreme court clr v10i2.pdf
> 
> _ In Chief Justice Robert’s
> first term on Halloween, a light bulb exploded during the oral arguments for Central Virginia Community College v. Katz.
> The gunshot-like sound frightened the Court, rattling the nerves of both the justices and the advocates. To ease the
> tension, Chief Justice Roberts joked “I think we’re… I think it’s safe. It’s a trick they play on new Chief Justices all
> the time.” His comment drew laughter and relief, but Justice Scalia’s welcoming reply of “Happy Halloween,”
> brought about even more laughter from the audience and the Court. Not to be outdone, Chief Justice Roberts
> replied “We’re even more in the dark now than before” (37-38:ln 18-25, ln1-2).
> 
> ....In her oral arguments, before the Court as Solicitor General, she often drew laughter from the Court
> and attendees. In United States v. Comstock, General Kagan mistakenly called Justice Scalia “Mr. Chief,” but with the
> same breath wryly corrected herself “excuse me, Justice Scalia -- I didn't mean to promote you quite so quickly.”
> Her comments drew a round of laughter and prompted Chief Justice Roberts to respond “Thanks for thinking it was
> a promotion,” causing Justice Scalia to continue the joking, turning to Chief Justice Roberts and sarcastically
> remarking “And I'm sure you didn't” (26, ln: 6-14). These comments from the justices clearly offer a lighter side to
> the Court’s serious nature
> 
> .....In some situations, advocates or justices will offer a serious
> statement that provokes laughter. Justice Breyer’s underwear comment was delivered without any intent toward
> humor; his immediate embarrassment and attempt to move past the comment was evidence of his blunder and
> invited further laughter. And yet, the audience, advocates, and* the justices howled with laughter from his statement. *_
> 
> _...As previously stated, justices’ “laughter” tags appeared in the transcripts of 51 out of 71 oral arguments, or
> in about 72% of the cases during the 2006-2007 court term. More instances of laughter were probably not captured
> in the other 20 transcripts, but likely occurred. The justices were responsible for at least 131 moments of laughter,
> both captured in transcript “laughter” tags, as well as instances I noted independently when listening to audio files.
> Justice Scalia led the justices with 60 statements that generated laughter, Justice Breyer came in a far second with 35
> statements, Chief Justice Roberts had 12, Justice Souter 9, Justice Kennedy 7, Justice Stevens 4, Justice Ginsburg 4,
> Justice Alito 2, and Justice Thomas 0. Sixteen advocates were responsible for a total of 21 instances of laughter, with
> Mr. Dreeben leading the pack by drawing laughter 3 times.
> _
> There are whole blogs devoted to Justice's humor:
> The funniest justice DC Dicta
> 
> _When Paul Clement, the attorney for the respondent in the case American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, wrapped up his oral argument Wednesday, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. told him: “We’ll afford you some rebuttal time.”
> 
> Puzzled, the Clement looked at the chief justice and slowly took his seat. Roberts, realizing his mistake – only the petitioner’s attorney gets rebuttal time – corrected himself: “Oh, no we won’t!”
> _
> _
> 
> _
> _*As the justices and onlookers laughed*, Justice Antonin G. Scalia jumped in.
> 
> “You should have said, ‘I accept,’ very quickly,” Scalia said to Clement, drawing more laughter.
> _
> In conclusion- Justices do laugh during oral arguments- and Justices do crack jokes during oral arguments.
> _
> 
> _
Click to expand...


The original claim was that the justices "laughed out loud" during oral arguments being made by the Virginia AG.  A claim that was never proven.  It's only the party that's wrong in an argument that keeps going and going, trying to erase their error.  I'm right and I'm moving on.  Bye.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ that homosexuality is virtually indistinguishable from pederasty .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you think that the Vatican= like you and Greenboy also cannot tell the difference between rape and adults who happen to be attracted to the same gender?
> 
> What is it about homophobes that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the Vatican deferred to the same expert research that I do which indicates a strong link between homosexuality and pederasty.  It's not to say all homosexuals bugger boys, but that enough of them do that homosexuals should not be allowed to be priests out of an abundance of caution.
> 
> 50 shades of gay.  You can't escape from the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two things:
> 
> Why is it homophobes only care about child molestation when they can call it 'pederasty'?  Why do you always ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?
> 
> _''I can only assume that women victims simply aren't newsworthy, regardless of what we have to say," concluded a dispirited Ann Hagan Webb, a psychologist who heads the New England chapter of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. Fifty percent of the organization's members are women. ''The Vatican's decision to ban gay men from the priesthood is an insult to survivors of either gender. The vast number of girls and women abused by priests underscores the obvious, that banning gay priests will not solve the problem of sexual abuse in the church."_
> 
> And what is it about homophobes that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender? Your words: "homosexuality is virtually indistinguishable from pederasty"- yet homosexuality is attraction to the same gender, but pederasty is child rape.
> 
> Since you consider them the same thing- do you think that any man(you seem to confine your condemnation to men) who is attracted to other men should be arrested, convicted and imprisoned like I hope you think child molesters should be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry. Didn't make it past "homophobes". I don't know what that is and suspect you are accidentally addressing me instead of someone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problem- let me rephrase
> 
> Two things:
> 
> Why is it SaintMikey and other bigots only care about child molestation when they can call it 'pederasty'?  Why does Saintboy always ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?
> 
> _''I can only assume that women victims simply aren't newsworthy, regardless of what we have to say," concluded a dispirited Ann Hagan Webb, a psychologist who heads the New England chapter of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. Fifty percent of the organization's members are women. ''The Vatican's decision to ban gay men from the priesthood is an insult to survivors of either gender. The vast number of girls and women abused by priests underscores the obvious, that banning gay priests will not solve the problem of sexual abuse in the church."_
> 
> And what is it about Saintmikey and other bigots that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender? Saintmikey words: "homosexuality is virtually indistinguishable from pederasty"- yet homosexuality is attraction to the same gender, but pederasty is child rape.
> 
> Since Saintmikey consider's them the same thing- does he  think that any man(he confines his condemnation to men) who is attracted to other men should be arrested, convicted and imprisoned like I hope he  thinks child molesters should be?
Click to expand...



You draw faulty assumptions, as bigots like you often do.  Focusing on one part of an issue does not mean ignoring other parts.  I've been a strong advocate of sex offender registries and lengthy and even life prison terms for molesting children.....on other threads where that's the topic of discussion.  Your assumption makes an ASS out of you and you. Here's we're discussing homosexuality which invariably involves pederasty because homosexual attractions don't draw the same lines as our penal code does.  What's amazing to me is that you accuse me of pretending a problem doesn't exist when in fact, you're doing that right now, pretending that gay men aren't more likely than any other sector of society to molest boys.  

You got your head up your ASSumptions and pretending everyone else does too.

Bigot.


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you think that the Vatican= like you and Greenboy also cannot tell the difference between rape and adults who happen to be attracted to the same gender?
> 
> What is it about homophobes that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Vatican deferred to the same expert research that I do which indicates a strong link between homosexuality and pederasty.  It's not to say all homosexuals bugger boys, but that enough of them do that homosexuals should not be allowed to be priests out of an abundance of caution.
> 
> 50 shades of gay.  You can't escape from the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two things:
> 
> Why is it homophobes only care about child molestation when they can call it 'pederasty'?  Why do you always ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?
> 
> _''I can only assume that women victims simply aren't newsworthy, regardless of what we have to say," concluded a dispirited Ann Hagan Webb, a psychologist who heads the New England chapter of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. Fifty percent of the organization's members are women. ''The Vatican's decision to ban gay men from the priesthood is an insult to survivors of either gender. The vast number of girls and women abused by priests underscores the obvious, that banning gay priests will not solve the problem of sexual abuse in the church."_
> 
> And what is it about homophobes that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender? Your words: "homosexuality is virtually indistinguishable from pederasty"- yet homosexuality is attraction to the same gender, but pederasty is child rape.
> 
> Since you consider them the same thing- do you think that any man(you seem to confine your condemnation to men) who is attracted to other men should be arrested, convicted and imprisoned like I hope you think child molesters should be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry. Didn't make it past "homophobes". I don't know what that is and suspect you are accidentally addressing me instead of someone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problem- let me rephrase
> 
> Two things:
> 
> Why is it SaintMikey and other bigots only care about child molestation when they can call it 'pederasty'?  Why does Saintboy always ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?
> 
> _''I can only assume that women victims simply aren't newsworthy, regardless of what we have to say," concluded a dispirited Ann Hagan Webb, a psychologist who heads the New England chapter of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. Fifty percent of the organization's members are women. ''The Vatican's decision to ban gay men from the priesthood is an insult to survivors of either gender. The vast number of girls and women abused by priests underscores the obvious, that banning gay priests will not solve the problem of sexual abuse in the church."_
> 
> And what is it about Saintmikey and other bigots that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender? Saintmikey words: "homosexuality is virtually indistinguishable from pederasty"- yet homosexuality is attraction to the same gender, but pederasty is child rape.
> 
> Since Saintmikey consider's them the same thing- does he  think that any man(he confines his condemnation to men) who is attracted to other men should be arrested, convicted and imprisoned like I hope he  thinks child molesters should be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You draw faulty assumptions, as bigots like you often do.  Focusing on one part of an issue does not mean ignoring other parts.  I've been a strong advocate of sex offender registries and lengthy and even life prison terms for molesting children.....on other threads where that's the topic of discussion.  Your assumption makes an ASS out of you and you. Here's we're discussing homosexuality which invariably involves pederasty because homosexual attractions don't draw the same lines as our penal code does.  What's amazing to me is that you accuse me of pretending a problem doesn't exist when in fact, you're doing that right now, pretending that gay men aren't more likely than any other sector of society to molest boys.
> 
> You got your head up your ASSumptions and pretending everyone else does too.
> 
> Bigot.
Click to expand...


No faulty assumption at all- I am pointing out your actual posting pattern here on US Message boards

You were speaking of the Vatican and child molestation by priests- yet you made not one mention of the female victims of priests sexual molestation. 

