# "Yes, Gay Marriage Hurts Me Personally"



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

Ran across this over at The Blaze...  it's a great read.

_"I received a lot of feedback this past weekend about my piece responding to the Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling. Many people seemed to take exception to my radical position that men and woman can conceive children. They didn’t explicitly disagree with that theory, but they did deny the one single conclusion that inevitably stems from it, which is that the union between a man and a woman is special and different.

Most of the comments, emails, and messages I read this weekend eschewed the process of even attempting to debate that point and skipped right to the insults. Here’s a quick sampling:

_
*Angel: You’re an idiot.*

*Jonathan: Hi, kill yourself. Thanks*
_
*Jim: You’re a f**king clown. That drivel you wrote on the Blaze is the biggest piece of sh*t since Atlas Shrugged. You call yourself a journalist? You’re a f**king mope living in a vacuum of fear and hate. SMFH.

Nikki: I kind of really hope Matt Walsh burns in hell. And that’s really mean to say. But good lord he’s an awful human..*
_
*Annie: I’d like to let you know that you are a privileged piece of trash and everything that comes out of your mouth is complete and utter bullsh*t.*

*Bella: the Supreme Court matters more than some bigot with a sh*tty blog and ugly kids. Try again*

*Anthony: Oh Matt, you are a perfect assh*le… Take your worthless version of the bible, and set yourself on fire. That would make my Sunday*

*Marc: Matt Walsh is a F**king MORON!*

*Steven: F**k you, you f**king worthless douche.*

*Maria: Matt you really are a piece of sh*t.*

*Brian: The world would be so much better off with you.*

*Matthew: Go f**k yourself, Walsh. You not only are a bigot, but you ignore facts and twist and distort truths to make your false point. It’s a common tactic I see from people like you. Equality wins out, bigot.*
_
There’s nothing like being called a bigoted pile of garbage in the first sentence and being told in the next that love has won. Indeed, you know love has emerged victorious when a bunch of liberals are screaming in your face, calling your children ugly, and urging you to kill yourself. ...  

Progressivism, as we’ve seen, is a bubbling cauldron of vile, hideous hatred. They dress it up in vacuous, absurd little symbols and hashtags and bright colors, yet the elites who drive the gay agenda are not out to spread love and happiness, but hostility and suspicion. And the obedient lemmings who blindly conform, with rainbows in their Facebook photos and chanting whatever motto they’ve been assigned, don’t really understand what they’re doing or why they’re doing it. The fact that this is the same ideology to come up with vapid slogans like #LoveWins is an irony too bewildering to comprehend. ...

I’m not proud to say it, but I feel an immense disgust for these Apathetic, Weak, Oblivious, Scared, Distracted, Impotent, Frivolous, Christians And Conservatives (AWOSDIFCACs for short). I’m not saying disgust is the correct emotional response, but I admit I experience it. I can deal with liberals. They’re just wrong about everything. Fine. That’s simple. But AWOSDIFCACs know and understand the truth, yet yawn or shrink away in fear.

The “it doesn’t affect us” mantra has become one of the more common, and absolutely the most damaging, idea circulating through the ranks of the defeatists. It’s a gross and ridiculous lie, one which accomplishes the impressive feat of being wrong in two different ways. It’s wrong when it says we should only care about things that have an impact on our lives, and it’s wrong when it says gay marriage will have no impact on our lives. ..."

Yes Gay Marriage Hurts Me Personally TheBlaze.com_


----------



## guno (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Ran across this over at The Blaze...  it's a great read.
> 
> _"I received a lot of feedback this past weekend about my piece responding to the Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling. Many people seemed to take exception to my radical position that men and woman can conceive children. They didn’t explicitly disagree with that theory, but they did deny the one single conclusion that inevitably stems from it, which is that the union between a man and a woman is special and different.
> 
> ...




Still in the anger phase of your grief


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

> Still in the anger phase of your grief



Still in denial...  in vain search for legitimacy?

Well, that's understandable, given the illegitimate nature of the choices ya make.


----------



## konradv (Jun 30, 2015)

Same sex marriage has become accepted by the majority of Americans because they've come to realize that they've been lied to by those who say it would adversely effect their heterosexual marriage.  Those who continue to spout that line are the moral equivalent of Holocaust deniers.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 30, 2015)

I ran across this and had a WTF? moment.

*In Confirmation Hearings, Elena Kagan Stated “There Is No Federal Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage”*
Obama and Shrillary aren’t the only ones to “evolve” rather dramatically regarding the federal desecration of marriage on behalf of the radical homosexual agenda. Legal Insurrection recalls testimony by leftist Supreme Court Injustice Elena Kagan during her confirmation hearings. This is so straightforward, you had to know she didn’t mean it:

*Senator John Cornyn:* Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to samesex marriage?

*Kagan:* There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Or at least there wasn’t, until radical moonbats achieved a majority on the court. Kagan of course voted with that majority.

Don’t bother listening to their lies. Once you know they are liberals, you know that their policy once they are in power will be to push moonbattery as far as they can get away with without setting off armed revolt. One day they may push it ever farther.

- See more at: Moonbattery


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

konradv said:


> Same sex marriage



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


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 30, 2015)

konradv said:


> Those who continue to spout that line are the moral equivalent of Holocaust deniers.


Ha ha ha! Either submit to homosexual activist dogma or you are a Nazi. What a drama queen! lol


----------



## bodecea (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Ran across this over at The Blaze...  it's a great read.
> 
> _"I received a lot of feedback this past weekend about my piece responding to the Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling. Many people seemed to take exception to my radical position that men and woman can conceive children. They didn’t explicitly disagree with that theory, but they did deny the one single conclusion that inevitably stems from it, which is that the union between a man and a woman is special and different.
> 
> ...


Ok...how did gay marriage hurt that person?  Not seeing it.


----------



## konradv (Jun 30, 2015)

Deniers, deniers, deniers.  What can I say?  The country is leaving you behind.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Same sex marriage
> ...


Still working on that "If I say it enough times, I'll really believe it" thingee, aren't you?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

konradv said:


> Deniers, deniers, deniers.  What can I say?  The country is leaving you behind.



"Deniers"?

Look out kids... give 'em a few minutes and we'll be _HERETICS!_


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

Keys' anger and denial will be a long personality-eroding event that will destroy him if he can't pull himself out of it.

We dedicate ourselves here to continue intervention with him.

In no way does Marriage Equality hurt him at all.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Ran across this over at The Blaze...  it's a great read.
> 
> _"I received a lot of feedback this past weekend about my piece responding to the Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling. Many people seemed to take exception to my radical position that men and woman can conceive children. They didn’t explicitly disagree with that theory, but they did deny the one single conclusion that inevitably stems from it, which is that the union between a man and a woman is special and different.
> 
> ...



Read that entire pile of garbage- and still waiting for how this person has been personally hurt by gay marriage- other than his feelings being hurt.

Nothing that was said to the author- hasn't been said by you to homosexuals on these boards.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Jun 30, 2015)

Same Sex Marriage has not hurt anyone and all this bullshit from the Social Conservative Right is just their temper tantrum about losing another group of people they can not discriminate against when it come to marriage...


----------



## DarkFury (Jun 30, 2015)

guno said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Ran across this over at The Blaze...  it's a great read.
> ...


*The back lash is going to be bad Nazi, really really bad.*


----------



## nat4900 (Jun 30, 2015)

guno said:


> Still in the anger phase of your grief



Yes, our friend, *Keyed*-*up* is going through the Kubler-Ross stages of "personal loss"......To offer the nitwit some hope for a brighter future, let me offer the stages he has and is going through:


*Denial* — One of the first reactions is denial, wherein he imagines a false, preferable reality.
*Anger* — When the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue, it becomes frustrated. Certain psychological responses of a person undergoing this phase would be:  "How can this happen?"; '"Who is to blame?"; "Why would God let this happen?".
*Bargaining* — The third stage involves hope and seek compromise.
*Depression* — "I'm so sad, why bother with anything?";
*Acceptance* — "It's going to be okay."; "I can't fight it, I may as well prepare for it."


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

We are going to celebrate the 4th here in a few days.

All Americans are free.  Why would anyone want to deny civil rights to others, particularly when such a right in no way infringes on anyone.?

It's good to be an American.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

No, it won't. 

*The back lash is going to be bad Nazi, really really bad.*


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Ran across this over at The Blaze...  it's a great read.
> ...



OH!  Did ya miss the part where the Federal Licensing of Degeneracy unleashed Nazism upon anyone who recognized that Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman, as a simple but irretrievable consequence of human physiology, which is a consequence of how Nature designed humanity, which is how God designed Nature.  Thus anyone who recognizes the simple facts of nature and the God who created Nature is now required to accept that which is otherwise UNACCEPTABLE.

Thus he, like every other person of any sense of decency and every Christian, is injured by their responsibility to ceaselessly contest degeneracy and to do so without apology and the consequence of that will inevitably be catastrophic.   

Because... it ain't anywhere over and it's never going to be over until the Federal Government of the United States reverses that Decision, voids all unions between same gender couples and states in no uncertain terms that there is no potential right to promote Degeneracy... or whatever government replaces it.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Ran across this over at The Blaze...  it's a great read.
> 
> _"I received a lot of feedback this past weekend about my piece responding to the Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling. Many people seemed to take exception to my radical position that men and woman can conceive children. They didn’t explicitly disagree with that theory, but they did deny the one single conclusion that inevitably stems from it, which is that the union between a man and a woman is special and different.
> 
> ...


 
So two people bitched at each other

How does that show same sex marriage hurting someone?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> Same Sex Marriage has not hurt anyone and all this bullshit from the Social Conservative Right is just their temper tantrum about losing another group of people they can not discriminate against when it come to marriage...




ROFLMNAO!

Now let's set that would-be 'perspective', which is to say DELUSION, against REALITY:

Advocates to Normalize Sexual Abnormality NOT HURTING ANYONE: 

"*Angel: You’re an idiot.*

*Jonathan: Hi, kill yourself. Thanks*
_
*Jim: You’re a f**king clown. That drivel you wrote on the Blaze is the biggest piece of sh*t since Atlas Shrugged. You call yourself a journalist? You’re a f**king mope living in a vacuum of fear and hate. SMFH.

Nikki: I kind of really hope Matt Walsh burns in hell. And that’s really mean to say. But good lord he’s an awful human..*
*Annie: I’d like to let you know that you are a privileged piece of trash and everything that comes out of your mouth is complete and utter bullsh*t.*

*Bella: the Supreme Court matters more than some bigot with a sh*tty blog and ugly kids. Try again*

*Anthony: Oh Matt, you are a perfect assh*le… Take your worthless version of the bible, and set yourself on fire. That would make my Sunday*

*Marc: Matt Walsh is a F**king MORON!*

*Steven: F**k you, you f**king worthless douche.*

*Maria: Matt you really are a piece of sh*t.*

*Brian: The world would be so much better off with you.*

*Matthew: Go f**k yourself, Walsh. You not only are a bigot, but you ignore facts and twist and distort truths to make your false point. It’s a common tactic I see from people like you. Equality wins out, bigot."
*_
 See how that works?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

It's over, no matter what Sil and Keys say.

And the intervention for them and their supporters will continue.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 30, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> In no way does Marriage Equality hurt him at all.


Completely wrong!

Christian Airman Punished by Lesbian Commander Faces Possible Court Martial - Breitbart

 Natural family called derogatory to gays 

Protecting Religious Liberty in the State Marriage Debate

Forced indoctrination in the schools: Harvey Milk Day - SaveCalifornia.com

Articles The International Gay War on Black People

From overseas, but coming soon: Video Christian arrested for calling homosexuality a sin warns of real-life thought police - Telegraph


----------



## guno (Jun 30, 2015)

konradv said:


> Deniers, deniers, deniers.  What can I say?  The country is leaving you behind.




"What we’re really talking about is a group of people are resentful because they know they’ve been left behind by modernity, by science, by education, by art, by literature—the rest of us are getting on with our lives. These people are standing on a hill top waiting for the end and this is a dangerous group of people to have as neighbors. And they’re our national neighbors. And this is the source of all these insanities that we see leveled at the President. One way or the other they go back to this little evangelical subculture. It’s a disaster."

Frank Schaeffer The GOP s Evangelical Subculture Is A Fifth Column Of Insanity Crooks and Liars


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > Same Sex Marriage has not hurt anyone and all this bullshit from the Social Conservative Right is just their temper tantrum about losing another group of people they can not discriminate against when it come to marriage...
> ...



See how what works?

Can you write in great detail how Same Sex Marriage has hurt you, a family member of yours, or someone you directly know or even your dog?

I will await for your response but make sure to entail how it has destroyed your heterosexual marriage, and please leave your religion out of this because America is not a religious state like Iran...


----------



## konradv (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > In no way does Marriage Equality hurt him at all.
> ...


Sounds like a bunch of people that need to learn how to mind their own business.


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Jun 30, 2015)

guno said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Ran across this over at The Blaze...  it's a great read.
> ...


Still a retard aren't you?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > In no way does Marriage Equality hurt him at all.
> ...


Did he disobey a direct order?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

The far right is infuriated it can't tell people what to do or how to think.  Nicely put: fuck them.

Now how as ME hurt anyone?  Have not seen it.


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Jun 30, 2015)

konradv said:


> Deniers, deniers, deniers.  What can I say?  The country is leaving you behind.


This country is going to shit thanks to libtards and faggots.


----------



## Asclepias (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Same sex marriage
> ...


No matter how many times you say it thats not the legal definition any longer.


----------



## Asclepias (Jun 30, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Deniers, deniers, deniers.  What can I say?  The country is leaving you behind.
> ...


If its shitty where you live I suggest you move.


----------



## konradv (Jun 30, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Deniers, deniers, deniers.  What can I say?  The country is leaving you behind.
> ...


How so?  I don't see it doing anything except maybe giving the wedding industry a shot in the arm.


----------



## mdk (Jun 30, 2015)

Oh boo hoo! People called me names on the Internet. Is the author of the article new to the Internet? What a thin skin little pussy.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 30, 2015)

* Majority Back Two Big Supreme Court Decisions *
June 30, 2015By Taegan Goddardhttp://politicalwire.com/2015/06/30/majority-back-two-big-supreme-court-decisions/#disqus_thread


*A new CNN/ORC poll finds that 63% support the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding government assistance for lower-income Americans buying health insurance* through both state-operated and federally-run health insurance exchanges.

Slightly fewer,* 59%, say they back the ruling which made same-sex marriages legal in all 50 states.*


----------



## konradv (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.


Ranks right up there with the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth.


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Jun 30, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


I will move to Baltimore and take my confederate flag and plant it in the Mayors front yard, give her some class for once.


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Jun 30, 2015)

konradv said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
> ...


You are one confused retard.


----------



## Asclepias (Jun 30, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > AmericanFirst1 said:
> ...


Sure you will.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Jun 30, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



I am starting to believe Iran would be the perfect nation for the Social Conservative Right...


----------



## Fat Bastardo (Jun 30, 2015)

Usually when the trash on the right opens their filthy pie holes I just beat the crap out of them but this time I will say something that perhaps might make some of them think although I am not hopeful.

Homosexuality is not a choice. NeoCONS may think it is because many of them are closet rump wranglers and turd burglars but for deviants like Rick the fairy Perry and Lindsey Graham Cracker.... YOU WERE BORN THAT WAY! If you closet homos had even an ounce of courage you would step out of the closet and tell your bigoted base of ass clowns to eat shit an die.


----------



## Asclepias (Jun 30, 2015)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > AmericanFirst1 said:
> ...


I was thinking more like Russia. They all adore Putin.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

AmericanFirst is getting left behind with the rest of the few losers.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jun 30, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> I ran across this and had a WTF? moment.
> 
> *In Confirmation Hearings, Elena Kagan Stated “There Is No Federal Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage”*
> Obama and Shrillary aren’t the only ones to “evolve” rather dramatically regarding the federal desecration of marriage on behalf of the radical homosexual agenda. Legal Insurrection recalls testimony by leftist Supreme Court Injustice Elena Kagan during her confirmation hearings. This is so straightforward, you had to know she didn’t mean it:
> ...






Well, there is now.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 30, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


Folks like that bring "the shitty" wherever they go.......wherever they go there they are....


----------



## nuhuh (Jun 30, 2015)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > AmericanFirst1 said:
> ...



Oh, yes it would


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Jun 30, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


You being a libtard do to.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jun 30, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...




I don't know where the nutters got the idea that "marriage is only between one man and one woman. As we all know, that has almost never been true.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



More blathering.   How did this hurt you?   You claim it hurt people of decency and Christians??   How?   Gays have existed since the beginning of time.  How does gov't recognition of their marriage effect you at all?


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Jun 30, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


Wrong. You know nothing. We got it from the Bible, Gods word.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

How does it hurt you?  Specifically with examples.


----------



## Asclepias (Jun 30, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


The bible was written by imaginary men no one can find a trace of..not god.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 30, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Which has no bearing on the laws of our country.


----------



## nuhuh (Jun 30, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Do you even understand that the Founders of this country set our laws based on secularism and not religion for a reason? You are entitled to believe what you want behind church doors, you will never subject the rest of our society to your beliefs.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

This is not about the historicity or lack of it of the Bible.

It is the singular fact that the Constitution, not the Bible or the Quran or the Torah, govern the USA.


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Jun 30, 2015)

nuhuh said:


> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...


Liar!


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 30, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> nuhuh said:
> 
> 
> > AmericanFirst1 said:
> ...



What part of his post is a lie?


----------



## mdk (Jun 30, 2015)

If gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone then why are  podiatrists all over the country reporting a sudden spike in foot-stomping injuries?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> Liar!


You will never subject the great American center to your religious/secular fusion of church and state.  Not going to happen.  That is over.


----------



## Asclepias (Jun 30, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> nuhuh said:
> 
> 
> > AmericanFirst1 said:
> ...


We already know you are a liar. Tell us something we didnt know like what lice treatment you use.


----------



## nuhuh (Jun 30, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> nuhuh said:
> 
> 
> > AmericanFirst1 said:
> ...


There is no reason to stoop to name calling. Secularism is the basis of our law not religion.


----------



## guno (Jun 30, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


----------



## Asclepias (Jun 30, 2015)

nuhuh said:


> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> > nuhuh said:
> ...


You obviously have no idea who you are conversing with.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Jun 30, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Bruce_T_Laney said:
> ...



Is it true you requested a visa to Iran but you were denied because your were too religious of a nutter?


AmericanFirst1 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



So you got it from the Bible?

So how about you move to Iran where you will feel at home?


----------



## hipeter924 (Jun 30, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Ran across this over at The Blaze...  it's a great read.
> ...


He got called out, and critized. Just like before same-sex marriage.


----------



## nuhuh (Jun 30, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> nuhuh said:
> 
> 
> > AmericanFirst1 said:
> ...



I'm getting strange vibes.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Jun 30, 2015)

Who knew the only people who support gay marriage are the infamous "liberals"?

Log cabin republicans will now be referred to as "the left"


----------



## nuhuh (Jun 30, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> Who knew the only people who support gay marriage are the infamous "liberals"?
> 
> Log cabin republicans will now be referred to as "the left"



I don't think any one on the left would even want Aaron Schock.


----------



## Asclepias (Jun 30, 2015)

hipeter924 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


Maybe he meant this time his feelings were hurt?


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 30, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Now how as ME hurt anyone?  Have not seen it.


You just can't process the information.

The far left loves to tell people what to do and how to think.  Nicely put: fuck them.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jun 30, 2015)

Turns out the RW phobes are absolutely correct. 

Next, people will want to marry their piano or a bridge.

Question is, why would it matter? Except for bestiality, because animals cannot give consent, anything between consenting adults is the business of the participants. 

Meanwhile, all this whining is about less than 5% of our population. Like it or not, this is still the USA so* MYOB.*

*Pat Robertson: Gays Will Force Christians To Like Anal Sex And, Eventually, Polyamory And Bestiality*
*"You're gonna say that you like anal sex, you like oral sex, you like bestiality," he added. "Sooner or later, you're going to have to conform your religious beliefs to the group of some abhorrent thing. It won't stop at homosexuality."*


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Now how as ME hurt anyone?  Have not seen it.
> ...



Yabut, its the RW phobes who want to control other people's lives. 

MYOB


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

Who on the far left is telling the far right to live a life of LGBT marriage?

You can't make up this type of garbage.


----------



## Asclepias (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Now how as ME hurt anyone?  Have not seen it.
> ...


MYOFB and think what you want.


----------



## nuhuh (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Now how as ME hurt anyone?  Have not seen it.
> ...



Why don't you slip into something more comfortable....like a coma.


----------



## guno (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Now how as ME hurt anyone?  Have not seen it.
> ...





Look, a village cannot reorganize village life to suit the village idiot. It’s as simple as that, and we have to understand: we have a village idiot in this country. It’s called fundamentalist Christianity.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 30, 2015)

nuhuh said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Such tolerance.  Thanks for proving my point. lol


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 30, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 I have to say JakeStarkey that's a really pathetic attempt to justify intolerance.


----------



## nuhuh (Jun 30, 2015)




----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Jun 30, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Turns out the RW phobes are absolutely correct.
> 
> Next, people will want to marry their piano or a bridge.
> 
> ...



You have to love the nutters!!! ( Well love is a strong word, but I will go with it )

They equate Same Sex Marriage to Child Perverts, Polygamy, and Bestiality because of their ignorance and stupidity about Same Sex couples.

Also who does not love a good B.J.?

I swear the Social Conservative Right make Iranian Clerics look liberal!


----------



## guno (Jun 30, 2015)

There is a fundamentalist subculture which has become a cult. It’s fed red meat by buffoons like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and other people who are just not terribly bright themselves, and they are talking to even stupider people. That’s where we’re at. That’s where all this is coming from, and it’s becoming circular, it’s becoming a joke, unfortunately a dangerous joke, because once in a while one of these loony-tunes as we see, brings guns to public meetings. Who knows what they do next?

Frank Schaeffer Exposes Fundamentalist Christianity on The Rachel Maddow Show


----------



## ClosedCaption (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Now how as ME hurt anyone?  Have not seen it.
> ...




Awww, your reverse psych is like 3rd grade level.  I guess the "liberals" are supposed to let you yell in their faces and they're supposed to sit there while you embrace being an asshole.

Thats the "Tolerance" they seek...but really (and I hope that Mac pointed this out) this is another form of PC police.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

The far right PC police have failed.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 30, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> I guess the "liberals" are supposed to let you yell in their faces and they're supposed to sit there while you embrace being an asshole.


Isn't it homosexual activists like yourself who are eager to embrace assholes?  lol


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Jun 30, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> > nuhuh said:
> ...


You're a friggin retard apeshit.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 30, 2015)

Yea, sure you are straight nuhuh. You call yourself "nuhuh" and you expect us to believe that? lol

Here's nuhuh thinking about which asshole to embrace.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird and AmericanFirst and Lonestar, etc, are the ones embracing their inner assholes here.

MYOB.


----------



## Asclepias (Jun 30, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > AmericanFirst1 said:
> ...


I agree you are a retarded ape that smells like shit. I still want to know what you use for your lice treatment though?


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Jun 30, 2015)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


How about you learn something and stop being a commie retard. Your hero obuthole is the one who kisses Irans ass. Stupid retard.


----------



## nuhuh (Jun 30, 2015)




----------



## nuhuh (Jun 30, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > AmericanFirst1 said:
> ...



If you're going to be a smartass, first you have to be smart. Otherwise you're just an ass.


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Jun 30, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


You are a ignorant retard.


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Jun 30, 2015)

nuhuh said:


> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> > Bruce_T_Laney said:
> ...


You are the ass. Retarded lib.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Jun 30, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > AmericanFirst1 said:
> ...



That was a wonderful response, but did you know I voted for McCain and Romney?

So the fact is you are more like the Iranian Clerics with your fear of Gay and Lesbians...

Someone sexually is none of my concern and some of the greatest men in History were GAY!!!


----------



## Asclepias (Jun 30, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > AmericanFirst1 said:
> ...


I'll take that over being a retarded monkey with chronic lice infestations like you are.


----------



## nuhuh (Jun 30, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> nuhuh said:
> 
> 
> > AmericanFirst1 said:
> ...



You are proof that God has a serious sense of humor. LOL


----------



## Asclepias (Jun 30, 2015)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> > Bruce_T_Laney said:
> ...


Julius Cesar was gay or bi.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 30, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Thunderbird and AmericanFirst and Lonestar, etc, are the ones embracing their inner assholes here.
> 
> MYOB.


C'mon JakeStarkey both sides are engaging in name-calling.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Jun 30, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > AmericanFirst1 said:
> ...



Alexander the Great, J. Edgar Hoover, James Buchanan ( Rumor ), and so on...

As time marches on Gay men and Lesbian women have risen to powerful positions in life and yet so many that read about them lack the knowledge about these great people sexuality...


----------



## nuhuh (Jun 30, 2015)




----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 30, 2015)

Message to gay activists:

We don't hate you we just don't want to be forced to celebrate the lifestyle that's killing you.

Peace


----------



## RosieS (Jun 30, 2015)

Matt Walsh is a fuckwit.

Regards from Rosie


----------



## nuhuh (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> Message to gay activists:
> 
> We don't hate you we just don't want to be forced to celebrate the lifestyle that's killing you.
> 
> Peace


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 30, 2015)

It's all just butthurt. These types don't deal with change very well. It will pass in time.
But then again quite a few of them are still butthurt over blacks getting civil rights.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 30, 2015)




----------



## Asclepias (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> Message to gay activists:
> 
> We don't hate you we just don't want to be forced to celebrate the lifestyle that's killing you.
> 
> Peace


Message to homophobes.

Gays dont want you to be gay or even celebrate them being gay. They just want the same rights we heteros have.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> Message to gay activists:
> 
> We don't hate you we just don't want to be forced to celebrate the lifestyle that's killing you.
> 
> Peace



Here is a suggestion.   How about gays marry and you don't celebrate?   It doesn't effect you, so just carry on with your life as before.