So why is it you and other bigots only care about child molestation when they can call it 'pederasty'? Why do you always ignore child molestation victims if they are girls? 

_''I can only assume that women victims simply aren't newsworthy, regardless of what we have to say," concluded a dispirited Ann Hagan Webb, a psychologist who heads the New England chapter of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. Fifty percent of the organization's members are women. ''The Vatican's decision to ban gay men from the priesthood is an insult to survivors of either gender. The vast number of girls and women abused by priests underscores the obvious, that banning gay priests will not solve the problem of sexual abuse in the church."_

And what is it about you and other bigots that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender? Your words: "homosexuality is virtually indistinguishable from pederasty"- yet homosexuality is attraction to the same gender, but pederasty is child rape.

Since you consider them the same thing- do you think that any man(he confines his condemnation to men) who is attracted to other men should be arrested, convicted and imprisoned like I  hope you think child molesters should be?


----------



## Syriusly

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't make a claim, Pee Wee, you did. You claimed that justices didn't laugh in chambers. I proved you wrong and then you tried to move the goalposts. So pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually you claimed that they "laughed out loud" hearing oral arguments from the Virginia AG.  Your claim, which was bullshit.  Now we know you're a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I pointed out before Saintboy-
> 
> Here is what you claimed:
> _"Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie.*  Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments.....*
> 
> *Stop lying, Fish breath!"
> *_
> *Then Seawitch provided proof that refuted your specific claim that Justices never laugh during oral arguments....and it happened again just a few days ago
> 
> Supreme Court justices laugh at Arizona town s church sign laws - Washington Times
> *
> I have no idea whether or not the Justices during Loving laughed out loud or not- and you didn't either- you just assumed that Justices never do that- and called Seawitch a liar- AND then said specifically that 'justices do not 'laugh out loud' while attorneys are presenting oral arguments.
> 
> *In other words- you lied. Seawitch caught you in your lie. Maybe she did also- but most certainly you lied.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supreme Court justices do not laugh out loud when oral arguments are being presented.  Either find a case that refutes that or STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://commlawreview.org/archives/clrv10i2/the function of laughter at the u.s. supreme court clr v10i2.pdf
> 
> _ In Chief Justice Robert’s
> first term on Halloween, a light bulb exploded during the oral arguments for Central Virginia Community College v. Katz.
> The gunshot-like sound frightened the Court, rattling the nerves of both the justices and the advocates. To ease the
> tension, Chief Justice Roberts joked “I think we’re… I think it’s safe. It’s a trick they play on new Chief Justices all
> the time.” His comment drew laughter and relief, but Justice Scalia’s welcoming reply of “Happy Halloween,”
> brought about even more laughter from the audience and the Court. Not to be outdone, Chief Justice Roberts
> replied “We’re even more in the dark now than before” (37-38:ln 18-25, ln1-2).
> 
> ....In her oral arguments, before the Court as Solicitor General, she often drew laughter from the Court
> and attendees. In United States v. Comstock, General Kagan mistakenly called Justice Scalia “Mr. Chief,” but with the
> same breath wryly corrected herself “excuse me, Justice Scalia -- I didn't mean to promote you quite so quickly.”
> Her comments drew a round of laughter and prompted Chief Justice Roberts to respond “Thanks for thinking it was
> a promotion,” causing Justice Scalia to continue the joking, turning to Chief Justice Roberts and sarcastically
> remarking “And I'm sure you didn't” (26, ln: 6-14). These comments from the justices clearly offer a lighter side to
> the Court’s serious nature
> 
> .....In some situations, advocates or justices will offer a serious
> statement that provokes laughter. Justice Breyer’s underwear comment was delivered without any intent toward
> humor; his immediate embarrassment and attempt to move past the comment was evidence of his blunder and
> invited further laughter. And yet, the audience, advocates, and* the justices howled with laughter from his statement. *_
> 
> _...As previously stated, justices’ “laughter” tags appeared in the transcripts of 51 out of 71 oral arguments, or
> in about 72% of the cases during the 2006-2007 court term. More instances of laughter were probably not captured
> in the other 20 transcripts, but likely occurred. The justices were responsible for at least 131 moments of laughter,
> both captured in transcript “laughter” tags, as well as instances I noted independently when listening to audio files.
> Justice Scalia led the justices with 60 statements that generated laughter, Justice Breyer came in a far second with 35
> statements, Chief Justice Roberts had 12, Justice Souter 9, Justice Kennedy 7, Justice Stevens 4, Justice Ginsburg 4,
> Justice Alito 2, and Justice Thomas 0. Sixteen advocates were responsible for a total of 21 instances of laughter, with
> Mr. Dreeben leading the pack by drawing laughter 3 times.
> _
> There are whole blogs devoted to Justice's humor:
> The funniest justice DC Dicta
> 
> _When Paul Clement, the attorney for the respondent in the case American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, wrapped up his oral argument Wednesday, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. told him: “We’ll afford you some rebuttal time.”
> 
> Puzzled, the Clement looked at the chief justice and slowly took his seat. Roberts, realizing his mistake – only the petitioner’s attorney gets rebuttal time – corrected himself: “Oh, no we won’t!”
> _
> _
> 
> _
> _*As the justices and onlookers laughed*, Justice Antonin G. Scalia jumped in.
> 
> “You should have said, ‘I accept,’ very quickly,” Scalia said to Clement, drawing more laughter.
> _
> In conclusion- Justices do laugh during oral arguments- and Justices do crack jokes during oral arguments.
> _
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The original claim was that the justices "laughed out loud" during oral arguments being made by the Virginia AG.  A claim that was never proven.  It's only the party that's wrong in an argument that keeps going and going, trying to erase their error.  I'm right and I'm moving on.  Bye.
Click to expand...


That was the original claim- and then you lied in your response to the original claim.

But heck- not the first time I have pointed out that you have lied and had you just declare you are right and run away.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Vatican deferred to the same expert research that I do which indicates a strong link between homosexuality and pederasty.  It's not to say all homosexuals bugger boys, but that enough of them do that homosexuals should not be allowed to be priests out of an abundance of caution.
> 
> 50 shades of gay.  You can't escape from the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two things:
> 
> Why is it homophobes only care about child molestation when they can call it 'pederasty'?  Why do you always ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?
> 
> _''I can only assume that women victims simply aren't newsworthy, regardless of what we have to say," concluded a dispirited Ann Hagan Webb, a psychologist who heads the New England chapter of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. Fifty percent of the organization's members are women. ''The Vatican's decision to ban gay men from the priesthood is an insult to survivors of either gender. The vast number of girls and women abused by priests underscores the obvious, that banning gay priests will not solve the problem of sexual abuse in the church."_
> 
> And what is it about homophobes that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender? Your words: "homosexuality is virtually indistinguishable from pederasty"- yet homosexuality is attraction to the same gender, but pederasty is child rape.
> 
> Since you consider them the same thing- do you think that any man(you seem to confine your condemnation to men) who is attracted to other men should be arrested, convicted and imprisoned like I hope you think child molesters should be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry. Didn't make it past "homophobes". I don't know what that is and suspect you are accidentally addressing me instead of someone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problem- let me rephrase
> 
> Two things:
> 
> Why is it SaintMikey and other bigots only care about child molestation when they can call it 'pederasty'?  Why does Saintboy always ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?
> 
> _''I can only assume that women victims simply aren't newsworthy, regardless of what we have to say," concluded a dispirited Ann Hagan Webb, a psychologist who heads the New England chapter of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. Fifty percent of the organization's members are women. ''The Vatican's decision to ban gay men from the priesthood is an insult to survivors of either gender. The vast number of girls and women abused by priests underscores the obvious, that banning gay priests will not solve the problem of sexual abuse in the church."_
> 
> And what is it about Saintmikey and other bigots that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender? Saintmikey words: "homosexuality is virtually indistinguishable from pederasty"- yet homosexuality is attraction to the same gender, but pederasty is child rape.
> 
> Since Saintmikey consider's them the same thing- does he  think that any man(he confines his condemnation to men) who is attracted to other men should be arrested, convicted and imprisoned like I hope he  thinks child molesters should be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You draw faulty assumptions, as bigots like you often do.  Focusing on one part of an issue does not mean ignoring other parts.  I've been a strong advocate of sex offender registries and lengthy and even life prison terms for molesting children.....on other threads where that's the topic of discussion.  Your assumption makes an ASS out of you and you. Here's we're discussing homosexuality which invariably involves pederasty because homosexual attractions don't draw the same lines as our penal code does.  What's amazing to me is that you accuse me of pretending a problem doesn't exist when in fact, you're doing that right now, pretending that gay men aren't more likely than any other sector of society to molest boys.
> 
> You got your head up your ASSumptions and pretending everyone else does too.
> 
> Bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No faulty assumption at all- I am pointing out your actual posting pattern here on US Message boards
> 
> You were speaking of the Vatican and child molestation by priests- yet you made not one mention of the female victims of priests sexual molestation.
> 
> So why is it you and other bigots only care about child molestation when they can call it 'pederasty'? Why do you always ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?
> 
> _''I can only assume that women victims simply aren't newsworthy, regardless of what we have to say," concluded a dispirited Ann Hagan Webb, a psychologist who heads the New England chapter of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. Fifty percent of the organization's members are women. ''The Vatican's decision to ban gay men from the priesthood is an insult to survivors of either gender. The vast number of girls and women abused by priests underscores the obvious, that banning gay priests will not solve the problem of sexual abuse in the church."_
> 
> And what is it about you and other bigots that they cannot tell the difference between rape and simply being attracted to the same gender? Your words: "homosexuality is virtually indistinguishable from pederasty"- yet homosexuality is attraction to the same gender, but pederasty is child rape.
> 
> Since you consider them the same thing- do you think that any man(he confines his condemnation to men) who is attracted to other men should be arrested, convicted and imprisoned like I  hope you think child molesters should be?
Click to expand...


I"m not answering the same question twice, especially after I demonstrated your question makes you look like a raging moron. Bye.