----------



## Asclepias (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


>


You should get to work making your dream wedding come true.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jun 30, 2015)

konradv said:


> Same sex marriage has become accepted by the majority of Americans because they've come to realize that they've been lied to by those who say it would adversely effect their heterosexual marriage.  Those who continue to spout that line are the moral equivalent of Holocaust deniers.


"Same sex" unions have never been the issue for most Americans.  The co-opting of marriage has been a problem for many Americans who have some religious conviction.  But this whole "same sex marriage" thing has little to do with love, of any kind, and much, much more to do with attacking people who claim some religious objection to anything other than the man-woman dichotomy.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 30, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> > Message to gay activists:
> ...


Just not true.  Too many homosexual activists hate freedom. Look at the facts.

Christian Airman Punished by Lesbian Commander Faces Possible Court Martial - Breitbart

 Natural family called derogatory to gays 

Protecting Religious Liberty in the State Marriage Debate

Forced indoctrination in the schools: Harvey Milk Day - SaveCalifornia.com

Articles The International Gay War on Black People

From overseas, but coming soon: Video Christian arrested for calling homosexuality a sin warns of real-life thought police - Telegraph


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> Message to gay activists:
> 
> We don't hate you we just don't want to be forced to celebrate the lifestyle that's killing you.
> 
> Peace



Then don't come to the party.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Yes- we all missed the figment of your hate fueled imagination.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > In no way does Marriage Equality hurt him at all.
> ...



And not one of those hyperbolic articles has anything to do with gay marriage. 

Again- still unable to show an example of anyone injured by gay marriage.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


>



File a lawsuit and make it happen if you can.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jun 30, 2015)

konradv said:


> Deniers, deniers, deniers.  What can I say?  The country is leaving you behind.





WinterBorn said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> > Message to gay activists:
> ...


They can "marry".   What they should not be permitted to do is to shit all over anyone else whose belief disagrees.  For Chrissakes, find someone who agrees with your lifestyle choices to make your cake, take your photos, or cater your "wedding".  Find some other place to work, some other place to do business...drop the F""ing lawsuits and get on with you life.  Otherwise it's all about the kaching!!!


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Deniers, deniers, deniers.  What can I say?  The country is leaving you behind.
> ...



Sorry you hate America and Americans so much now. 

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way to Russia.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jun 30, 2015)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> Same Sex Marriage has not hurt anyone and all this bullshit from the Social Conservative Right is just their temper tantrum about losing another group of people they can not discriminate against when it come to marriage...


Unfortunately, the gay agenda has hurt, or attempted to harm, many Christian businesses that prefer deferring business in favor of their personal choices.


----------



## Asclepias (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Thunderbird said:
> ...


Youre confusing one offs and conspiracies with facts. Thats not a good look.


----------



## nuhuh (Jun 30, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Deniers, deniers, deniers.  What can I say?  The country is leaving you behind.
> ...





> The earth is the mother of all people, and all people should have equal rights upon it.
> Chief Joseph
> 
> Read more at Equal Rights Quotes - BrainyQuote


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 30, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Deniers, deniers, deniers.  What can I say?  The country is leaving you behind.
> ...



Been there done that.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 30, 2015)

WHERE_R_MY_KEYS SAID:

“Ran across this over at The Blaze...”

At which point your thread fails.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


The second, third, and fifth articles relate to homosexual marriage.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Jun 30, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > Same Sex Marriage has not hurt anyone and all this bullshit from the Social Conservative Right is just their temper tantrum about losing another group of people they can not discriminate against when it come to marriage...
> ...



It is part of doing business in America.

You have the right to say no, and they person has the right to complain about it, and if it kill your business, well that is the price you have to pay when doing this dance.

If a Gay couple came to me to have their cake baked I would do it, but I would not put Rose and Rosie on top or Elton and Elton on top of the cake or put any inscription on it, but I would be the same with a hetero couple too.

I could care less about someone sexuality and care more about my business making money, and my religion stay at home and in my church and not in my place of business.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


The problem is, government got into the business of licensing such unions.  You have to have a government issued license before your pastor can say the words and bless the union.  Thus, those who would enter into something other than a one man-one woman union have a toehold on the issue.  What I repugnant is, these persons who would have things otherwise will now use the force of law to shove their belief down the throats of those who do not agree with them.
P.S. I always assumed that "same sex" was an assumed tenet to any marriage.


----------



## Asclepias (Jun 30, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Deniers, deniers, deniers.  What can I say?  The country is leaving you behind.
> ...


Lets get it right this time. Learn from your mistakes.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Same sex marriage has become accepted by the majority of Americans because they've come to realize that they've been lied to by those who say it would adversely effect their heterosexual marriage.  Those who continue to spout that line are the moral equivalent of Holocaust deniers.
> ...


No, it has to do with telling you MYOB.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

Check the PA laws in your state and conduct business accordingly.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > In no way does Marriage Equality hurt him at all.
> ...


Yes... That is how the federal licensing of degeneracy has hurt us all.

Because Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman and to deny that is to profess insanity.

Therefore, the U.S. Federal government has declared war on God.

And that's a fatal last move.


----------



## Asclepias (Jun 30, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Same sex marriage has become accepted by the majority of Americans because they've come to realize that they've been lied to by those who say it would adversely effect their heterosexual marriage.  Those who continue to spout that line are the moral equivalent of Holocaust deniers.
> ...


Did it ever occur to you as you typed that if anyone has a religious objection to same sex marriages then they are not forced to get married to someone of the same sex?


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I know a guy in the promised land. He'll get you a nice condo in the Golan heights. Want his number?


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Thunderbird said:
> ...



By that standards- too many Christians hate freedom- just look at the facts:

*Christian Pastor: ‘I Believe That the Government Should Use the Death Penalty’ on Homosexuals*
*Christian Pastor I Believe That the Government Should Use the Death Penalty on Homosexuals*

*Christian tries to pass initiative to legalize killing of homosexuals in California*
*http://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0008 (Sodomy)_0.pdf?*

*Christians call for homosexuals for boycott of Girl Scouts for being too gay friendly*

*Family Research Council Calls For Boycott of Girl Scout Cookies*

*Christian Pastor calls for killing Gays to end AIDS*
*Arizona pastor calls for killing gay people to end AIDS*

*Forced Christian Indoctrination in School*
*Illegal Christian indoctrination at public high school in Texas*

*From Overseas- American Christian Preachers go to Africa to promote criminalization of homosexuality*
*Meet the American Pastor Behind Uganda s Anti-Gay Crackdown Mother Jones*


*Yes- its true- Christians have attempted to persecute homosexuals in America for over 200 years- but now- Christians are being told that homosexuals have actual rights- and the Christians are not exempt from the very laws that protect them from protection.*

*Of course that makes Christians feel persecuted.*

*Well at least the fearful whacky far right Christians who want to be victims. *


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Now how as ME hurt anyone?  Have not seen it.
> ...



LOL.....and far right wants to tell people how who they can have sex with- and how- in other words- the Far Right wants Fuck Authority.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 30, 2015)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> If a Gay couple came to me to have their cake baked I would do it, but I would not put Rose and Rosie on top or Elton and Elton on top of the cake or put any inscription on it, but I would be the same with a hetero couple too.


I don't understand the strange authoritarian impulse that would force you to put "Rose and Rosie on top or Elton and Elton".  How about tolerance and freedom?  How about freedom of thought and artistic freedom? If bakers don't want to make a cake celebrating a homosexual marriage why force them?

If people fail to admire the homosexual lifestyle, should they be fired?  Check out the articles I linked to and you'll find examples of this kind of persecution.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> Message to gay activists:
> 
> We don't hate you we just don't want to be forced to celebrate the lifestyle that's killing you.
> 
> Peace



No one will ever force you to march in a Gay Pride Parade.

No one will ever force you into a gay marriage.

So your worries are over.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> LOL.....and far right wants to tell people how who they can have sex with- and how- in other words- the Far Right wants Fuck Authority.


No one is more anti-sex than far left feminist radicals like Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Deniers, deniers, deniers.  What can I say?  The country is leaving you behind.
> ...



How dare homosexuals ask business's to follow the law.

The very same law that protects Christians from discrimination.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > LOL.....and far right wants to tell people how who they can have sex with- and how- in other words- the Far Right wants Fuck Authority.
> ...



Actually- you and the entire Far Right want to tell All Americans who they  can have sex with- and how they can have sex.

Your people even refused to get rid of Sodomy laws in Lousiana that have been declared unconstitutional- because you still hope to be able to tell Americans what they can do in their bedrooms.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > If a Gay couple came to me to have their cake baked I would do it, but I would not put Rose and Rosie on top or Elton and Elton on top of the cake or put any inscription on it, but I would be the same with a hetero couple too.
> ...



If people fail to admire the far right Christian lifestyle- should they be killed or put in jail? Check out the articles I linked to you and you will find examples of this kind of persecution by Christians of homosexuals.


----------



## hipeter924 (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


God doesn't exist, or at least your vengeful one that sees homosexuality as a satanic ritual, rather than just another part of life. 

One of my friends has a Catholic pastor, who said that he loves gay people, as god preaches to not judge and to love thy neighbor, even though he still believes homosexuality is a sin and doesn't support  same-sex marriage.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > If a Gay couple came to me to have their cake baked I would do it, but I would not put Rose and Rosie on top or Elton and Elton on top of the cake or put any inscription on it, but I would be the same with a hetero couple too.
> ...



Look, the fact is if you discriminate against Gays and Lesbians then expect to be put out of business.

I support a Church right not to have to wed Same Sex couples because they are a religious order, but that is where it stop for me. 

Simple as that, and you can cry to the high heavens about your religious freedom but it ends at my nose, and you have no right to force it onto me, and if you believe you do then a Muslim has the right to force their religious freedom onto you, and I am willing to bet you disagree with that assertion, am I correct?


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > Same Sex Marriage has not hurt anyone and all this bullshit from the Social Conservative Right is just their temper tantrum about losing another group of people they can not discriminate against when it come to marriage...
> ...



Unfortunately, the far right Christian agenda has hurt, or attempted to harm- many homosexuals that prefer to be treated equally with everyone else.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> WHERE_R_MY_KEYS SAID:
> 
> “Ran across this over at The Blaze...”
> 
> At which point your thread fails.



Thank you... That is a wonderful way to express your most recent concession.

And as always, _Your concession is duly noted AND Summarily Accepted!_


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Thunderbird said:
> ...




International Gay war on Blacks? LOL......

Still waiting for an example of how you have been harmed- personally by Friday's decision- or any Gay Marriage.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > WHERE_R_MY_KEYS SAID:
> ...



And this is how Keys expresses his capitulation- and stops waving his walker in a threatening fashion.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> Yea, sure you are straight nuhuh. You call yourself "nuhuh" and you expect us to believe that? lol
> 
> Here's nuhuh thinking about which asshole to embrace.




How come its always the RWs who are confused and conflicted about their own sexuality that post all these pics?

Why do they have all these photos saved?

Does it upset the phobes that his shoes don't go with his shorts?


----------



## SillyWabbit (Jun 30, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Not to hijack anyone's issues, but, it wasn't too long ago that this was acceptable:





Thank God for the USA. 

I still say that people who trip on gays being guaranteed equality under the law need to just take a deep breath and realize there's a whole human race that needs all the help it can get. If we're struggling with silly shit, like whether or not adults of sound mind should be allowed to marry one another and enjoy the full benefits conferred them under the law, then the real shit, like our survival and _success_ as a species, is not getting the full attention it deserves. 
I don't believe in shutting people up, or condemning people, though. Speak up. Let your voice be heard. We depend on each other for our survival. All minds are needed--except those who like brussel sprouts. Ya'll need to burn in Hell. You filthy swine. We'll weed you out--come Hell or high water. Count on it.


----------



## hipeter924 (Jun 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > Bruce_T_Laney said:
> ...


It's what happens when you live in a bubble like a gated community or get most of your information from Fox News and GOP policy statements.

Basically the world passes you by, and you never have to be in contact with people who have different views on a daily basis.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> By that standards- too many Christians hate freedom- just look at the facts:


1) You found some obscure figures who *talk* about limiting freedom.  I gave examples of freedom actually being limited.
2) Boycotts are perfectly legitimate.
3) Academia is mostly under the heel of the PC thought police.
4) Gay activists want to starve African children if their governments refuse to submit to LGBT activist dogma.  I'm sure you condemn this kind of imperialism.

Do liberals care about freedom or do they prefer the PC thought police?

20 Outrageous Examples That Show How Political Correctness Is Taking Over America


----------



## nuhuh (Jun 30, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> > Yea, sure you are straight nuhuh. You call yourself "nuhuh" and you expect us to believe that? lol
> ...



LOL, Just the effort to find those pics is bizarre.


----------



## Spare_change (Jun 30, 2015)

You know, you gotta love the "Told ya so! Told ya so!! You're all a bunch of bigots!" mantra of the left .... they, simply, have no idea what has happened. Frankly, it has very little to do with gay rights.

The government has, in its wisdom, stripped the rights of one group in order to further the agenda of another group. The government has said that the First Amendment does NOT apply to Christians. Who will be next? For the first time, the government has said that THEY will be the arbiter of your rights, and that they will apply them piecemeal as they see fit. Today, the court has said that the rights of gay Americans trump the rights of Christian Americans.

Christians have now been denied the 'free exercise' of their religion. Today, there are cases making their way through federal courts asking that ALL religious preaching - to include from the pulpit - be classified as 'hate speech'.

While the left gleefully concentrates on the right hand, the left hand, once again, attacks the basic precepts of our country.


----------



## Lakhota (Jun 30, 2015)

> *"Yes, Gay Marriage Hurts Me Personally"*



Maybe you're doing it wrong.  Try more lubricant...


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> Yea, sure you are straight nuhuh. You call yourself "nuhuh" and you expect us to believe that? lol
> 
> Here's nuhuh thinking about which asshole to embrace.


Nice pair of socks he's wearing.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 30, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


Nonsense.

Once the license is issued the couple is at liberty to use any marriage venue they so desire: JP, judge, or member of the clergy. Opposite-sex couples may be married by a member of the clergy whose religious affiliation prohibits affording religious marriage rituals to same-sex couples. Such a couple may obtain their license, be married, and off on their honeymoon completely oblivious to same-sex couples doing the same.

No one is going to use the force of law to compel anyone to do anything.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jun 30, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> You know, you gotta love the "Told ya so! Told ya so!! You're all a bunch of bigots!" mantra of the left .... they, simply, have no idea what has happened. Frankly, it has very little to do with gay rights.
> 
> The government has, in its wisdom, stripped the rights of one group in order to further the agenda of another group. The government has said that the First Amendment does NOT apply to Christians. Who will be next? For the first time, the government has said that THEY will be the arbiter of your rights, and that they will apply them piecemeal as they see fit. Today, the court has said that the rights of gay Americans trump the rights of Christian Americans.
> 
> ...


Ding, ding, ding, ding!!!  I do believe you have hit the nail on the head.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > If a Gay couple came to me to have their cake baked I would do it, but I would not put Rose and Rosie on top or Elton and Elton on top of the cake or put any inscription on it, but I would be the same with a hetero couple too.
> ...



That isn't how this is going to play out.  And no where close to it.

Understand what happened here... the US Federal Government, by the vote of 5 perverse individuals licensed DEGENERACY.

Now the thing about degenerates is, they're sociopaths, the mental disorder that presents as Relativism.  

Now if ya understand what sociopathy is, you'll understand that NORMALIZING IT... it about as BAD an idea as licensing Iran to build their own nuclear weapons.  If those two examples don't help... just understand that what the 5 Perverse Jurists did was to destroy what remained of the United States and doom it to an incomprehensibly violent civil war.

Now, in the even that ya survive, which will likely be somewhere in the 50/50 dept... you will have a much better understanding of 'how that decision harmed you'.

Naturally, it won't matter much, as there will be no one around who gives a rats ass about these little quarrels anymore... as more weighty matters such as 'will we eat this week?' will be front and center and given that the answer will more often than not be 'no'... there will be little concern for questions about a people that no longer exist.

So...   You shouldn't spend too much time worrying about it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 30, 2015)

"Yes, Gay Marriage Hurts Me Personally"

Another ridiculous lie from the right.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> If people fail to admire the far right Christian lifestyle- should they be killed or put in jail? Check out the articles I linked to you and you will find examples of this kind of persecution by Christians of homosexuals.


Actually I didn't find any from the U.S.

Do you think the U.S. should force Africans to change their laws?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ... Once the license is issued the couple is at liberty to use any marriage venue they so desire: JP, judge, or member of the clergy.



Well, not if the JP, Judge or Member of the Clergy refuses to do so, due to their recognition of the self-evident truth, that Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

At that point they'll be free to go find someone ELSE who will play along with their little pretense. So it's a little more complicated than you'd like the Reader to believe.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jun 30, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


Yeah, right.  So why so many lawsuits?  Why not just move along and find some other vendor?  If there are religious clergy amenable to officiating over "same sex" nuptials, why the push against those who prefer not to?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "Yes, Gay Marriage Hurts Me Personally"
> 
> Another ridiculous lie from the right.



ROFLMNAO!  

I SO adore the sweeter Ironies.

_Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman._


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 30, 2015)

nuhuh said:


> LOL, Just the effort to find those pics is bizarre.


Don't be such a hypocrite.  You did the same thing. lol


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > If people fail to admire the far right Christian lifestyle- should they be killed or put in jail? Check out the articles I linked to you and you will find examples of this kind of persecution by Christians of homosexuals.
> ...



All but #7 are citations of actions by Christians within the United States- up to and including calling for death of homosexuals. 


By that standards- too many Christians hate freedom- just look at the facts:

*1) Christian Pastor: ‘I Believe That the Government Should Use the Death Penalty’ on Homosexuals*
*Christian Pastor I Believe That the Government Should Use the Death Penalty on Homosexuals*

*2) Christian tries to pass initiative to legalize killing of homosexuals in California*
*http://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0008 (Sodomy)_0.pdf?*

*3) Christians call for homosexuals for boycott of Girl Scouts for being too gay friendly*

*4) Family Research Council Calls For Boycott of Girl Scout Cookies*

*5) Christian Pastor calls for killing Gays to end AIDS*
*Arizona pastor calls for killing gay people to end AIDS*

*6) Forced Christian Indoctrination in School*
*Illegal Christian indoctrination at public high school in Texas*

*7) From Overseas- American Christian Preachers go to Africa to promote criminalization of homosexuality*
*Meet the American Pastor Behind Uganda s Anti-Gay Crackdown Mother Jones*

*Yes- its true- Christians have attempted to persecute homosexuals in America for over 200 years- but now- Christians are being told that homosexuals have actual rights- and the Christians are not exempt from the very laws that protect them from protection.*

*Of course that makes Christians feel persecuted.*

*Well at least the fearful whacky far right Christians who want to be victims. *


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


>




Yeah.

Why not?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > You know, you gotta love the "Told ya so! Told ya so!! You're all a bunch of bigots!" mantra of the left .... they, simply, have no idea what has happened. Frankly, it has very little to do with gay rights.
> ...




Yes they did.  A brilliant assessment.  

And I'm going to repost it for those who missed it and didn't open the window to read it: 

*Spare_change* said: 

_"You know, you gotta love the "Told ya so! Told ya so!! You're all a bunch of bigots!" mantra of the left .... they, simply, have no idea what has happened. Frankly, it has very little to do with gay rights._

_The government has, in its wisdom, stripped the rights of one group in order to further the agenda of another group. The government has said that the First Amendment does NOT apply to Christians. Who will be next? For the first time, the government has said that THEY will be the arbiter of your rights, and that they will apply them piecemeal as they see fit. Today, the court has said that the rights of gay Americans trump the rights of Christian Americans._

_Christians have now been denied the 'free exercise' of their religion. Today, there are cases making their way through federal courts asking that ALL religious preaching - to include from the pulpit - be classified as 'hate speech'._

_While the left gleefully concentrates on the right hand, the left hand, once again, attacks the basic precepts of our country."_


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

Anyone else enjoying Keys meltdown on this?

Still waiting for Keys to explain how he has been personally injured- I suspect that Key's personal injury is that he bit his lip on Friday when he heard the announcement- since on Thursday he was busy pronouncing that it was a done deal and the Court was going to kick gays in the nuts.


----------



## nuhuh (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> nuhuh said:
> 
> 
> > LOL, Just the effort to find those pics is bizarre.
> ...



I did? where did I post pics disrespectful to gay men?


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jun 30, 2015)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > Bruce_T_Laney said:
> ...


I wouldn't care, either.  But at least I can respect someone else who does care.  I'd just move on and find some other business that would want my money.  I wouldn't sue in court.  Too many nowadays see that opportunity to sue in court as a chance to cash in on their perceived "grievance".  Grow up, get over yourselves, and find someone worthy of your money.  Enough people forgo doing business, it will suffer.  Why the drive to file lawsuits?


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> All but #7 are citations of actions by Christians within the United States- up to and including calling for death of homosexuals.


1 and 5 are about the same guy, some obscure pastor.  So you found one person out of hundreds of millions who *talks* about persecuting homosexuals.  Try not to panic. Number 2 kind of looks like a hoax.  People on the left go in for that kind of thing. Regarding 3 and 4, boycotts do not = persecution.  So you are being sort of a drama queen don't you think?


----------



## konradv (Jun 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Anyone else enjoying Keys meltdown on this?  Still waiting for Keys to explain how he has been personally injured- I suspect that Key's personal injury is that he bit his lip on Friday when he heard the announcement- since on Thursday he was busy pronouncing that it was a done deal and the Court was going to kick gays in the nuts.


I suspect we've got a "closet case" on our hands!


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jun 30, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


I agree with the MYOB.  Why then are gays making such an issue when someone disagrees or refuses to do business with them?


----------



## Asclepias (Jun 30, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


Because he will be stimulated to have a gay ménage à trois.


----------



## Asclepias (Jun 30, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...


Because the business is in the public domain not the private sector.


----------



## konradv (Jun 30, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> I wouldn't care, either.  But at least I can respect someone else who does care.  I'd just move on and find some other business that would want my money.  I wouldn't sue in court.  Too many nowadays see that opportunity to sue in court as a chance to cash in on their perceived "grievance".  Grow up, get over yourselves, and find someone worthy of your money.  Enough people forgo doing business, it will suffer.  Why the drive to file lawsuits?


Like people spitting on soldiers returning from Vietnam, it's happening more in the minds of the aggrieved, than in reality.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jun 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > Bruce_T_Laney said:
> ...


And that justifies their vindictiveness in what way?  Of course, their actions place them above any Christians they may oppose.  lie down with dogs, get up with fleas...scratching much yet?


----------



## RosieS (Jun 30, 2015)

konradv said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone else enjoying Keys meltdown on this?  Still waiting for Keys to explain how he has been personally injured- I suspect that Key's personal injury is that he bit his lip on Friday when he heard the announcement- since on Thursday he was busy pronouncing that it was a done deal and the Court was going to kick gays in the nuts.
> ...



Yeah, clutching the pearls and threatening to swoon are dead giveaways.

Regards from Rosie


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

At the end of page six and not one anti Marriage Equality harm has been shown.

Get it straight.  You freaks on the socon far right are not going to have any power ever to stop folks from marrying whom they will.

You are not the fuck police.

You are not the marriage police.

You are . . . nothing.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 30, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



Because it's discriminatory and illegal.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> At the end of page six and not one anti Marriage Equality harm has been shown.
> 
> Get it straight.  You freaks on the socon far right are not going to have any power ever to stop folks from marrying whom they will.
> 
> ...


The threats and vindictiveness from the far right is amazing.  Be smart, walk away.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



Well some Americans actually ask for business's to follow the law. 

Some of the Americans asking business's to follow the law are gay.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



What vindictiveness?

Sure there are hateful individuals- on both the right and the left- I will assume we are not speaking about them.

So what vindictiveness?


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jun 30, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Differentiate: public domain vs. private sector.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> I agree with the MYOB.  Why then are gays making such an issue when someone disagrees or refuses to do business with them?


Because the businessman has no reason to be concerned about the orientation with whom he is doing business.  He needs to MHOB.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...


Why?  It's obvious.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jun 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


So, do you support the vindictiveness that runs to lawyers and the court to punish those who disagree?  Or do you support the "vindictiveness" that supports the right to do business, or not?  The only way a business person can know whether a customer is "gay", or not is if the customer makes a declaration.  Why should it be forbidden for a businessperson to make a declaration in response?


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > All but #7 are citations of actions by Christians within the United States- up to and including calling for death of homosexuals.
> ...



My list mirrored your own whine fest. 

Let me review again- actual incidents of actual Christians calling for death or discrimination against homosexuals- or retaliation against organizations for being too 'gay friendly'. 

By that standards- too many Christians hate freedom- just look at the facts:

#1 is a Pastor of a church- preaching what he believes is a Christian message as is #4. #2 is a Christian nutjob. 
#3 is a mainstream Christian anti-gay organization- and just one of dozens of examples I can post of that group calling for action against organizations deemed too gay friendly.  Next we will compare to your list.

*1) Christian Pastor: ‘I Believe That the Government Should Use the Death Penalty’ on Homosexuals*
*Christian Pastor I Believe That the Government Should Use the Death Penalty on Homosexuals*

*2) Christian tries to pass initiative to legalize killing of homosexuals in California*
*http://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0008 (Sodomy)_0.pdf?*

*3) Christians call for homosexuals for boycott of Girl Scouts for being too gay friendly*
*Family Research Council Calls For Boycott of Girl Scout Cookies*

*4) Christian Pastor calls for killing Gays to end AIDS*
*Arizona pastor calls for killing gay people to end AIDS*

*5) Forced Christian Indoctrination in School*
*Illegal Christian indoctrination at public high school in Texas*

*6) From Overseas- American Christian Preachers go to Africa to promote criminalization of homosexuality*
*Meet the American Pastor Behind Uganda s Anti-Gay Crackdown Mother Jones*

*Yes- its true- Christians have attempted to persecute homosexuals in America for over 200 years- but now- Christians are being told that homosexuals have actual rights- and the Christians are not exempt from the very laws that protect them from protection.*

*Of course that makes Christians feel persecuted.*

*Well at least the fearful whacky far right Christians who want to be victims. *


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 30, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> At the end of page six and not one anti Marriage Equality harm has been shown.