----------



## Syriusly

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you always ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?
> 
> 
> 
> Because the discussion at hand relates to homosexuality ... Lesbians are NOT child Molesters.  The rate of occurrence among Dykes is so infinitesimally small that it is not even a factor .
> 
> Gay Men are the issue when it comes top Children - The odds are about 300X more likely that a boy will be molested if left in the company of a queer as opposed to a normal person.
> 
> I hope that clarified things in your muddled little mind perhaps a wee bit .  And based on your post ....  *are you trying to insult homosexuals by claiming that Lesbians are Child Molesters ??!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?
> 
> More specifically- why do you ignore the majority of child molestation victims?
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because all of your posts are intended only to attack homosexuals, and you don't give a rat's ass about how much that will harm children.
> 
> Bigots like you lead to parents leaving their kids with openly heterosexual fathers and husbands like Jerry Sandusky- because those boys and girls will be 'safe' as long as the guy is not a homosexual.....according to you bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you just don't get it do you ?  ...Of course you don't - you're a faggot , and no a very bright one at that.
> .
Click to expand...


I don't get your bigotry and hate- no I don't. I don't understand why someone would spend his time sharing his hate with the rest of the world.

I don't understand why anyone would endanger children by spreading a false narrative- why anyone- would be telling parents "Its the Homosexual men that are a danger to your children" when the majority of victims are girls, and the majority of molesters of boys are openly heterosexual fathers and husbands like Jerry Sandusky.

No- as a man who has been happily married to my gorgious wife for over 20 years, and as a father- no I don't understand the tiny minded bigotry you espouse. 

Luckily your kind of bigotry is rapidly becoming as popular as the guy yelling "bitch slap n*ggers until they stop being so uppity".


----------



## bodecea

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you always ignore child molestation victims if they are girls?
> 
> 
> 
> Because the discussion at hand relates to homosexuality ... Lesbians are NOT child Molesters.  The rate of occurrence among Dykes is so infinitesimally small that it is not even a factor .
> 
> Gay Men are the issue when it comes top Children - The odds are about 300X more likely that a boy will be molested if left in the company of a queer as opposed to a normal person.
> 
> I hope that clarified things in your muddled little mind perhaps a wee bit .  And based on your post ....  *are you trying to insult homosexuals by claiming that Lesbians are Child Molesters ??!!*
Click to expand...

Most molestors are MALE family members and friends.  Little girls apparently need to watch out for their fathers, their brothers, their cousins, their uncles, their grandfathers, their parents' friends.   How sad.


----------



## bodecea

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't make a claim, Pee Wee, you did. You claimed that justices didn't laugh in chambers. I proved you wrong and then you tried to move the goalposts. So pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually you claimed that they "laughed out loud" hearing oral arguments from the Virginia AG.  Your claim, which was bullshit.  Now we know you're a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I pointed out before Saintboy-
> 
> Here is what you claimed:
> _"Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie.*  Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments.....*
> 
> *Stop lying, Fish breath!"
> *_
> *Then Seawitch provided proof that refuted your specific claim that Justices never laugh during oral arguments....and it happened again just a few days ago
> 
> Supreme Court justices laugh at Arizona town s church sign laws - Washington Times
> *
> I have no idea whether or not the Justices during Loving laughed out loud or not- and you didn't either- you just assumed that Justices never do that- and called Seawitch a liar- AND then said specifically that 'justices do not 'laugh out loud' while attorneys are presenting oral arguments.
> 
> *In other words- you lied. Seawitch caught you in your lie. Maybe she did also- but most certainly you lied.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supreme Court justices do not laugh out loud when oral arguments are being presented.  Either find a case that refutes that or STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://commlawreview.org/archives/clrv10i2/the function of laughter at the u.s. supreme court clr v10i2.pdf
> 
> _ In Chief Justice Robert’s
> first term on Halloween, a light bulb exploded during the oral arguments for Central Virginia Community College v. Katz.
> The gunshot-like sound frightened the Court, rattling the nerves of both the justices and the advocates. To ease the
> tension, Chief Justice Roberts joked “I think we’re… I think it’s safe. It’s a trick they play on new Chief Justices all
> the time.” His comment drew laughter and relief, but Justice Scalia’s welcoming reply of “Happy Halloween,”
> brought about even more laughter from the audience and the Court. Not to be outdone, Chief Justice Roberts
> replied “We’re even more in the dark now than before” (37-38:ln 18-25, ln1-2).
> 
> ....In her oral arguments, before the Court as Solicitor General, she often drew laughter from the Court
> and attendees. In United States v. Comstock, General Kagan mistakenly called Justice Scalia “Mr. Chief,” but with the
> same breath wryly corrected herself “excuse me, Justice Scalia -- I didn't mean to promote you quite so quickly.”
> Her comments drew a round of laughter and prompted Chief Justice Roberts to respond “Thanks for thinking it was
> a promotion,” causing Justice Scalia to continue the joking, turning to Chief Justice Roberts and sarcastically
> remarking “And I'm sure you didn't” (26, ln: 6-14). These comments from the justices clearly offer a lighter side to
> the Court’s serious nature
> 
> .....In some situations, advocates or justices will offer a serious
> statement that provokes laughter. Justice Breyer’s underwear comment was delivered without any intent toward
> humor; his immediate embarrassment and attempt to move past the comment was evidence of his blunder and
> invited further laughter. And yet, the audience, advocates, and* the justices howled with laughter from his statement. *_
> 
> _...As previously stated, justices’ “laughter” tags appeared in the transcripts of 51 out of 71 oral arguments, or
> in about 72% of the cases during the 2006-2007 court term. More instances of laughter were probably not captured
> in the other 20 transcripts, but likely occurred. The justices were responsible for at least 131 moments of laughter,
> both captured in transcript “laughter” tags, as well as instances I noted independently when listening to audio files.
> Justice Scalia led the justices with 60 statements that generated laughter, Justice Breyer came in a far second with 35
> statements, Chief Justice Roberts had 12, Justice Souter 9, Justice Kennedy 7, Justice Stevens 4, Justice Ginsburg 4,
> Justice Alito 2, and Justice Thomas 0. Sixteen advocates were responsible for a total of 21 instances of laughter, with
> Mr. Dreeben leading the pack by drawing laughter 3 times.
> _
> There are whole blogs devoted to Justice's humor:
> The funniest justice DC Dicta
> 
> _When Paul Clement, the attorney for the respondent in the case American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, wrapped up his oral argument Wednesday, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. told him: “We’ll afford you some rebuttal time.”
> 
> Puzzled, the Clement looked at the chief justice and slowly took his seat. Roberts, realizing his mistake – only the petitioner’s attorney gets rebuttal time – corrected himself: “Oh, no we won’t!”
> _
> _
> 
> _
> _*As the justices and onlookers laughed*, Justice Antonin G. Scalia jumped in.
> 
> “You should have said, ‘I accept,’ very quickly,” Scalia said to Clement, drawing more laughter.
> _
> In conclusion- Justices do laugh during oral arguments- and Justices do crack jokes during oral arguments.
> _
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The original claim was that the justices "laughed out loud" during oral arguments being made by the Virginia AG.  A claim that was never proven.  It's only the party that's wrong in an argument that keeps going and going, trying to erase their error.  I'm right and I'm moving on.  Bye.
Click to expand...

They did.  And I posted the audio of the Loving arguments.  You have already stated you are too lazy to listen thru it.  Have you done so since then?   If you had, you wouldn't be embarassing yourself AGAIN like this.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

bodecea said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually you claimed that they "laughed out loud" hearing oral arguments from the Virginia AG.  Your claim, which was bullshit.  Now we know you're a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I pointed out before Saintboy-
> 
> Here is what you claimed:
> _"Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie.*  Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments.....*
> 
> *Stop lying, Fish breath!"
> *_
> *Then Seawitch provided proof that refuted your specific claim that Justices never laugh during oral arguments....and it happened again just a few days ago
> 
> Supreme Court justices laugh at Arizona town s church sign laws - Washington Times
> *
> I have no idea whether or not the Justices during Loving laughed out loud or not- and you didn't either- you just assumed that Justices never do that- and called Seawitch a liar- AND then said specifically that 'justices do not 'laugh out loud' while attorneys are presenting oral arguments.
> 
> *In other words- you lied. Seawitch caught you in your lie. Maybe she did also- but most certainly you lied.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supreme Court justices do not laugh out loud when oral arguments are being presented.  Either find a case that refutes that or STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://commlawreview.org/archives/clrv10i2/the function of laughter at the u.s. supreme court clr v10i2.pdf
> 
> _ In Chief Justice Robert’s
> first term on Halloween, a light bulb exploded during the oral arguments for Central Virginia Community College v. Katz.
> The gunshot-like sound frightened the Court, rattling the nerves of both the justices and the advocates. To ease the
> tension, Chief Justice Roberts joked “I think we’re… I think it’s safe. It’s a trick they play on new Chief Justices all
> the time.” His comment drew laughter and relief, but Justice Scalia’s welcoming reply of “Happy Halloween,”
> brought about even more laughter from the audience and the Court. Not to be outdone, Chief Justice Roberts
> replied “We’re even more in the dark now than before” (37-38:ln 18-25, ln1-2).
> 
> ....In her oral arguments, before the Court as Solicitor General, she often drew laughter from the Court
> and attendees. In United States v. Comstock, General Kagan mistakenly called Justice Scalia “Mr. Chief,” but with the
> same breath wryly corrected herself “excuse me, Justice Scalia -- I didn't mean to promote you quite so quickly.”
> Her comments drew a round of laughter and prompted Chief Justice Roberts to respond “Thanks for thinking it was
> a promotion,” causing Justice Scalia to continue the joking, turning to Chief Justice Roberts and sarcastically
> remarking “And I'm sure you didn't” (26, ln: 6-14). These comments from the justices clearly offer a lighter side to
> the Court’s serious nature
> 
> .....In some situations, advocates or justices will offer a serious
> statement that provokes laughter. Justice Breyer’s underwear comment was delivered without any intent toward
> humor; his immediate embarrassment and attempt to move past the comment was evidence of his blunder and
> invited further laughter. And yet, the audience, advocates, and* the justices howled with laughter from his statement. *_
> 
> _...As previously stated, justices’ “laughter” tags appeared in the transcripts of 51 out of 71 oral arguments, or
> in about 72% of the cases during the 2006-2007 court term. More instances of laughter were probably not captured
> in the other 20 transcripts, but likely occurred. The justices were responsible for at least 131 moments of laughter,
> both captured in transcript “laughter” tags, as well as instances I noted independently when listening to audio files.
> Justice Scalia led the justices with 60 statements that generated laughter, Justice Breyer came in a far second with 35
> statements, Chief Justice Roberts had 12, Justice Souter 9, Justice Kennedy 7, Justice Stevens 4, Justice Ginsburg 4,
> Justice Alito 2, and Justice Thomas 0. Sixteen advocates were responsible for a total of 21 instances of laughter, with
> Mr. Dreeben leading the pack by drawing laughter 3 times.
> _
> There are whole blogs devoted to Justice's humor:
> The funniest justice DC Dicta
> 
> _When Paul Clement, the attorney for the respondent in the case American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, wrapped up his oral argument Wednesday, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. told him: “We’ll afford you some rebuttal time.”
> 
> Puzzled, the Clement looked at the chief justice and slowly took his seat. Roberts, realizing his mistake – only the petitioner’s attorney gets rebuttal time – corrected himself: “Oh, no we won’t!”
> _
> _
> 
> _
> _*As the justices and onlookers laughed*, Justice Antonin G. Scalia jumped in.
> 
> “You should have said, ‘I accept,’ very quickly,” Scalia said to Clement, drawing more laughter.
> _
> In conclusion- Justices do laugh during oral arguments- and Justices do crack jokes during oral arguments.
> _
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The original claim was that the justices "laughed out loud" during oral arguments being made by the Virginia AG.  A claim that was never proven.  It's only the party that's wrong in an argument that keeps going and going, trying to erase their error.  I'm right and I'm moving on.  Bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did.  And I posted the audio of the Loving arguments.  You have already stated you are too lazy to listen thru it.  Have you done so since then?   If you had, you wouldn't be embarassing yourself AGAIN like this.
Click to expand...