I supplied many examples.  Others have too. Why are you lying?



> You are not the fuck police.


You are correct, that's the far left.

Major failures found in Rolling Stone s A Rape on Campus - Apr. 5 2015



> You are . . . nothing.


Calm down okay? lol Your hate is making you look silly.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jun 30, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with the MYOB.  Why then are gays making such an issue when someone disagrees or refuses to do business with them?
> ...


Then why is it so imperative that a customer declare his/her/its sexual orientation when doing business?


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



Business's are supposed to follow the law. I support the right of Americans to use the court to enforce their rights- just as I would support the right of any Christian who was denied service because of his faith to sue the offending business. 

That is not vinctiveness- it is standing up for your rights.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > At the end of page six and not one anti Marriage Equality harm has been shown.
> ...



Not one of you has been able to provide an actual example of personal harm to anyone because people can marry someone of the same gender.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > At the end of page six and not one anti Marriage Equality harm has been shown.
> ...


You have not provided on valid harm of anyone being hurt by Marriage Equality.  Being told "no" is not a harm, only a recognition that you are wrong.  You are no authority at all.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jun 30, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Indeed, it is.  I own a private business.  I am not a government owned business (I.e. public).  I reserve the option to refuse service.  Period.  You don't like my business practices, indeed, find someone more worthy of your financial support.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

If you are in a state with PA laws, then you get to obey them.  Not hard.

Don't blame people you have been abusing for taking your side down and making them stop.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jun 30, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


Really?  You surely have not been paying attention.  These freaks are demanding that anyone with the authority to officiate a marriage be forced to do so for their coupling.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

A few are insisting that any official has to issue the license or do the marriage.  They are wrong.  If a couple is able to get the license or the officiator, there is no problem.  There is a tension between 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment that can be solved.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

konradv said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
> ...



Now that post is a BRILLIANT demonstration of how The Federal Licensing of Degeneracy has harmed each citizen; every man, woman and child in the United States. 

Because, like every aspect of the Ideological Left in general and the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality specifically: IT'S A LIE! which is being advanced as a truth and on the authority of the US Federal Government.

Marriage is intrinsic in the Human Physiological Design, wherein nature provides two distinct but complementing Genders, each respectively designed to join with the other; forming one sustainable body from two separate bodies.  This is an incontestable fact; a law of nature that is as no less in force than gravity, momentum and cause and effect, none of which being subject to being altered by popular whimsy or any other subjective irrelevancy.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

Keys is back to citing his old arguments.

Didn't work then, not working now, won't work in the future.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > At the end of page six and not one anti Marriage Equality harm has been shown.
> ...



Lets look at that list
_Just not true. Too many homosexual activists hate freedom. Look at the facts.

1) Christian Airman Punished by Lesbian Commander Faces Possible Court Martial - Breitbart

This is the case of one man- who has claimed he was discriminated against- and being told he must support gay marriage. Your article provided no evidence to support his claim- and is dated 2013. 
_
And there is a counter story to his story:_
No This Air Force Sergeant Was Not Fired For Opposing Marriage Equality ThinkProgress

Unfortunately, the facts of Monk’s story do not seem to add up to the claims of a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” for Christians he’s now making in the media. Monk supervised a staff sergeant who was openly opposing homosexuality on religious grounds to trainees, violating policy that prohibits officers from using a position of authority to promote personal religious beliefs. He informed his commanding officer, and when she insisted that the sergeant be punished, Monk resisted because he shared the same beliefs and didn’t believe them to be discriminatory. In fact, he asserted that the sergeant did nothing wrong and it should just be a “learning experience.”

In other words, the case is not about his beliefs about marriage or homosexuality, but about his willingness to follow his commander’s instructions and enforce military policy. It doesn’t matter that Monk’s commanding officer was a lesbian or that her opinion on marriage equality differs from his. Furthermore, he wasn’t “fired,” he was simply reassigned, and he even admits that he was due for a reassignment and that his new position is commensurate with his rank and experience. What he is worried about is whether he’ll receive a Meritorious Service Medal he’d been recommended for — before he apparently refused to follow his commander’s orders.

The sergeant who imposed his religious beliefs on trainees is the one who faced repercussions for how he expressed himself, not Monk.

The Air Force found his claims unsubstantiated
Religious Right Myths Never Die Right Wing Watch

The Air Force has found unsubstantiated the claim of a senior master sergeant who said he was reassigned after making known his religious objections to same-sex marriage.

Senior Master Sgt. Phillip Monk, now assigned to the 59th Medical Wing, Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, said he was relieved July 26 of his duties as first sergeant of the 326th Training Squadron and forced to take leave because he disagreed with his commanding officer’s position on gay marriage.

The investigation, initiated Aug. 15 by Col. Mark Camerer, 37th Training Wing commander at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland, found the claim unsubstantiated. The investigation also concluded Monk made false official statements, but did not violate Articles 107 or 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

“The weight of the evidence shows that religion was never discussed between the two,” Camerer said in an Air Education and Training Command release.

“In the end, this is a case about command authority, good order and discipline, and civil rights — not religious freedoms,” he said.

Monk was not removed from his position, but rather moved, as scheduled, to another Lackland unit, an assignment he was notified of in April, the release says.
_
In the next post we will continue to examine the 'horrific' examples you have provided.

But so far, you have provided only a claim that the Air Force found to be 'unsubstantiated'.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

Yup, not one person harmed by Marriage Equality.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

Fat Bastardo said:


> Usually when the trash on the right opens their filthy pie holes I just beat the crap out of them...



ROFLMNAO!

I guess I will never tire of the hilarity that comes with an effeminate male bowing up in all that butch regalia.  

Give it 5 minutes and she's_ SCRATCHIN' YOUR EYES OUT!_


----------



## koshergrl (Jun 30, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...


 
And they will find that Christian ministers will balk, and churches will close. And that's when things will get really interesting, because that's when people will pick up arms. People will defend their right to worship as they please, and they will kill and/or die before they will commit sacrilege.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

Keys is the picture perfect of the effeminate male.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



Ah you are in for a surprise when you decide not to serve someone because you don't like because his is a Jew or because he is black.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


That is idiot talking points.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Since Churches have no obligation to marry anyone that they do not want- not blacks, not Jews, not Mormons, not Homosexuals- that is not going to happen.

Just the fear mongering by the usual bigots.


----------



## Asclepias (Jun 30, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...


They have dictionaries that would do a better job than I would.


----------



## Asclepias (Jun 30, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...


Because they want to?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

nuhuh said:


> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> > nuhuh said:
> ...



ROFLMNAO!

Secularism... as such provides for differing FAITHS.   

The word you're groping for is _"HUMANISM"_; which the Humanists compounded with "Secular" as a means to include themselves in something for which they are wholly unsuited.  

And Humanists have no more kinship with the Principles that Define America, than Islam.  

LOL!

You can NOT make this crap up.


----------



## Asclepias (Jun 30, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


No they wont. Only a few kooks like yourself will resist long enough for it to get like that. At that point you will be classified as a cult and dealt with accordingly.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

Give millennials in their late thirties Keys' material to read twenty years from now, they will roll their eyes and twirl their fingers at the temples, and say, "What a tard."


----------



## koshergrl (Jun 30, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...


 
Your math is as abysmal as your English. The kooks are not on my side, and the majority is not on your side. You morons think that because you can get the courts to force the issue IN SPITE of what the majority wants, that you have any chance of success if it does come to fighting. The reality is, nobody of any value is going to flock to the defense of the depraved, criminal minority. You have convinced yourself that you are more numerous than you are. There's a reason the SCOTUS has to keep passing this garbage, you know.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


Those who oppose you are twice as many as you freaks.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

konradv said:


> Like people spitting on soldiers returning from Vietnam, it's happening more in the minds of the aggrieved, than in reality.



Yeah... We can be sure that the Priest that was spit on, harassed and abused by the _all too reasonable_ homo-cult, during the Celebration of Homo-Shame the other day felt the same way...


----------



## Asclepias (Jun 30, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


There is no math to it. You kooks will lose. You always do. You either ride or collide with us. There is no other option.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

One spit on priest compared to dozens of murders and hundreds of beatings and thousands of shaming.

I feel sorry for him, but in context: tough.


----------



## koshergrl (Jun 30, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


 No, we don't always lose. We're the ones who win. You're the ones that are on the side of the Nazis. Like the idiot Germans, you don't get it.

But you will.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > At the end of page six and not one anti Marriage Equality harm has been shown.
> ...



Okay lets move onto your next claims of 'personal injury due to marriage rights being enforced

_Natural family called derogatory to gays _

Okay- aside from the laughable link to WND- nothing there about anyone suffering a personal harm due to 'gay marriage'

This is a case where two women- sued the City of Oakland- allegedly for violating their rights.

They lost
Court nixes free speech case appeal - Inside Bay Area

_The drama unfolded in 2003 when Regina Rederford and Robin Christy, employees in the city's community and economic development agency, formed the Good News Employees Association in response to an e-mail sent to city employees in late 2002 that included information about a National Coming Out Day rally. Rederford and Christy posted a flier announcing their organization's creation and urging fellow employees to "preserve our workplace with integrity," calling their group "a forum for people of faith to express their views on contemporary issues of the day with respect for the natural family, marriage and family values." 

 A gay city employee complained that the flier made her feel targeted. Supervisors removed it and neither Rederford nor Christy was punished._

_OAKLAND — The U.S. Supreme Court Monday declined to hear the appeal of two Oakland city employees who said their freedom of speech was abridged when city officials removed fliers they posted promoting "the natural family, marriage and family values." 
 Conservative organizations, including the Pro-Family Law Center and the Pacific Justice Institute, rallied to the employees' cause, but the court's decision against taking the case leaves in place a lower court's ruling in favor of the city._

So two cases- neither one having to do with anyone being personally hurt by 'gay marriage'.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > By that standards- too many Christians hate freedom- just look at the facts:
> ...



Not so far- I have checked out your first two examples- and in neither case does the evidence support your claim. I will continue to check out each one. 

Meanwhile- I have provided examples of actual Christians who want homosexuals killed- actual examples of a Christian who travelled to Africa to promote criminalization of homosexuality. 

Want other examples? Compare any of your examples to this one:

*Louisiana Police Arrest Men For Agreeing To Consensual Gay Sex Under Sodomy Laws*
According to a special report from the Baton Rouge Advocate, the Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Office is conducting stings to find men willing to have consensual gay sex and arresting them for crimes against nature. No money is discussed in these exchanges; the men are being targeted and humiliated under the state’s sodomy law, which has been unconstitutional since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 _Lawrence v. Texas_ ruling. At least a dozen of these arrests have taken place since 2011, with the most recent taking place July 18


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



LOL.....the Nazi's hated gays as much as you do. 

You are hilarious.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 30, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...




*Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage*
*Public Opinion*
In Pew Research polling in 2001, Americans opposed same-sex marriage by a 57% to 35% margin.

Since then, support for same-sex marriage has steadily grown. Today, a majority of Americans (57%) support same-sex marriage, compared with 39% who oppose it.

Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage Pew Research Center

Go to the link and look at support among the religious by affiliation and you'll find that it's only the most fundamental that disapprove . They are outweighed by a large margin.
The same result is shown when looking at political affiliation. Only the most conservative disagree.
Your position is in the minority in almost every demographic.


----------



## Asclepias (Jun 30, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


You always lose. Thats why you are so upset. If you were the ones that win I would be picking cotton instead of building a fortune.

The only thing I will be getting is entertainment. Thanks for confirming that.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

> There is no math to it. You kooks will lose. You always do. You either ride or collide with us. There is no other option.



What did we lose?

The 5 Relativists on the SCOTUS, dishonored themselves, and through nothing more than those five had the majority of the votes, they Licensed debauchery.  

The "Why" was then and remains _IRRELEVANT.

That they went through the motions of divining a rationalization, is as meaningless as the rationalization itself.
_
So there was no 'win'... there was only the THEFT of justice.

What you're claiming as a 'Win', is the same would-be "WIN" that is celebrated when a burglar walks your Computers, flat panels and other valuables out of your door.  

But hey... in fairness to you, as a Relativist; meaning a person who lacks the capacity for Objective reason, OKA: Truth, _there is NO WAY that you could have known that._


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > At the end of page six and not one anti Marriage Equality harm has been shown.
> ...



So I kicked your first and second claim out- lets look at your third 'example'


*Protecting Religious Liberty in the State Marriage Debate*

Protecting Religious Liberty in the State Marriage Debate

This is a discussion of business's who have faced repercussions for violating various Public Accommodation laws

None of these business's were harmed by 'gay marriage'- they were harmed by their decision not to serve customers in violation of the law.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> In Pew Research polling in 2001, Americans opposed same-sex marriage...



Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > In Pew Research polling in 2001, Americans opposed same-sex marriage...
> ...



Like I showed, your opinion is marginal even among the faithful.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > At the end of page six and not one anti Marriage Equality harm has been shown.
> ...



Lets move onto your 'example' #4

_Forced indoctrination in the schools: Harvey Milk Day - SaveCalifornia.com_

I don't have a clue what you think this is supposed to have to do with 'gay marriage'.

As a parent whose child is in the California School system- I can say with great certainty- there is no 'forced indoctrination' and this article is mostly lies.

But you don't have a problem with that- do you? 

Another article that is not about 'gay marriage'.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > In Pew Research polling in 2001, Americans opposed same-sex marriage...
> ...



In Uganda.

Or One man and several women.


----------



## koshergrl (Jun 30, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


 
None of those lukewarm "supporters" will fight for you loons, trust me.


----------



## koshergrl (Jun 30, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


 Yes, but I think you should pick cotton because you're a criminal deviant.... not because you're black.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

Says the deviant criminal, Koshergrl.

Yep, you are losing, as always, which will never change.


----------



## konradv (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Like people spitting on soldiers returning from Vietnam, it's happening more in the minds of the aggrieved, than in reality.
> ...


Making a big deal over one incident, but forgetting about all the harassment gays have received over the years.  Typical hypocrisy on your part.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > At the end of page six and not one anti Marriage Equality harm has been shown.
> ...



Maybe you should tell us which of your 'examples' are supposed to have to do with harm from gay marriage? Because so far not looking good for you.

#5
_Articles The International Gay War on Black People_

And once again- nothing there about 'harm from gay marriage'.

Just one Latino man's rant about how he thinks homosexuals are targeting black people.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

We are IMPATIENTLY awaiting an actual harm from Marriage Equality.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Like I showed, your opinion is marginal even among the faithful.



Yet... Marriage, > _IS_ < _the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

But that's only because Nature designed HUMANITY with two distinct but complementing Genders, each respectively and specifically designed to join with the other, forming from two, one sustainable body.  

See how easy that is?  It's called "Self Evident Truth".  Can't be denied... can't be avoided.  It quite simply *IS.*_


----------



## Spare_change (Jun 30, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> At the end of page six and not one anti Marriage Equality harm has been shown.
> 
> Get it straight.  You freaks on the socon far right are not going to have any power ever to stop folks from marrying whom they will.
> 
> ...



Read the posts .... you're trying to cover the truth. The damage has already been done.

But ... let me ask you a theoretical question.

If a Catholic priest refuses to marry a gay couple, will he be subject to the law?

a) If yes, what happened to the First Amendment 'free exercise' clause?

b) If no, how is he different that a baker who believes his religion forbids him from aiding and abetting a sin?

Now, another theoretical question ...

A baker was forced to provide a cake for a gay wedding. A baker, who refused to provide a cake for an anti-gay event, was determined to NOT have violated the law. Explain the difference.

Now, some not so theoretical questions .....

SCOTUS has determined that the collective rights of gays supersedes the individual rights of citizens, by limiting the ability of some citizens the 'free exercise' of their religion and forcing them to aid and abet what they perceive a sin. So ... at what point did we give the government permission to limit our rights? What do you think is going to be the next individual right to be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness? Why does the right of the gay community to marriage supersede my right to practice my religion?


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Lets move onto your claim #6

_From overseas, but coming soon: Video Christian arrested for calling homosexuality a sin warns of real-life thought police - Telegraph_

Ah the case of the preacher who got arrested in the UK for preaching. 

The UK is not the United States- and they do not have the same rights as Americans do in America.

And once again- nothing to do with 'gay marriage'- or with even 'homosexuals' targeting gays- the police arrested this guy. 

A spokesman for the Metropolitan Police said: “Police were called to Wimbledon Hill Road, SW19, at approximately 16.40 on Monday, July 1, following reports of a man speaking through a public address system who was alleged to have made homophobic comments.

“Officers attended and arrested the man, aged 49, on suspicion of offences under the Public Order Act.

“He was taken to a south-west London police station and spoken to by officers before being released with no further action later the same day.”

So in conclusion- perhaps one of your examples- out of 6- could arguably have something to do with 'gay marriage harm'- but of course that is in regards to business's who refused service to homosexuals.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > At the end of page six and not one anti Marriage Equality harm has been shown.
> ...



What law? What law requires any Priest to marry anyone?

What if he refuses to marry a Jewish couple?

Now- tell me- can you tell the difference between a Priest acting officially on behalf of a church- and a business?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jun 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...




Thanks for posting these links. 

More proof  that phony christians do not follow the teachings of the god they say they worship.


----------



## Spare_change (Jun 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Laws which violate my individual rights are bad laws, and it is essential that they be opposed at every turn. This law has violated my First Amendment rights.


----------



## Spare_change (Jun 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...




You were told - I told you in Post 150, and it was repeated later - you choose to ignore it, rather than address it, because you have no response. Instead, you put your fingers in your ears and claim ignorance.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Same sex marriage
> ...



This was just as wrong the first time it was posted as it is the fiftieth time you regurgitate it.  Never in recorded history has marriage been solely the joining of one man & one woman.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



So your problem is with Public Accomodations laws- which date back to 1964- the 1964 Civil Rights Act. 

Amazing you just now figured out that these laws 'violate your rights'.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Thunderbird said:
> ...



Here is your post 150- still looking for some actual claim of how you are injured by two men or two women legally marrying- feel free to point out in that rant of yours where you are injured. 

_You know, you gotta love the "Told ya so! Told ya so!! You're all a bunch of bigots!" mantra of the left .... they, simply, have no idea what has happened. Frankly, it has very little to do with gay rights.

The government has, in its wisdom, stripped the rights of one group in order to further the agenda of another group. The government has said that the First Amendment does NOT apply to Christians. Who will be next? For the first time, the government has said that THEY will be the arbiter of your rights, and that they will apply them piecemeal as they see fit. Today, the court has said that the rights of gay Americans trump the rights of Christian Americans.

Christians have now been denied the 'free exercise' of their religion. Today, there are cases making their way through federal courts asking that ALL religious preaching - to include from the pulpit - be classified as 'hate speech'.

While the left gleefully concentrates on the right hand, the left hand, once again, attacks the basic precepts of our country._


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 30, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > At the end of page six and not one anti Marriage Equality harm has been shown.
> ...



What minister or clergy has been forced to perform a gay marriage they did not want to perform?  And do be specific.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

konradv said:


> Making a big deal over one incident...



Yeah... It was just ONE Homo-Shame Rally... that roughed up and SPIT ON A PRIEST... because he is a man who openly loves God.

Nothing inherently EVIL ABOUT THAT: "ONE INCIDENT".

Should we take some time to list the other ONE "INCIDENCES" which demonstrate EVIL on the part of the MEN WHO SLEEP WITH OTHER MEN AND LITTLE BOYS?


----------



## Spare_change (Jun 30, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> A few are insisting that any official has to issue the license or do the marriage.  They are wrong.  If a couple is able to get the license or the officiator, there is no problem.  There is a tension between 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment that can be solved.



Actually, it can't be resolved ... for the first time, SCOTUS has intentionally placed the collective rights of a group in direct competition with individual rights. The only way to remove that competition is to reverse the decision.

Today, we have three cases winding its way through federal court that insist that all anti-gay rhetoric in the church, to include from the pulpit, be classified as 'hate speech'.

The refusal of the church to provide its services to gays can now be interpreted as discrimination. The only question is WHEN - not IF - that lawsuit is filed. The priest who refuses to marry a gay couple could be subject to the anti-discrimination laws.

If a baker must bake a cake, the priest must conduct the ceremony.


----------



## Spare_change (Jun 30, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yup, not one person harmed by Marriage Equality.



I was ... and I am.


----------



## Spare_change (Jun 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



Wrong .... you can bleat all you want, but the simple fact is that we have moved religious expression into the public sphere, and is subject to the laws.

But, I do have a question for you ... is it possible to have a discussion with you in which you DON'T call people vile names?


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Making a big deal over one incident...
> ...



Oh please!   After the vitriol and spite thrown by the religious right at homosexuals, you want to whine when a tiny percentage of if comes back?   Nonsense.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > A few are insisting that any official has to issue the license or do the marriage.  They are wrong.  If a couple is able to get the license or the officiator, there is no problem.  There is a tension between 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment that can be solved.
> ...



Churches discriminate all the time. 

A Catholic Church will not allow Jews to marry in the church.
The Catholic Church will not ordain women as priests
The Mormon Church will not allow non-full members of the Church into the Temple.

Churches can refuse to marry anyone- any couple- for any reason that they want- up to and including refusing to marry a couple simply because they are of the wrong race. 

Nothing changes. 

Churches still can do what they want.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Churches have no more obligation today than they had on Thursday- or that they had in 1965. 

Just fear mongering by the usual bigots.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 30, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > A few are insisting that any official has to issue the license or do the marriage.  They are wrong.  If a couple is able to get the license or the officiator, there is no problem.  There is a tension between 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment that can be solved.
> ...



That only applies if the church is a public access business.

And I love that you are insisting that you have been hurt by what you THINK will happen in the future.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, not one person harmed by Marriage Equality.
> ...



Still waiting for you to tell us exactly how


Where you physically harmed? Did you suffer some injury?
Did you suffer a financial loss- and if so- how much?
Did your marriage or relationship end?
Did your dog run away?
Did your computer explode?
See when I have been harmed- its pretty easy to say how I have been harmed. Still looking for that from you.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> What minister or clergy has been forced to perform a gay marriage they did not want to perform?  And do be specific.



Reader, understand that all it takes is ONE.  So the feign of innocence is about as devious as it comes.

We can rest assured that they're presently in the process of pushing that door in, even as we speak... because, the Federal Government just Licensed THEM TO DO SO. 

Of course, anyone who would like to offer evidence showing the compassion of the homo-cult, in not shoving itself into places it doesn't belong...  is welcome to do so.

Just keep in mind that Homosexuality is by definition about nothing else, except pushing itself into places it doesn't belong.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> That only applies if the church is a public access business.



Well There ya go... we find that all TOO RARE: _Exception.
_
Now let's review the above cited would-be 'contributors most recent post:



WinterBorn said:


> What minister or clergy has been forced to perform a gay marriage they did not want to perform?  And do be specific.



_See how that works?_


----------



## Spare_change (Jun 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



My right to exercise my religion has been grievously harmed ... I am now REQUIRED to aid and abet a sin ... in the eyes of my God, that is a sin of equal value.

My individual rights are NOW subject to definition, and control, by politicians. The government now has the precedence to define the limits, or applicability, of my fundamental rights.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 30, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



They certainly won't blow up their careers or congregations for you or yours either.


----------



## Asclepias (Jun 30, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


No...you can always get a new job.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



So you cannot actually come up with any actual harm- you are whining about harm you might suffer- somehow- in some unexplained fashion. 

As an individual no one is required to do anything.

If  you run a business, you cannot refuse to obey the law by claiming a special "I am a Christian" exemption.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Like I showed, your opinion is marginal even among the faithful.
> ...



The only " self evident truth" is that you are on the fringe.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



What is that?  That they've turned their back on God?  That's a fact of nature... where's the potential for vitriol?  

Do you even know what the word means?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Ran across this over at The Blaze...  it's a great read.
> 
> _"I received a lot of feedback this past weekend about my piece responding to the Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling. Many people seemed to take exception to my radical position that men and woman can conceive children. They didn’t explicitly disagree with that theory, but they did deny the one single conclusion that inevitably stems from it, which is that the union between a man and a woman is special and different.
> 
> ...


There is nothing special about the relationship between one man and one woman. It's been going on for thousands no millions of years. Monkey do it. But the fact is God if there is one which I doubt there is but if there is he makes gay animals so deal with it


----------



## Asclepias (Jun 30, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


That pretty much confirms your lack of intelligence and abundance of bigotry. I dont have a criminal record but I am Black.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Ran across this over at The Blaze...  it's a great read.
> 
> _"I received a lot of feedback this past weekend about my piece responding to the Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling. Many people seemed to take exception to my radical position that men and woman can conceive children. They didn’t explicitly disagree with that theory, but they did deny the one single conclusion that inevitably stems from it, which is that the union between a man and a woman is special and different.
> 
> ...



Makes ya wonder doesn't it if marriage is in anyway about children, what happens in a few decades or so when two men or two women are making their very own babies? 

Rut-roh Raggy...

"A new discovery out of Japan has the potential to allow gay men to create an egg of their own stem cells, without the use of a female donor. Unlike surrogacy, the child would be born with the DNA of both parents."
STUDY Gay Men Could Reproduce Through Stem Cells Without Egg Donor Queerty


----------



## Spare_change (Jun 30, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



WHAT?????

You make no sense whatsoever ... did I even once mention employment? Did i even once talk about a job?

No .... and you wonder why you can't keep up with the discussion. This post is ridiculous.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 30, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Those who continue to spout that line are the moral equivalent of Holocaust deniers.
> ...


I find it odd to hear black people being anti gay when it was them experiencing it just about 50 years ago themselves. And the only argument they have is that being gay is a choice which it is not unless you are bi, and being black is not a choice.

Even if it is a choice so what?


----------



## Spare_change (Jun 30, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Ran across this over at The Blaze...  it's a great read.
> ...




Wow --- we just crossed over into Absolutely Fucking Stupid land ....


----------



## Asclepias (Jun 30, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


You said you were required aid in a sin. How are you aiding in a sin if you are MYOB?


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > What minister or clergy has been forced to perform a gay marriage they did not want to perform?  And do be specific.
> ...



So you have been harmed but it just hasn't happened yet?