I'm not sitting through an hour and a half audio for something I know isn't there.  If indeed the justices "laughed out loud" during oral arguments made by the Virginia AG, as you falsely claimed, there would have been commentary about it in articles that can be referenced.  You claim to have a family, I really do. And if you really were a family woman, you would know better than to think a father and husband has an hour and a half to spend chasing down phantoms of your Leftist imagination. 

If you don't have an actual link to comments made about the jocular reaction of the justices, then STFU.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Seawytch said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no homosexual dilemma. Either you put another man's unit in your mouth or you don't. Case closed. If you do...please keep it to yourself, don't carry a sign and march in the street that you put another guy's tool in your mug and how proud you are of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody carries signs that say that.
> 
> I've never put a man's unit in my mouth...but I have marched in a Pride Parade.
> 
> You want gays living their lives in secret. Ain't gonna happen. We have lives and families and we don't have to keep them quiet. We aren't ashamed.
Click to expand...

Private... we want you to keep your deviancy private... You need to be offended by that...  and that's fine.

But when you and your bestee are being dragged from your home, just before that round cracks through and scrambles your eggs... see if you can keep from wishing that you had just kept your private life, private.

And that's not a threat from me...  normalizing sexual abnormality is a symptom of a dying culture.  History requires that culture's which do so, either collapse or are conquered, shortly there after.  And without regard to which way the end comes, the next order of business, either by those building a new nation or the conqueror set to work cleansing the culture of homosexuals.  SLAMMING the door to the proverbial closet... _once again_.

So it's just a function of nature.  

And all because you idiots can't find the strength of character to recognize that you have the freedom to just BE... whatever the fuck ya want.  You can playhouse with your bestee, visit in hospital, receive retirement benefits and ya can do that in any state in the US RIGHT NOW, through the forming of an LLC. 

It's a simple formula, which has played out time and again throughout history and it is WHY you keep getting your swollen asses tossed back into the closet... You're _IRRATIONAL and destructive to cultural viability._


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

bodecea said:


> Most molestors are MALE ....



Yep... and 100% of molesters are sexually abnormal, just as 100% of homosexuals are sexually abnormal.

So with that being irrefutable fact, 'the problem' becomes immaculately clear.  

Sexual abnormality is a function of perverse REASONING... reasoning which fails to recognize the simple distinction between right, from wrong.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most molestors are MALE ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep... and 100% of molesters are sexually abnormal, just as 100% of homosexuals are sexually abnormal.
> 
> So with that being irrefutable fact, 'the problem' becomes immaculately clear.
> 
> Sexual abnormality is a function of perverse REASONING... reasoning which fails to recognize the simple distinction between right, from wrong.
Click to expand...


100% of celibates are sexually abnormal, if this a numbers game.

100% of couples who only have sex for reproduction is abnormal.


----------



## JakeStarkey

where_r_my_keys merely keeps carrying the same old baggage.

What is funny is that he thinks he is an authority on any of this stuff.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most molestors are MALE ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep... and 100% of molesters are sexually abnormal, just as 100% of homosexuals are sexually abnormal.
> 
> So with that being irrefutable fact, 'the problem' becomes immaculately clear.
> 
> Sexual abnormality is a function of perverse REASONING... reasoning which fails to recognize the simple distinction between right, from wrong.
Click to expand...


There's about 2 billion Christians in the world, about 1.6 billion Muslims but only 14 million Jews. By your logic Jews are abnormal and thus perverse.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Delta4Embassy said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most molestors are MALE ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep... and 100% of molesters are sexually abnormal, just as 100% of homosexuals are sexually abnormal.
> 
> So with that being irrefutable fact, 'the problem' becomes immaculately clear.
> 
> Sexual abnormality is a function of perverse REASONING... reasoning which fails to recognize the simple distinction between right, from wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's about 2 billion Christians in the world, about 1.6 billion Muslims but only 14 million Jews. By your logic Jews are abnormal and thus perverse.
Click to expand...


_False... _

FYI: You should know that your inability to understand what a standard is, and from that ignorance, you've formed an invalid conclusion, has no actual bearing on that standard or on the deviations from such, thereof.

But I DO appreciate the demonstration of the same disordered, "perverse" reasoning, that rationalizes Sexual _*Ab*normality; _which is to say deviancy...  to be _perfectly *normal.*_

(The Reader should realize at this point, that for such reasoning to be 'true'... 'truth must simply not be a factor of consideration.

Which, given that the issue here is "Homosexuality, as with all variations of sexual abnormality, is a mental disorder".

And given THE premise which has been advanced, is a tenet common to only ONE species of reasoning, which is Relativism...

And given that Relativism, is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.

It is through this, perversion of reason, wherein relativism axiomatically rejects the *objectivity* that is essential to truth.  

AND given that ALL OF THAT means that the lowly Relativist is _D E L U S I O N A L ...  _or >>_ an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as *reality* or rational argument, typically *a symptom of mental disorder.*_

It has now been established that Homosexuality is, in fact...  the intrinsic consequence OF Mental Disorder.)


----------



## JakeStarkey

Where r my Keys teaching logic?

That's like a Panda teaching a cooking class.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

NYcarbineer said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most molestors are MALE ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep... and 100% of molesters are sexually abnormal, just as 100% of homosexuals are sexually abnormal.
> 
> So with that being irrefutable fact, 'the problem' becomes immaculately clear.
> 
> Sexual abnormality is a function of perverse REASONING... reasoning which fails to recognize the simple distinction between right, from wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 100% of celibates are sexually abnormal, if this a numbers game.
Click to expand...


How so?  



NYcarbineer said:


> 100% of couples who only have sex for reproduction is abnormal.



LOL!  

Isn't it ADORABLE how the Ideological Left, has absolutely NO MEANS to comprehend the distinction between the Sexual Standard, subsequent to the design of the human physiological design and behavior subsequent to popular whimsy.

Again... we're looking at nothing short of behavior induced through a perversion of human reasoning... OKA: A Mental Disorder.

Now, you may ask... "What are the consequences of tolerating people who suffer from a disordered mind?"

And that is an excellent question.

Where disordered minds are, for instance, allowed to vote... they will be likely to elect other people who also suffer from a disordered mind.  And THOSE people, in possession of influence or power, will be likely to impart all manner of perversion.  FOR INSTANCE: They may well declare that sexual abnormality is PERFECTLY NORMAL... that "Men Should be Allowed to "MARRY" other Men", or that they can encourage tens of millions if indigents, many of which are carrying lethal contagions, to enter the US, prevent US Law enforcement from doing anything to stop them then pay them through the federal welfare stealing money from programs designed to sustain US Citizens who are incapable of sustaining themselves...  give them driver's licenses and REGISTER THEM TO VOTE.

So, what we've established here is that in fact: Sexual Abnormality is a symptom of mental disorder and of course, 'liberalism, progressivism (fascism), socialism and communism and Islam.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Where r my Keys just babbles on like a four year old.

What's funny is that he believes he is an authority on these matters.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most molestors are MALE ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep... and 100% of molesters are sexually abnormal, just as 100% of homosexuals are sexually abnormal.
> 
> So with that being irrefutable fact, 'the problem' becomes immaculately clear.
> 
> Sexual abnormality is a function of perverse REASONING... reasoning which fails to recognize the simple distinction between right, from wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 100% of celibates are sexually abnormal, if this a numbers game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 100% of couples who only have sex for reproduction is abnormal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Isn't it ADORABLE how the Ideological Left, has absolutely NO MEANS to comprehend the distinction between the Sexual Standard, subsequent to the design of the human physiological design and behavior subsequent to popular whimsy.
> 
> Again... we're looking at nothing short of behavior induced through a perversion of human reasoning... OKA: A Mental Disorder.
> 
> Now, you may ask... "What are the consequences of tolerating people who suffer from a disordered mind?"
> 
> And that is an excellent question.
> 
> Where disordered minds are, for instance, allowed to vote... they will be likely to elect other people who also suffer from a disordered mind.  And THOSE people, in possession of influence or power, will be likely to impart all manner of perversion.  FOR INSTANCE: They may well declare that sexual abnormality is PERFECTLY NORMAL... that "Men Should be Allowed to "MARRY" other Men", or that they can encourage tens of millions if indigents, many of which are carrying lethal contagions, to enter the US, prevent US Law enforcement from doing anything to stop them then pay them through the federal welfare stealing money from programs designed to sustain US Citizens who are incapable of sustaining themselves...  give them driver's licenses and REGISTER THEM TO VOTE.
> 
> So, what we've established here is that in fact: Sexual Abnormality is a symptom of mental disorder and of course, 'liberalism, progressivism (fascism), socialism and communism and Islam.
Click to expand...