----------



## Asclepias (Jun 30, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


Any Black person that has an issue with gay people needs to take a deep look at themselves. They dont have to want to be gay to see the parallels.


----------



## Asclepias (Jun 30, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


That happened when you said you were required to aid in a sin.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

> The only " self evident truth" is that you are on the fringe.



Well, the coolest part of this cult is how consistently wrong these people are, about everything.  

For starters, most people on earth recognize human gender, what it is, its purpose and that Marriage is a Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Secondly, if every human being on Earth beleived to the core of their beings that Marriage was a Walnut...  that would in NO WAY alter the self-evident truth... _Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman._


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 30, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> There is no math to it. You kooks will lose. You always do. You either ride or collide with us. There is no other option.


No not always.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 30, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Thunderbird said:
> ...



I think it has more to do with fundamental religious beliefs than it does about being black


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> > The only " self evident truth" is that you are on the fringe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Cult?  These people? People like you make up an ever shrinking minority. I would think you are in the cult.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> LOL.....the Nazi's hated gays as much as you do.
> 
> You are hilarious.


You are dumb.  A lot of Nazis were gay.  Read up on Ernst Röhm.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> There is nothing special about the relationship between one man and one woman.



Nothing beyond that such is the way nature designed the species.   Of course, beyond that, nothing else matters as God designed nature and as such the relationship between a man and a woman provides the means for such to be blessed by the spirit of God.  And there's no downside to that.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 30, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


So what gay marriage is different than straight marriage? Gay porn is different than straight porn too. Did gay porn ruin straight porn? No.

What is special about a union between a man and woman? Other than the obvious. Liza manelli married that freak. What was special about that marriage or union? Not every married couple wants kids.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > There is nothing special about the relationship between one man and one woman.
> ...


Not everybody wants to breed


----------



## Asclepias (Jun 30, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I wonder if they ever stop and ask themselves where that religion came from in the form they presently practice it?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> > The only " self evident truth" is that you are on the fringe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's what it used to mean but now its the joining of any two adults regardless of what sex they are get over it


----------



## Asclepias (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > There is nothing special about the relationship between one man and one woman.
> ...


Bullshit. God also designed gay animals if you want to blame someone.


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Same sex marriage
> ...


For the sole purpose of divorce..


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 30, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Which is even more proof that religion is a way they use to control the masses. George W Bush was able to win over religious black people with issues like abortion and gay marriage.


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 30, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Ahhhh, to be asexual , I'd never leave the house....literally...


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 30, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


When your religion is racist homophobic bigoted ignorant and superstitious Plus doesn't make any sense then maybe your religion was manmade. Amazing people are still buying it but that's how dumb the masses are


----------



## Asclepias (Jun 30, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


Present day christianity is a bastardization of old African, Greek, and Roman religions


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Yup, not one person harmed by Marriage Equality.


I don't know who you are trying to fool Syriusly. Maybe yourself? What kind of sick authoritarian personality wants to force some baker to write a particular message the baker doesn't agree with? It's Homosexual activists vs. freedom of speech, freedom of religion, artistic freedom, freedom of thought.  Just look at the facts.

Quote: For years, a central argument of those in favor of same-sex marriage has been that all Americans should be free to live and love as they choose, but does that freedom require the government to coerce those who disagree into celebrating same-sex relationships? A growing number of incidents demonstrates that the redefinition of marriage and state policies on sexual orientation have created a climate of intolerance and intimidation for citizens who believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman and that sexual relations are properly reserved for marriage.

Now these citizens are facing a new wave of government coercion and discrimination. State laws that create special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity are being used to trump fundamental civil liberties such as freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.

These laws add sexual orientation and gender identity (dubbed SOGI) to the list of protected classes such as race, sex, and national origin. Regrettably, these sexual orientation and gender laws have serious flaws.[1] Specifically, they frequently fail to protect the civil liberties of Americans, especially religious liberty. They tend to be vague and overly broad without clear definitions of what conduct can and cannot be penalized. Judgments can also be quite subjective: Boise and other cities in Idaho now prohibit even indirect acts that might make another person feel that he or she is being “treated as not welcome.”[2]

Under newer laws, family businesses—especially photographers, bakers, florists, and others involved in the wedding industry—have been hauled into court because they declined to provide services for a same-sex ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs. Although Americans are free to live as they choose, no one should demand that government coerce others into celebrating their relationship.

Protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience does not infringe on anyone’s sexual freedoms. All Americans should remain free to believe and act in the public square based on their beliefs about marriage without fear of government penalty.

*Wedding-Related Religious Liberty Violations *
*Elane Photography. *The case of Elaine Huguenin and her husband, Jon, is perhaps the best-known example of violations of religious liberty.

The Huguenins run Elane Photography, a small photography business in Albuquerque, New Mexico. In 2006, the couple declined a request to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony because, as Elaine explains, “the message a same-sex commitment ceremony communicates is not one I believe.”[3] Elane Photography did not refuse to take pictures of gay and lesbian individuals; they declined to photograph a ceremony that ran counter to the owners’ belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman (something with which New Mexico law agreed). Other photographers in the Albuquerque area were more than happy to photograph the event.[4]

In 2008, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission ruled that by declining to use its artistic and expressive skills to communicate what was said and what occurred at the ceremony, the Huguenins’ business had discriminated based on sexual orientation. As a result, the commission ordered them to pay $6,637.94 in attorneys’ fees.[5] The ruling cited New Mexico’s human rights law, which prohibits discrimination in “public accommodations” (“any establishment that provides or offers its services … or goods to the public”) based on race, religion, and sexual orientation—among other protected classes.

At the end of 2013, the New Mexico Supreme Court upheld the Human Rights Commission’s ruling. It concluded that under the state’s sexual orientation and gender identify law, the First Amendment does not protect a photographer’s freedom to decline to take pictures of a same-sex commitment ceremony—even when doing so would violate the photographer’s religious beliefs. Justice Richard C. Bosson, in a concurring opinion, claimed that requiring the Huguenins to relinquish their religious convictions was permissible as “the price of citizenship.”[6]

Elane Photography petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a review of its case on November 8, 2013.[7] On April 7, 2014, the Supreme Court declined to review _Elane Photography v. Willock_. While neither affirming nor rejecting the lower court’s ruling, the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari means the New Mexico Supreme Court decision against the Huegenins’ right to free expression will stand.

*Sweet Cakes by Melissa. *In early 2013, two women asked the Oregon bakery Sweet Cakes by Melissa to bake a wedding cake for their same-sex commitment ceremony. Although bakery owners Melissa and Aaron Klein consistently had served all customers on a regular basis, this request would have required them to facilitate and celebrate a same-sex relationship—violating their religious belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Oregon law defines marriage in the same way.[8]

Soon afterward, the two women filed a complaint under the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. During an investigation of the Kleins by Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries, bureau official Brad Avakian commented: “The goal is to rehabilitate. For those who do violate the law, we want them to learn from that experience and have a good, successful business in Oregon.”[9] In January 2014, the agency issued a ruling that the Kleins violated Oregon’s sexual orientation law when they declined to bake the cake.[10]

Melissa and Aaron Klein have also faced other pressure for their unwillingness to violate their beliefs. Sweet Cakes by Melissa reported being subjected to threats and violent protests, vicious telephone calls, and boycotts by activists.[11] The Kleins, who have five children, reportedly received hundreds of phone calls and letters—including death threats to the family.

Fearing for the safety of their family, the Kleins decided in September 2013 to close their small business.[12] Yet the Kleins still have to deal with the Labor Commission’s conclusion that they engaged in discrimination. The case is likely to proceed to an administrative law judge for further review.

*Masterpiece Cakeshop. *A similar wedding-cake scenario unfolded in Colorado—a state that in 2006 constitutionally defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman[13]—involving Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop.[14]

In 2012, a same-sex couple received a marriage license in Massachusetts and asked Phillips to bake a cake for a reception back home in Colorado. Phillips declined to create a wedding cake, citing his faith: “I don’t feel like I should participate in their wedding, and when I do a cake, I feel like I am participating in the ceremony or the event or the celebration that the cake is for.” The couple obtained a wedding cake with rainbow-colored filling (illustrating the expressive nature of event cake-baking) from another bakery.[15]

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a complaint against Masterpiece Cakeshop with the state, alleging violations of Colorado’s public accommodation law. Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer ruled against the bakery on December 6, 2013, concluding that Phillips violated the law by declining service to the couple “because of their sexual orientation.”[16]

Phillips objected to this characterization and responded that he would happily sell the couple his baked goods for any number of occasions, but baking a wedding cake would force him to express something that he does not believe, thereby violating his freedom to run his business in accordance with his faith.[17]

*Arlene’s Flowers. *On March 1, 2013, longtime customers Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed met with Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts owner Barronelle Stutzman to request that she arrange the flowers for their same-sex wedding ceremony. Washington State had redefined marriage the previous year. Stutzman responded that she could not accept the job because of her “relationship with Jesus Christ” and her belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.[18]

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed suit against Stutzman, contending that she had violated the state’s sexual orientation law. Ferguson is seeking a $2,000 fine and a court order forcing Stutzman to violate her conscience by using her artistic talents to celebrate a same-sex relationship.[19] The matter is now pending before the trial court.

*Görts Haus Gallery. *Betty and Dick Odgaard, a devout Mennonite couple in Iowa, run an art gallery in a 77-year-old church building. Among other things—running a lunch bistro, a flower shop, a gift shop, and a framing shop—they host weddings. Betty and Dick work with the couples who wed there on everything from flowers, food, and decorations to the wedding ceremony itself. On the day of every wedding, they oversee all of these details.[20]

In 2013, the Odgaards declined a request to organize, facilitate, and host a same-sex ceremony because they believed that it conflicted with “the religious message they seek to convey through the Gallery, a message which includes the importance of living one’s faith in all aspects of life.”[21] They now face punitive action before the Iowa Civil Rights Commission.[22]

“We hire and serve gays and lesbians, and have close friends who are gays and lesbians,” said Betty Odgaard. “And we respect that good people disagree with our religious conviction against hosting a ceremony that violates our faith. We simply ask that the government not force us to abandon our faith or punish us for it.”[23]

The Odgaards have filed a lawsuit in Iowa district court seeking protection of their religious liberty.[24]

*Intolerance Against Adoption Providers *
In addition to private family businesses affiliated with the wedding industry, organizations that serve children in the foster care system are also facing serious repercussions and intolerance.[25] Every year, the foster care system serves approximately 400,000 children, nearly a quarter of whom are waiting to be adopted.[26]

Across the United States, there are more than 1,000 private, licensed foster care and adoption providers.[27] Many are faith-based organizations whose religious and moral beliefs motivate their care for some of the most vulnerable children in society.

In a number of states, sexual orientation and gender identity laws, coupled with the redefinition of marriage or the creation of same-sex civil unions, are threatening the freedom of private foster care and adoption providers who believe children should have a married mother and father. These providers should not be forced to abandon the very beliefs that motivate them to care for families and vulnerable children.

*Boston Catholic Charities, Massachusetts. *For more than 100 years, Catholic Charities in Boston, Massachusetts, had a successful record of connecting children to permanent families, placing more children in adoptive homes than any other state-licensed agency.[28] Then, in 2003, following a decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, the state began to recognize same-sex unions as marriages.[29] This decision, coupled with an earlier state policy on sexual orientation, forced all state-licensed adoption providers to be willing to place children with same-sex couples.[30]

Rather than abandon Catholic teaching that marriage is between one man and one woman, as well as its conviction that the best place for a child is with a married mother and father, Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to end their foster care and adoption programs. In the two decades before it ended those services, the organization had helped approximately 720 children to find permanent adoptive homes.[31]

*D.C. Catholic Charities, District of Columbia.* In 2010, the District of Columbia passed a law redefining marriage to include same-sex couples.[32] The redefinition of marriage, coupled with the District’s sexual orientation policy, would have required Catholic Charities’ foster care and adoption services to place children with same-sex couples.[33]

Despite requests by the Archdiocese of Washington that it protect private organizations’ moral and religious beliefs, the D.C. government refused to grant an exemption. Because it would not violate its beliefs—the faith that had guided more than 80 years of service in the District—Catholic Charities was forced to transfer its foster care and adoption program to other providers.[34]

*Evangelical Child and Family Agency, Illinois. *For decades, the Evangelical Child and Family Agency (ECFA) had contracted with Illinois to provide foster care services. In 2011, however, a new state civil union law,[35] coupled with an existing sexual orientation policy, effectively forced private agencies to license unmarried, cohabitating couples—including same-sex couples—as foster care parents in order to keep state contracts.

Because ECFA was convinced that children should have the unique benefits provided by a married mother and a father, the state would not renew its foster care contract.[36] As a result, ECFA was forced to transfer the cases of the foster children it served to different agencies and end the foster care program that had connected children with permanent families.