Celibates aren't abnormal?  They don't reproduce in the manner you consider 'normal'.  They don't engage in the sexual activities you consider 'normal'.  How can they not be 'abnormal'?  ...using your own standards...

If everyone were celibate, the species would die out.  Isn't that a problem for you?

Disordered minds shouldn't be allowed to vote?  What??!!!  Wouldn't you have to VOTE to decide to impose that bizarre restriction? 

*There is nothing sexually abnormal about homosexuals.   They have sex.  They have sex for pleasure, for satisfaction.  They have sex for love.  They have for non-reproductive motives - 

IOW they have sex in the same ways and for the same reasons that 99% of sexually active heterosexuals have sex.*

If homosexuals are abnormal, then almost everyone is abnormal.  That is an absurd concept.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

NYcarbineer said:


> Celibates aren't abnormal?



Nope...



NYcarbineer said:


> They don't reproduce ...



No they do not.  Because they do not engage in sexual behavior.  And FYI: That is_ natural_ means of not conceiving.  

And in keeping with the incredible efficacy intrinsic to the adherence to natural law, it is the singularly most effective means for sound human beings to avoid all potential for conception.  

If you weren't saddled with a disordered mind... _you'd know that._


----------



## JakeStarkey

Where r my keys Doofus speaks as if he understands Natural Law.

Such makes reason stare.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

NYcarbineer said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most molestors are MALE ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep... and 100% of molesters are sexually abnormal, just as 100% of homosexuals are sexually abnormal.
> 
> So with that being irrefutable fact, 'the problem' becomes immaculately clear.
> 
> Sexual abnormality is a function of perverse REASONING... reasoning which fails to recognize the simple distinction between right, from wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 100% of celibates are sexually abnormal, if this a numbers game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 100% of couples who only have sex for reproduction is abnormal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Isn't it ADORABLE how the Ideological Left, has absolutely NO MEANS to comprehend the distinction between the Sexual Standard, subsequent to the design of the human physiological design and behavior subsequent to popular whimsy.
> 
> Again... we're looking at nothing short of behavior induced through a perversion of human reasoning... OKA: A Mental Disorder.
> 
> Now, you may ask... "What are the consequences of tolerating people who suffer from a disordered mind?"
> 
> And that is an excellent question.
> 
> Where disordered minds are, for instance, allowed to vote... they will be likely to elect other people who also suffer from a disordered mind.  And THOSE people, in possession of influence or power, will be likely to impart all manner of perversion.  FOR INSTANCE: They may well declare that sexual abnormality is PERFECTLY NORMAL... that "Men Should be Allowed to "MARRY" other Men", or that they can encourage tens of millions if indigents, many of which are carrying lethal contagions, to enter the US, prevent US Law enforcement from doing anything to stop them then pay them through the federal welfare stealing money from programs designed to sustain US Citizens who are incapable of sustaining themselves...  give them driver's licenses and REGISTER THEM TO VOTE.
> 
> So, what we've established here is that in fact: Sexual Abnormality is a symptom of mental disorder and of course, 'liberalism, progressivism (fascism), socialism and communism and Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Celibates aren't abnormal?  They don't reproduce in the manner you consider 'normal'.  They don't engage in the sexual activities you consider 'normal'.  How can they not be 'abnormal'?  ...using your own standards...
> 
> If everyone were celibate, the species would die out.  Isn't that a problem for you?
> 
> Disordered minds shouldn't be allowed to vote?  What??!!!  Wouldn't you have to VOTE to decide to impose that bizarre restriction?
> 
> *There is nothing sexually abnormal about homosexuals.   They have sex.  They have sex for pleasure, for satisfaction.  They have sex for love.  They have for non-reproductive motives -
> 
> IOW they have sex in the same ways and for the same reasons that 99% of sexually active heterosexuals have sex.*
> 
> If homosexuals are abnormal, then almost everyone is abnormal.  That is an absurd concept.
Click to expand...


Homos are freaks of nature.  They aren't having sex to create a family, but unlike those who are deprived of the opportunity by a barren medical condition, these people do so by choice.  And then, having intentionally created a union that can't have children, they demand the right to adopt and suck some poor, innocent child into their crazy artificial "family". There's just no comparison.


----------



## JakeStarkey

saintmike is a freak of humanity, but it is what it is.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

NYcarbineer said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most molestors are MALE ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep... and 100% of molesters are sexually abnormal, just as 100% of homosexuals are sexually abnormal.
> 
> So with that being irrefutable fact, 'the problem' becomes immaculately clear.
> 
> Sexual abnormality is a function of perverse REASONING... reasoning which fails to recognize the simple distinction between right, from wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 100% of celibates are sexually abnormal, if this a numbers game.
> 
> 100% of couples who only have sex for reproduction is abnormal.
Click to expand...


Intentionally not having sex for the sake of spiritual purity is in no way comparable to intentionally having sex that violates all the laws of God, Man, and Nature.  How you see a link is a mystery to me.


----------



## JakeStarkey

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most molestors are MALE ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep... and 100% of molesters are sexually abnormal, just as 100% of homosexuals are sexually abnormal.
> 
> So with that being irrefutable fact, 'the problem' becomes immaculately clear.
> 
> Sexual abnormality is a function of perverse REASONING... reasoning which fails to recognize the simple distinction between right, from wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 100% of celibates are sexually abnormal, if this a numbers game.
> 
> 100% of couples who only have sex for reproduction is abnormal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intentionally not having sex for the sake of spiritual purity is in no way comparable to intentionally having sex that violates all the laws of God, Man, and Nature.  How you see a link is a mystery to me.
Click to expand...

saintmike is a mystery to mankind and God.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

Fornicating fel fecal-faggot fiends, that's their proper title.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

GreenBean said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you do...please keep it to yourself, don't carry a sign and march in the street that you put another guy's tool in your mug and how proud you are of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *AND
> *
> Get you Damn Propaganda out of our schools , entertainment outlets, away from our families, our children, our neighbors and our neighbors children. * .*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get your Damn propaganda out of our schools, entertainment outlets, away from our families, our children our neighbors and our neighbors children.
> 
> Oh wait- we have mostly done that- and you haters hate that you are no longer able to spew your bile in our schools, and in our movies, and to your neighbors- all that are still the victims of your hate are your own family.
> 
> Nothing we can do to help them other than be here when they get away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get your Damn propaganda out of our schools,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Parents, as well as the general public are generally unaware of the fact that there is a well organized mob, well oiled machine like activist groups vigorously seeking to indoctrinate and promote homosexuality to societies youngest members. .....
> 
> Bullying has been around as long as human beings have, and probably longer. It's basic human nature , part of the 'hardening' process of growing up. It's part of establishing a pecking order amongst a litter of puppies, and there's little difference in a juvenile social order. * Gay agenda groups have seized the opportunity to promote homosexuality and push for acceptance of sexual perversion and promotion of degenerate behavior among adolescents and children.*  Lessons in homosexuality and homosexual glorification are being force fed to children as young as Kindergarten *under the cloak of "anti-bullying programs" "tolerance" and "safe school initiatives" *.
> 
> Kevin Jennings, masterminded a scheme of gay infiltration into the classroom using "tolerance" and anti-bullying programs as a perfect path to classroom indoctrination.  In 1995 Jennings made a speech to a Gay Group in which he somewhat outlined the agendas strategy
> 
> If the radical right can succeed in portraying us as preying on children, we will lose. Their language .... is laced with subtle and not-so-subtle innuendo that we are after their kids, -   He then went on to propose a strategy of how they could get at our kids. - K. Jennings
> 
> In 2009, Obama nominated homosexual propagandist Kevin Jennings as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Education he was in charge of overseeing the _Safe and Drug-Free Schools program_. Now the drug education programs I personally have no problem with, but the lefts manipulation of the term safe is where the flakiness comes in. *Jennings was in charge of making public schools safe for leftists and homosexuals and to disseminate pro-homosexual propaganda and indoctrination to Americas school children. *
> 
> Jennings was appointed during the first Obama administration ,52 members of Congress, wrote to President Obama requesting that he rescind the appointment because Jennings had for more than 20 years, almost exclusively focused on promoting the homosexual agenda. The Obama regime refused to do so.  Jennings only lasted two years before he resigned, but in that 2 years he did possibly irreparable damage.
> 
> An important aspect of the Jennings strategy involves linking the Gay Agenda to universal values that all members of society share. Basically to latch onto tolerance, diversity, safety, and peaceful coexistence amongst children of many variations - which is a good thing. It's a tactic referred to as Framing.  From this simple dirt path, they seek to build a super-highway into the minds of our youth. Anybody who objected to the Gay Agendas planned indoctrination would be heretofore be labeled a heartless bully, a homophobic demon with a complete disregard for children and students.
> 
> 
> 
> This *framing* short-circuited their arguments [heterosexuals] and left them back-pedaling from day one, .... [N]o one could speak up against our frame and say, Why, yes, I do think students should kill themselves , This allowed us to set the terms for debate. - Kevin Jennings
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------
> 
> ''Pederasts, [Pedophiles]  gender-benders, sadomasochists and other minorities in the homosexual community with more extreme peculiarities would keep a low profile until homosexuality is in the tent. *Only strong and favorable images of homosexuals should be displayed*.
> 
> Selling Homosexuality Gay Rights Activists use of rhetoric media DIJG
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> *Explicit Gay Sex Education*
> 
> Gorham Middle School
> 
> At Gorham Middle School in Maine students learned about homosexual foreplay during what was supposed to be a Diversity Day presentation. Students in an 8th grade class were molested by a group known as Proud Rainbow Youth of Southern Maine. This pathetic performance involved assaulting students with descriptions and unsolicited advice regarding safe homosexual sex acts and suggested* using saran wrap when giving a blow job if a dental dam was not available.
> 
> Teaching The art of Fist F*cking*
> 
> During a workshop for 14-21 year olds , these young people were assaulted by a session that presented unsolicited lessons in _fisting_a homosexual  practice where a persons fist is violently thrusted up the partners rectum for sexual pleasure, instead of the penis. A Gay activist also asked students,* Spit or swallow?... Is it rude?*
> 
> 
> A New Jersey school district has apologized to parents after requiring high school students to read books that include graphic depictions of lesbian sex and a homosexual orgy.  Lesbian Sex Featured on School Reading List Todd Starnes
> 
> Deerfield High School in Deerfield, Illinois, recently assigned the pornographic book Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to students 14 and up as required reading. There is an episode where a gay man in the midst of humping another gay man finds that ha has a broken condom. The humpee screams _Keep it going. Infect me. I dont care. I dont care_. { The U.S. Centers for Disease Control estimates that four percent of the male population is homosexual or bisexual yet they account for 78 percent of new HIV infections }
> 
> In another excerpt _suck my dick, Mother Teresa_ can also be found among the sticky pages.a gay man states that his nose is a sex organ and reaches for another mans pants to offer a demonstration.
> 
> entertainment outlets, away from our families, our children our neighbors and our neighbors children.
> 
> Homosexuals brainwashing our children in elementary schools
> 
> Judge Parents have no right to know what homosexual activist taught their children in school News LifeSite
> 
> School children to be taught about homosexuality to celebrate gay community Daily Mail Online
> 
> Fired teacher denies trying to turn them gay
> 
> Thank Local School Board for Rejecting SSM...in 1st Grade Math Class NOM Blog
> 
> 
> Rios Schools No Longer Teach Reading and Writing Now Just Promote Homosexuality Right Wing Watch
> 
> Judge orders 8216 gay 8217 agenda taught to Christian children
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wait- we have mostly done that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup - you've done it allright  !
Click to expand...

Nothing but religious , right wing bigoted bovine excrement with no basis in reality


----------



## g5000

One could go back 50 years and change this topic to "The Negro Dilemma" and wherever the word "homosexual" or "gay" appears in this topic you can replace it with "negro" and not see a fricking difference between the bigots of yesteryear and today.

Same bullshit, different decade.


----------



## g5000

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?


Christians and Jews pervade our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life already, retard.

"Negroes pervade our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important?  What if Christians and Jews acted like this?"


Same bullshit, different decade.


----------



## bendog

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.



Seriously, I'm hoping this diatribe came from the recesses of your sick mind and you didn't actually find somewhere to plagerize it from.


----------



## rightwinger

Imagine gay people not hiding in shame

Almost like they think they are regular people


----------



## GreenBean

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you do...please keep it to yourself, don't carry a sign and march in the street that you put another guy's tool in your mug and how proud you are of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *AND
> *
> Get you Damn Propaganda out of our schools , entertainment outlets, away from our families, our children, our neighbors and our neighbors children. * .*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get your Damn propaganda out of our schools, entertainment outlets, away from our families, our children our neighbors and our neighbors children.
> 
> Oh wait- we have mostly done that- and you haters hate that you are no longer able to spew your bile in our schools, and in our movies, and to your neighbors- all that are still the victims of your hate are your own family.
> 
> Nothing we can do to help them other than be here when they get away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get your Damn propaganda out of our schools,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Parents, as well as the general public are generally unaware of the fact that there is a well organized mob, well oiled machine like activist groups vigorously seeking to indoctrinate and promote homosexuality to societies youngest members. .....
> 
> Bullying has been around as long as human beings have, and probably longer. It's basic human nature , part of the 'hardening' process of growing up. It's part of establishing a pecking order amongst a litter of puppies, and there's little difference in a juvenile social order. * Gay agenda groups have seized the opportunity to promote homosexuality and push for acceptance of sexual perversion and promotion of degenerate behavior among adolescents and children.*  Lessons in homosexuality and homosexual glorification are being force fed to children as young as Kindergarten *under the cloak of "anti-bullying programs" "tolerance" and "safe school initiatives" *.
> 
> Kevin Jennings, masterminded a scheme of gay infiltration into the classroom using "tolerance" and anti-bullying programs as a perfect path to classroom indoctrination.  In 1995 Jennings made a speech to a Gay Group in which he somewhat outlined the agendas strategy
> 
> If the radical right can succeed in portraying us as preying on children, we will lose. Their language .... is laced with subtle and not-so-subtle innuendo that we are after their kids, -   He then went on to propose a strategy of how they could get at our kids. - K. Jennings
> 
> In 2009, Obama nominated homosexual propagandist Kevin Jennings as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Education he was in charge of overseeing the _Safe and Drug-Free Schools program_. Now the drug education programs I personally have no problem with, but the lefts manipulation of the term safe is where the flakiness comes in. *Jennings was in charge of making public schools safe for leftists and homosexuals and to disseminate pro-homosexual propaganda and indoctrination to Americas school children. *
> 
> Jennings was appointed during the first Obama administration ,52 members of Congress, wrote to President Obama requesting that he rescind the appointment because Jennings had for more than 20 years, almost exclusively focused on promoting the homosexual agenda. The Obama regime refused to do so.  Jennings only lasted two years before he resigned, but in that 2 years he did possibly irreparable damage.
> 
> An important aspect of the Jennings strategy involves linking the Gay Agenda to universal values that all members of society share. Basically to latch onto tolerance, diversity, safety, and peaceful coexistence amongst children of many variations - which is a good thing. It's a tactic referred to as Framing.  From this simple dirt path, they seek to build a super-highway into the minds of our youth. Anybody who objected to the Gay Agendas planned indoctrination would be heretofore be labeled a heartless bully, a homophobic demon with a complete disregard for children and students.
> 
> 
> 
> This *framing* short-circuited their arguments [heterosexuals] and left them back-pedaling from day one, .... [N]o one could speak up against our frame and say, Why, yes, I do think students should kill themselves , This allowed us to set the terms for debate. - Kevin Jennings
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------
> 
> ''Pederasts, [Pedophiles]  gender-benders, sadomasochists and other minorities in the homosexual community with more extreme peculiarities would keep a low profile until homosexuality is in the tent. *Only strong and favorable images of homosexuals should be displayed*.
> 
> Selling Homosexuality Gay Rights Activists use of rhetoric media DIJG
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> *Explicit Gay Sex Education*
> 
> Gorham Middle School
> 
> At Gorham Middle School in Maine students learned about homosexual foreplay during what was supposed to be a Diversity Day presentation. Students in an 8th grade class were molested by a group known as Proud Rainbow Youth of Southern Maine. This pathetic performance involved assaulting students with descriptions and unsolicited advice regarding safe homosexual sex acts and suggested* using saran wrap when giving a blow job if a dental dam was not available.
> 
> Teaching The art of Fist F*cking*
> 
> During a workshop for 14-21 year olds , these young people were assaulted by a session that presented unsolicited lessons in _fisting_a homosexual  practice where a persons fist is violently thrusted up the partners rectum for sexual pleasure, instead of the penis. A Gay activist also asked students,* Spit or swallow?... Is it rude?*
> 
> 
> A New Jersey school district has apologized to parents after requiring high school students to read books that include graphic depictions of lesbian sex and a homosexual orgy.  Lesbian Sex Featured on School Reading List Todd Starnes
> 
> Deerfield High School in Deerfield, Illinois, recently assigned the pornographic book Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to students 14 and up as required reading. There is an episode where a gay man in the midst of humping another gay man finds that ha has a broken condom. The humpee screams _Keep it going. Infect me. I dont care. I dont care_. { The U.S. Centers for Disease Control estimates that four percent of the male population is homosexual or bisexual yet they account for 78 percent of new HIV infections }
> 
> In another excerpt _suck my dick, Mother Teresa_ can also be found among the sticky pages.a gay man states that his nose is a sex organ and reaches for another mans pants to offer a demonstration.
> 
> entertainment outlets, away from our families, our children our neighbors and our neighbors children.
> 
> Homosexuals brainwashing our children in elementary schools
> 
> Judge Parents have no right to know what homosexual activist taught their children in school News LifeSite
> 
> School children to be taught about homosexuality to celebrate gay community Daily Mail Online
> 
> Fired teacher denies trying to turn them gay
> 
> Thank Local School Board for Rejecting SSM...in 1st Grade Math Class NOM Blog
> 
> 
> Rios Schools No Longer Teach Reading and Writing Now Just Promote Homosexuality Right Wing Watch
> 
> Judge orders 8216 gay 8217 agenda taught to Christian children
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wait- we have mostly done that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup - you've done it allright  !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but religious , right wing bigoted bovine excrement with no basis in reality
Click to expand...



Dude - that post was from 2015 ... it is now 2019  ... I knew you were ass backwards but thats pushing the ticket a tad even for you ... RFLMAO


----------



## GreenBean

rightwinger said:


> Imagine gay people not hiding in shame
> 
> Almost like they think they are regular people




Trump administration launches global effort to end criminalization of homosexuality


Re: "Almost like they think they are regular people"   ... They'll never be regular people ... no more than a person with down syndrome, a heroin fiend or even a cancer patient ... but they don't deserv 2b criminalized for a dementia unless of course they engage in it with other than consenting adults


----------



## GreenBean

g5000 said:


> One could go back 50 years and change this topic to "The Negro Dilemma" and wherever the word "homosexual" or "gay" appears in this topic you can replace it with "negro" and not see a fricking difference between the bigots of yesteryear and today.
> 
> Same bullshit, different decade.




*Associative Conditioning  *is a psychological process whereby, when two issues are repeatedly juxtaposed,  feelings about one thing are transferred to the other. Juxtaposition is placing unrelated or different issues in relation to one another. It will have the tendency to draw attention to the attributes of each. When properly executed it will enhance the undesirable attributes of one by drawing upon the qualities of the other.

You are attempting to draw upon the plight of  Blacks in order to draw a paralell to faggots - diesn't work that shit shant fly and is highly insulting to legitimate historically oppressed minorities ... basically ron don stfu.

Leftist Brain Washing Techniques


----------



## WinterBorn

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.
> 
> So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?
> 
> Yeah, you got it.
> 
> Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.
> 
> 1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism.  Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.
> 
> 2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells
> 
> 3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.
> 
> 4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out".  Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?
> 
> 5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life.  Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
> 
> 
> 
> But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma.  Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia.  They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement.  When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.
> 
> Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private.  But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.
> 
> If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do.  Talk about a destructive circular paradox!
> 
> So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.
> 
> BTW, Notice the picture?  Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.



I'll address your points one by one.

1) The entire purpose of the SCOTUS is to rules on the constitutionality of laws.   They did not use judicial activism.  The ruled that not recognizing same sex marriage is a violation of the 14th amendment.

And as for your claim that the overturning of the "will of the people" has always resulted in war is absolute nonsense.  At no time was the Civil Rights
 Act supported by the majority.   Prohibition was not supported by the majority.    If we were a democracy, then what the majority wanted would be the law.  We are not a democracy.

2) I have seen no special rights or considerations given to employees.   Unless you think not being called names is a "special consideration".

3) I have numerous friends with children in the public schools.  None seem to be worried.  And none of their daughters seem traumatized.

4) How many gay football players have come out?   And I have not seen anyone praise them for being gay.  They get recognition for being brave enough to come out.   Given the things you are upset about, it shouldn't be hard to understand.

5)  They pervade?   Really?   A few characters in SitComs and you call it pervading?   lol


----------



## WinterBorn

GreenBean said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One could go back 50 years and change this topic to "The Negro Dilemma" and wherever the word "homosexual" or "gay" appears in this topic you can replace it with "negro" and not see a fricking difference between the bigots of yesteryear and today.
> 
> Same bullshit, different decade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Associative Conditioning  *is a psychological process whereby, when two issues are repeatedly juxtaposed,  feelings about one thing are transferred to the other. Juxtaposition is placing unrelated or different issues in relation to one another. It will have the tendency to draw attention to the attributes of each. When properly executed it will enhance the undesirable attributes of one by drawing upon the qualities of the other.
> 
> You are attempting to draw upon the plight of  Blacks in order to draw a paralell to faggots - diesn't work that shit shant fly and is highly insulting to legitimate historically oppressed minorities ... basically ron don stfu.
> 
> Leftist Brain Washing Techniques
Click to expand...


The two issues are different.  But the oppression and hate were the same.

Violence against gays was common, not so very long ago.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

Fornicating fel fecal-faggot fiends, that's their proper title.


----------



## GreenBean

WinterBorn said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One could go back 50 years and change this topic to "The Negro Dilemma" and wherever the word "homosexual" or "gay" appears in this topic you can replace it with "negro" and not see a fricking difference between the bigots of yesteryear and today.
> 
> Same bullshit, different decade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Associative Conditioning  *is a psychological process whereby, when two issues are repeatedly juxtaposed,  feelings about one thing are transferred to the other. Juxtaposition is placing unrelated or different issues in relation to one another. It will have the tendency to draw attention to the attributes of each. When properly executed it will enhance the undesirable attributes of one by drawing upon the qualities of the other.
> 
> You are attempting to draw upon the plight of  Blacks in order to draw a paralell to faggots - diesn't work that shit shant fly and is highly insulting to legitimate historically oppressed minorities ... basically ron don stfu.
> 
> Leftist Brain Washing Techniques
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The two issues are different.  But the oppression and hate were the same.
> 
> Violence against gays was common, not so very long ago.
Click to expand...


BIG Difference  Little Fella


----------



## WinterBorn

GreenBean said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One could go back 50 years and change this topic to "The Negro Dilemma" and wherever the word "homosexual" or "gay" appears in this topic you can replace it with "negro" and not see a fricking difference between the bigots of yesteryear and today.
> 
> Same bullshit, different decade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Associative Conditioning  *is a psychological process whereby, when two issues are repeatedly juxtaposed,  feelings about one thing are transferred to the other. Juxtaposition is placing unrelated or different issues in relation to one another. It will have the tendency to draw attention to the attributes of each. When properly executed it will enhance the undesirable attributes of one by drawing upon the qualities of the other.
> 
> You are attempting to draw upon the plight of  Blacks in order to draw a paralell to faggots - diesn't work that shit shant fly and is highly insulting to legitimate historically oppressed minorities ... basically ron don stfu.
> 
> Leftist Brain Washing Techniques
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The two issues are different.  But the oppression and hate were the same.
> 
> Violence against gays was common, not so very long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BIG Difference  Little Fella
Click to expand...


Only because homosexuals could hide the reason for their oppression.


----------



## WinterBorn

The2ndAmendment said:


> Fornicating fel fecal-faggot fiends, that's their proper title.



You might not be aware of this, but a large number of straight couples have anal sex.


----------



## Bush92

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you do...please keep it to yourself, don't carry a sign and march in the street that you put another guy's tool in your mug and how proud you are of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *AND
> *
> Get you Damn Propaganda out of our schools , entertainment outlets, away from our families, our children, our neighbors and our neighbors children. * .*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get your Damn propaganda out of our schools, entertainment outlets, away from our families, our children our neighbors and our neighbors children.
> 
> Oh wait- we have mostly done that- and you haters hate that you are no longer able to spew your bile in our schools, and in our movies, and to your neighbors- all that are still the victims of your hate are your own family.
> 
> Nothing we can do to help them other than be here when they get away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get your Damn propaganda out of our schools,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Parents, as well as the general public are generally unaware of the fact that there is a well organized mob, well oiled machine like activist groups vigorously seeking to indoctrinate and promote homosexuality to societies youngest members. .....
> 
> Bullying has been around as long as human beings have, and probably longer. It's basic human nature , part of the 'hardening' process of growing up. It's part of establishing a pecking order amongst a litter of puppies, and there's little difference in a juvenile social order. * Gay agenda groups have seized the opportunity to promote homosexuality and push for acceptance of sexual perversion and promotion of degenerate behavior among adolescents and children.*  Lessons in homosexuality and homosexual glorification are being force fed to children as young as Kindergarten *under the cloak of "anti-bullying programs" "tolerance" and "safe school initiatives" *.
> 
> Kevin Jennings, masterminded a scheme of gay infiltration into the classroom using "tolerance" and anti-bullying programs as a perfect path to classroom indoctrination.  In 1995 Jennings made a speech to a Gay Group in which he somewhat outlined the agendas strategy
> 
> If the radical right can succeed in portraying us as preying on children, we will lose. Their language .... is laced with subtle and not-so-subtle innuendo that we are after their kids, -   He then went on to propose a strategy of how they could get at our kids. - K. Jennings
> 
> In 2009, Obama nominated homosexual propagandist Kevin Jennings as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Education he was in charge of overseeing the _Safe and Drug-Free Schools program_. Now the drug education programs I personally have no problem with, but the lefts manipulation of the term safe is where the flakiness comes in. *Jennings was in charge of making public schools safe for leftists and homosexuals and to disseminate pro-homosexual propaganda and indoctrination to Americas school children. *
> 
> Jennings was appointed during the first Obama administration ,52 members of Congress, wrote to President Obama requesting that he rescind the appointment because Jennings had for more than 20 years, almost exclusively focused on promoting the homosexual agenda. The Obama regime refused to do so.  Jennings only lasted two years before he resigned, but in that 2 years he did possibly irreparable damage.
> 
> An important aspect of the Jennings strategy involves linking the Gay Agenda to universal values that all members of society share. Basically to latch onto tolerance, diversity, safety, and peaceful coexistence amongst children of many variations - which is a good thing. It's a tactic referred to as Framing.  From this simple dirt path, they seek to build a super-highway into the minds of our youth. Anybody who objected to the Gay Agendas planned indoctrination would be heretofore be labeled a heartless bully, a homophobic demon with a complete disregard for children and students.
> 
> 
> 
> This *framing* short-circuited their arguments [heterosexuals] and left them back-pedaling from day one, .... [N]o one could speak up against our frame and say, Why, yes, I do think students should kill themselves , This allowed us to set the terms for debate. - Kevin Jennings
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------
> 
> ''Pederasts, [Pedophiles]  gender-benders, sadomasochists and other minorities in the homosexual community with more extreme peculiarities would keep a low profile until homosexuality is in the tent. *Only strong and favorable images of homosexuals should be displayed*.
> 
> Selling Homosexuality Gay Rights Activists use of rhetoric media DIJG
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> *Explicit Gay Sex Education*
> 
> Gorham Middle School
> 
> At Gorham Middle School in Maine students learned about homosexual foreplay during what was supposed to be a Diversity Day presentation. Students in an 8th grade class were molested by a group known as Proud Rainbow Youth of Southern Maine. This pathetic performance involved assaulting students with descriptions and unsolicited advice regarding safe homosexual sex acts and suggested* using saran wrap when giving a blow job if a dental dam was not available.
> 
> Teaching The art of Fist F*cking*
> 
> During a workshop for 14-21 year olds , these young people were assaulted by a session that presented unsolicited lessons in _fisting_a homosexual  practice where a persons fist is violently thrusted up the partners rectum for sexual pleasure, instead of the penis. A Gay activist also asked students,* Spit or swallow?... Is it rude?*
> 
> 
> A New Jersey school district has apologized to parents after requiring high school students to read books that include graphic depictions of lesbian sex and a homosexual orgy.  Lesbian Sex Featured on School Reading List Todd Starnes
> 
> Deerfield High School in Deerfield, Illinois, recently assigned the pornographic book Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to students 14 and up as required reading. There is an episode where a gay man in the midst of humping another gay man finds that ha has a broken condom. The humpee screams _Keep it going. Infect me. I dont care. I dont care_. { The U.S. Centers for Disease Control estimates that four percent of the male population is homosexual or bisexual yet they account for 78 percent of new HIV infections }
> 
> In another excerpt _suck my dick, Mother Teresa_ can also be found among the sticky pages.a gay man states that his nose is a sex organ and reaches for another mans pants to offer a demonstration.
> 
> entertainment outlets, away from our families, our children our neighbors and our neighbors children.
> 
> Homosexuals brainwashing our children in elementary schools
> 
> Judge Parents have no right to know what homosexual activist taught their children in school News LifeSite
> 
> School children to be taught about homosexuality to celebrate gay community Daily Mail Online
> 
> Fired teacher denies trying to turn them gay
> 
> Thank Local School Board for Rejecting SSM...in 1st Grade Math Class NOM Blog
> 
> 
> Rios Schools No Longer Teach Reading and Writing Now Just Promote Homosexuality Right Wing Watch
> 
> Judge orders 8216 gay 8217 agenda taught to Christian children
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wait- we have mostly done that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup - you've done it allright  !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but religious , right wing bigoted bovine excrement with no basis in reality
Click to expand...


----------



## Bush92

WinterBorn said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fornicating fel fecal-faggot fiends, that's their proper title.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might not be aware of this, but a large number of straight couples have anal sex.
Click to expand...




TheProgressivePatriot said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you do...please keep it to yourself, don't carry a sign and march in the street that you put another guy's tool in your mug and how proud you are of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *AND
> *
> Get you Damn Propaganda out of our schools , entertainment outlets, away from our families, our children, our neighbors and our neighbors children. * .*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get your Damn propaganda out of our schools, entertainment outlets, away from our families, our children our neighbors and our neighbors children.
> 
> Oh wait- we have mostly done that- and you haters hate that you are no longer able to spew your bile in our schools, and in our movies, and to your neighbors- all that are still the victims of your hate are your own family.
> 
> Nothing we can do to help them other than be here when they get away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get your Damn propaganda out of our schools,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Parents, as well as the general public are generally unaware of the fact that there is a well organized mob, well oiled machine like activist groups vigorously seeking to indoctrinate and promote homosexuality to societies youngest members. .....
> 
> Bullying has been around as long as human beings have, and probably longer. It's basic human nature , part of the 'hardening' process of growing up. It's part of establishing a pecking order amongst a litter of puppies, and there's little difference in a juvenile social order. * Gay agenda groups have seized the opportunity to promote homosexuality and push for acceptance of sexual perversion and promotion of degenerate behavior among adolescents and children.*  Lessons in homosexuality and homosexual glorification are being force fed to children as young as Kindergarten *under the cloak of "anti-bullying programs" "tolerance" and "safe school initiatives" *.
> 
> Kevin Jennings, masterminded a scheme of gay infiltration into the classroom using "tolerance" and anti-bullying programs as a perfect path to classroom indoctrination.  In 1995 Jennings made a speech to a Gay Group in which he somewhat outlined the agendas strategy
> 
> If the radical right can succeed in portraying us as preying on children, we will lose. Their language .... is laced with subtle and not-so-subtle innuendo that we are after their kids, -   He then went on to propose a strategy of how they could get at our kids. - K. Jennings
> 
> In 2009, Obama nominated homosexual propagandist Kevin Jennings as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Education he was in charge of overseeing the _Safe and Drug-Free Schools program_. Now the drug education programs I personally have no problem with, but the lefts manipulation of the term safe is where the flakiness comes in. *Jennings was in charge of making public schools safe for leftists and homosexuals and to disseminate pro-homosexual propaganda and indoctrination to Americas school children. *
> 
> Jennings was appointed during the first Obama administration ,52 members of Congress, wrote to President Obama requesting that he rescind the appointment because Jennings had for more than 20 years, almost exclusively focused on promoting the homosexual agenda. The Obama regime refused to do so.  Jennings only lasted two years before he resigned, but in that 2 years he did possibly irreparable damage.
> 
> An important aspect of the Jennings strategy involves linking the Gay Agenda to universal values that all members of society share. Basically to latch onto tolerance, diversity, safety, and peaceful coexistence amongst children of many variations - which is a good thing. It's a tactic referred to as Framing.  From this simple dirt path, they seek to build a super-highway into the minds of our youth. Anybody who objected to the Gay Agendas planned indoctrination would be heretofore be labeled a heartless bully, a homophobic demon with a complete disregard for children and students.
> 
> 
> 
> This *framing* short-circuited their arguments [heterosexuals] and left them back-pedaling from day one, .... [N]o one could speak up against our frame and say, Why, yes, I do think students should kill themselves , This allowed us to set the terms for debate. - Kevin Jennings
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------
> 
> ''Pederasts, [Pedophiles]  gender-benders, sadomasochists and other minorities in the homosexual community with more extreme peculiarities would keep a low profile until homosexuality is in the tent. *Only strong and favorable images of homosexuals should be displayed*.
> 
> Selling Homosexuality Gay Rights Activists use of rhetoric media DIJG
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> *Explicit Gay Sex Education*
> 
> Gorham Middle School
> 
> At Gorham Middle School in Maine students learned about homosexual foreplay during what was supposed to be a Diversity Day presentation. Students in an 8th grade class were molested by a group known as Proud Rainbow Youth of Southern Maine. This pathetic performance involved assaulting students with descriptions and unsolicited advice regarding safe homosexual sex acts and suggested* using saran wrap when giving a blow job if a dental dam was not available.
> 
> Teaching The art of Fist F*cking*
> 
> During a workshop for 14-21 year olds , these young people were assaulted by a session that presented unsolicited lessons in _fisting_a homosexual  practice where a persons fist is violently thrusted up the partners rectum for sexual pleasure, instead of the penis. A Gay activist also asked students,* Spit or swallow?... Is it rude?*
> 
> 
> A New Jersey school district has apologized to parents after requiring high school students to read books that include graphic depictions of lesbian sex and a homosexual orgy.  Lesbian Sex Featured on School Reading List Todd Starnes
> 
> Deerfield High School in Deerfield, Illinois, recently assigned the pornographic book Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to students 14 and up as required reading. There is an episode where a gay man in the midst of humping another gay man finds that ha has a broken condom. The humpee screams _Keep it going. Infect me. I dont care. I dont care_. { The U.S. Centers for Disease Control estimates that four percent of the male population is homosexual or bisexual yet they account for 78 percent of new HIV infections }
> 
> In another excerpt _suck my dick, Mother Teresa_ can also be found among the sticky pages.a gay man states that his nose is a sex organ and reaches for another mans pants to offer a demonstration.
> 
> entertainment outlets, away from our families, our children our neighbors and our neighbors children.
> 
> Homosexuals brainwashing our children in elementary schools
> 
> Judge Parents have no right to know what homosexual activist taught their children in school News LifeSite
> 
> School children to be taught about homosexuality to celebrate gay community Daily Mail Online
> 
> Fired teacher denies trying to turn them gay
> 
> Thank Local School Board for Rejecting SSM...in 1st Grade Math Class NOM Blog
> 
> 
> Rios Schools No Longer Teach Reading and Writing Now Just Promote Homosexuality Right Wing Watch
> 
> Judge orders 8216 gay 8217 agenda taught to Christian children
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wait- we have mostly done that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup - you've done it allright  !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but religious , right wing bigoted bovine excrement with no basis in reality
Click to expand...

Nope. Just truth.


----------



## Bush92

WinterBorn said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fornicating fel fecal-faggot fiends, that's their proper title.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might not be aware of this, but a large number of straight couples have anal sex.
Click to expand...

But they’re straight.


----------



## Bush92

WinterBorn said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One could go back 50 years and change this topic to "The Negro Dilemma" and wherever the word "homosexual" or "gay" appears in this topic you can replace it with "negro" and not see a fricking difference between the bigots of yesteryear and today.
> 
> Same bullshit, different decade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Associative Conditioning  *is a psychological process whereby, when two issues are repeatedly juxtaposed,  feelings about one thing are transferred to the other. Juxtaposition is placing unrelated or different issues in relation to one another. It will have the tendency to draw attention to the attributes of each. When properly executed it will enhance the undesirable attributes of one by drawing upon the qualities of the other.
> 
> You are attempting to draw upon the plight of  Blacks in order to draw a paralell to faggots - diesn't work that shit shant fly and is highly insulting to legitimate historically oppressed minorities ... basically ron don stfu.
> 
> Leftist Brain Washing Techniques
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The two issues are different.  But the oppression and hate were the same.
> 
> Violence against gays was common, not so very long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BIG Difference  Little Fella
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only because homosexuals could hide the reason for their oppression.
Click to expand...

Homosexuals are oppressed? I just want them to shut up and go inhabit their own place in the shadows.


----------



## Bush92

rightwinger said:


> Imagine gay people not hiding in shame
> 
> Almost like they think they are regular people


i cannot.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

WinterBorn said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fornicating fel fecal-faggot fiends, that's their proper title.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might not be aware of this, but a large number of straight couples have anal sex.
Click to expand...

There is no greater expression of submission than a female willingly offering her rectum to her male partner.

If she's into it, she's a keeper. This one will never play subtle power games, she wants you to dominate her.

50 shades of grey suggests this pretty much all women want, problem is their are to many pussy feminized males in today's society due to left wing brainwashing, so these females understandably get bored and upset in their relationships and seek out the few remaining REAL men (cheat on their pussy mates).

I don't blame em either.

When I was selling drugs, I had so many women "in relationships" fucking me. *I went to prison, but it was sure worth it while it lasted. *Selling drugs is about as alpha as a guy can get in the modern the United States culture  lol.

I learned so much shit about women during this time that I would never learned in a normal relationship. I could fuck all my hoes in the ass at any time, THEY LOVED IT.


----------