Pushing out faith-based foster care and adoption providers comes at a very high cost; these organizations provide real—and unique—services. “One of our main things we were looking for in an agency was one that shared our religious and faith beliefs,” explains John Shultz, who with his wife Tammy adopted four foster care children through ECFA. Without the support of ECFA, “I don’t think I could’ve weathered the storm of the foster care system,” Tammy remarked.[37]

When combined with other private providers in Illinois, including numerous Catholic Charities affiliates,[38] ECFA and other faith-based organizations in the state were forced to stop serving over 2,000 children, transferring their cases to other providers.[39]

*American System of Civil Liberties *
Part of the genius of the American system of government is its commitment to protecting the liberty and First Amendment freedoms of all citizens while respecting their equality before the law. The government protects the freedom of citizens to seek the truth about God, to worship according to their conscience, and to live out their convictions in public life. Likewise, citizens are free to form contracts and other associations according to their own values.

While the government must treat everyone equally, private actors are left free to make reasonable judgments and distinctions—including reasonable moral judgments and distinctions—in their economic activities. Legislators should impose substantial burdens on sincere religious beliefs _only_ when the government proves that imposing such a burden is necessary to advance a compelling government interest (and does so by the least intrusive or restrictive means). Not every florist need provide wedding arrangements for every ceremony. Not every photographer need capture every first kiss. Competitive markets can best harmonize a range of values that citizens hold, and there is no need for government to try to force every photographer and every florist to service every marriage-related event.

Those who make decisions based on moral and religious views may well pay a price in the market, perhaps losing customers and qualified employees, but such choices should remain lawful. Freedom of association and freedom of contract are two-way streets. They entail the freedom to choose with whom to associate, and when and on what terms, as well as with whom to contract and for what goods. Governmental mandates that force or prevent association violate these freedoms and should be pursued only for compelling reasons. Americans are free to live as they choose, but no one should demand that government coerce others into celebrating their relationship.

Many of the family businesses cited above understand their professions to be extensions of their faith-life. In this view, being a wedding photographer, for example, means not simply being another business offering services, but utilizing God-given talents to tell the story of a particular couple and their relationship. For them, celebrating a same-sex relationship as a marriage affirms that relationship. It is understandable that some religious believers would not want the government to coerce them into doing that.

The government should not be in the position of determining who is right or wrong about baking cakes or taking photographs of same-sex ceremonies. There is no need to hold the same beliefs as the owners of Sweet Cakes or Elane Photography to recognize that both should have the freedom to run their businesses in accordance with their values—and without fear of reprisal from the government.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > > The only " self evident truth" is that you are on the fringe.
> ...



Isn't it cool how DESPERATE it is to 'believe' that?

Understand Reader, if every human being on EARTH BELIEVED that gender was irrelevant to marriage, that would not erase the essential function of gender to marriage and to civilization.

That there exist a cult which rejects the obvious, tells you everything a reasonable person needs to know about that cult and that is that they're quite mad.

Understand, Homosexuality is a mental disorder that presents as sexual deviancy. 

That disorder is a form of delusional sociopathy...  which also just happen to be the predominate character traits of the Nazis, the Maoists and the Stalinists.  Recall that that group murdered 150 MILLION innocent people in the mid 20th Century.

Such is also the trait common to Islam, who just happens to be the second most lethal human enterprise, behind the Left.

And that's all anyone of reason really need to know about these people.   They're fundamentally dishonest, morally bankrupt and have a demonstrated disdain for boundaries.   

Meaning that they're a threat to everyone around them.  

And you saw that demonstrated just prior to the 14 election, when they were seeking out victims... and attacking innocent people, ruining businesses and lives... and one case turning a little pizza store owner into a millionaire, because the Homo-cult is _SO POPULAR, that people all over the world sent them money as a means to protest and contest their merciless brutality._


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> That's what it used to mean...



"IT" meaning *Marriage*, _is the Joining of One Man and One Woman._


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> When your religion is racist homophobic bigoted ignorant ...



Reader, understand that the ideological Left has reduced the words: Racist, Bigot and Ignorant... to what is effectively MEANINGLESS.

The above would-be 'contributor' cannot take the literal meaning of any of those words and apply them to any position which recognizes deviancy as abnormality as bigotry.

It can't take the word racist and apply it literally to any political position of Americans; which is to say Conservatives.

And what can be said about a person claiming ignorance in its opposition, where that same person rejects the otherwise undeniable facts of nature that any 12 year old readily understands.

And truly, what more does one really need to know to understand the devious nature of this cultural malignancy?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > That's what it used to mean...
> ...


Not anymore. There's gay marriage now. Did you see my analogy about porn? You can have your straight porn and gays can have their gay porn. All the same benefits. That's the way a secular society rolls


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



I suppose since there is such a large percentage of cultists who support marriage equality, then we should assume there is a great flood or fire and brimstone soon to follow?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > When your religion is racist homophobic bigoted ignorant ...
> ...


Don't try to use nature science fact logic on this because really what you're referring to is your ideological religious beliefs and nobody cares what you or your religion says


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > When your religion is racist homophobic bigoted ignorant ...
> ...


I'm not worried about gays who truly want to get married. I'm worried about straight people who might marry someone just to get their pension and Social Security.

But I guess I know many women who have done this so why should they be allowed and gays cannot?


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 30, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


I did eat hot peppers...


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 30, 2015)

Homosexual fanatics ignore the victims of their intolerance.  Here's some ugly bigotry directed against religious folk and African Americans:

There has been a string of global clashes between LGBT activists and black Christians -- not only in the U.S., but abroad.  African-American Christian Angela McCaskill nearly lost her job at Gallaudet University for signing a petition about gay marriage, even though it wasn't clear that she was signing in protest against it.

Crystal Dixon was an African-American administrator in Toledo who authored a rebuttal against someone who'd accused the University of Toledo of economic discrimination against homosexual couples.  Dixon said, "I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are 'civil rights victims.' Here's why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a Black woman."  She went on to clarify the illegitimacy of the economic comparison:

Economic data is irrefutable: The normative statistics for a homosexual in the USA include a Bachelor's degree: For gay men, the median household income is $83,000/yr. (Gay singles $62,000; gay couples living together $130,000), almost 80% above the median U.S. household income of $46,326, per census data. For lesbians, the median household income is $80,000/yr. (Lesbian singles $52,000; Lesbian couples living together $96,000); 36% of lesbians reported household incomes in excess of $100,000/yr. Compare that to the median income of the non-college educated Black male of $30,539. The data speaks for itself.

Dixon's point is particularly important to keep in mind when we consider the case of Edie Windsor, who was the plaintiff in the DOMA case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in late June.  Windsor, a white lesbian, sued because her lesbian partner's estate amounted to $3.5 million, as Patrick Deneen has pointed out.  Not content with this gargantuan estate, Windsor won her legal case and is now set to receive $360,000 more.

*Crystal Dixon was fired from her job; she sued and lost her case.*

Julea Ward was a graduate student at Eastern Michigan University.  She asked to refer a client to a different counselor, based on the fact that her religious beliefs disallowed her from affirming an unchaste homosexual relationship.  As Jeremy Tedesco points out:

_Her objection is to providing counseling on certain topics, not to counseling any particular group_.

So the claim that Julea refused to see clients who identified as gay is patently false.

The actual facts are that Julea faced a values conflict when a potential client sought counseling about a homosexual relationship. Recognizing the likely values conflict with the client, she asked her professor whether she should refer him before any meeting took place and was instructed to do so. But the University charged Julea with "imposing values" on the potential client, and disobeying ethical rules that apply to counselors. It then expelled her from the program, even though she was a stellar student who was carrying a 3.91 GPA.

She won her case, but only after fighting tooth and nail.


----------



## Agit8r (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Same sex marriage
> ...



Except in the Bible, where David had many wives, but was still Yahweh's favorite weepy twink.


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 30, 2015)

Agit8r said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


He even managed to bed a few that were not his wife....


----------



## G.T. (Jun 30, 2015)

The bigotted butthurt continues.
Meanwhile, gay marriage legal in all 50


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> The bigotted butthurt continues.
> Meanwhile, gay marriage legal in all 50


Well look how long they had their whey...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

So Keys and Spare Change are sliding down a non-existent slippery slope.

Nothing, by their own admission, has happened.

Spare has surpassed Keys for the silliest statement of the day, "SCOTUS has intentionally placed the collective rights of a group in direct competition with individual rights."  The 13th Amendment placed the collective rights on no-longer slaves about the individual rights of slavers.

What a couple of fucking loons.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Yet... Marriage IS _the Joining of One Man and One Woman._


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

Agit8r said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



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


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


That is until the Supreme Court ruling and now it's different


----------



## G.T. (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


Says you. You have no authority. Youre powerless, wimp.

The law says otherwise.

We are a nation of laws. Not of dope lost his keys' dopey opinions.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> I suppose since there is such a large percentage of cultists who support marriage equality



Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


Half the time they are apart...


----------



## G.T. (Jun 30, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Hes unhinged, and its fucking hilarious. Down to just repeating it like hes got tourettes


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jun 30, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with the MYOB.  Why then are gays making such an issue when someone disagrees or refuses to do business with them?
> ...


I don't see the problem, unless the customer makes a point of highlighting a specific aspect of his/her personal life.  You walk into a bakery, you order a cake....no problem.  You walk into a bakery (that you know the owner has a particular ideological conviction) and declare your ideology (contrary to his/her) and then demand service, or else, with the intent of filing suit or making a media circus of the situation...that, I have a problem with.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


He sounds like my dad. Just can't seem to wrap his brain around it.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jun 30, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


I own a private business, other than taxes, I am not affiliated with government (public) in any way.  I reserve the right to refuse service.  If the public consumers do not agree with me, they are entirely at liberty to find a businessman/woman who will not refuse them service.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 30, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...


Waaaaaaah! Do you have a problem with a black person walking in to a restaurant he knows they're going to discriminate against him for the purpose of getting them to do it so he can sue? I don't.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 30, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...


You do remember those people in Selma we're marching knowing that they were antagonizing an irritating the white man. Did you have a problem with them too?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



The SCOTUS did not design the Human Species, it does not possess any power beyond anyone else, except, unless and until it is purposed in the objective review of law, as such pertains to the US Constitution.  

Where that court departs that purpose and converts itself into a faux-legislature, simply holding votes and issuing fantastic decrees which are wholly severed from any kinship with the US Constitution and reason, the power it possesses vanishes, as the only power it has, is provided by THE CONSENT OF THOSE OVER WHICH IT GOVERNS... and it has officially rinsed that.

As a result, given that the SCOTUS did not design humanity, and has no means to redesign it... and given that human physiology provides two distinct, but complementing Genders; each respectively and specifically designed to join with the other... forming one sustainable body from two: 

*Marriage IS the Joining of One Man and One Woman.*​


----------



## G.T. (Jun 30, 2015)

say it again this time in all caps just in case justice kennedy is watching your meltdown keyes


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

Key's philosophy is poppy cock, nothing else, the feverish phantoms of a mind poisoned by the hash pipe.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Your keys may be in the refrigerator behind the half eaten bowl of Pabulum that you  spit  up in and next to the ensure. OR it may be in the hamper with your dirty diapers.

May I suggest that you put them on the night stand with your dementia medication and zoloft


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> say it again this time in all caps just in case justice kennedy is watching your meltdown keyes


He just sent to Scalia, "Yo, Tony, youse got a phan in Brooklyn!"


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jun 30, 2015)

...If gay marriage hurts you personally, what would it take to kill you outright?


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



One man, one woman........one man, one woman.......marriage is.......


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 30, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Key's philosophy is poppy cock, nothing else, the feverish phantoms of a mind poisoned by the hash pipe.


He has hash?


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 30, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> ...If gay marriage hurts you personally, what would it take to kill you outright?


Ghey Jesus...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Key's philosophy is poppy cock, nothing else, the feverish phantoms of a mind poisoned by the hash pipe.
> ...


Yah, the bitch won't share!


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jun 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Jews don't do anything, blacks might show up with a few of their besties, depending on where you are.  Where I am, people are respectful of one another.  Could be because we know how to respect others...
Already stated, I don't care who you want to screw, or how you want to screw them.  I don't care who, or what, you declare undying love for.   I do find the demands for respect, without giving respect for others holding differing opinions to be disingenuous, at best.  Marry your dog, for all I care, but do not expect everyone to cheer your choice.  The use of force of government to legitimize your choice and to force others to acquiesce and cooperate...that is wrong.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


Sounds like a bunch of lawyer talk


----------



## G.T. (Jun 30, 2015)

I wonder if keys' nuclear meltdown here is going to register in the USMB hall of shame...

Lookin like it!


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


The Scotus didn't have to design the human species. They just have say over the laws of that species


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Were the People In Selma Degenerates, promoting a profound perversion of human reasoning, forcing into public policy too?

If they were, then I can see where you'd be coming from.

But since they were not... and since sexual deviancy is a function of PERSONAL CHOICE...  and since RACE is a function of GENETICS, where the individual has NO CHOICE... your point is a demonstration of profound deceit... OR profound DELUSION.

Doesn't matter which... if you're a liar, then there's no means to negotiate with you because you're dishonest, thus unworthy of trust, therefore the exercise is a waste of time.  

If you're delusional you have no means to know truth, thus you are unworthy of trust, therefore the exercise is a waste of time.


----------



## mdk (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > I suppose since there is such a large percentage of cultists who support marriage equality
> ...


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Like people spitting on soldiers returning from Vietnam, it's happening more in the minds of the aggrieved, than in reality.
> ...


.,


sealybobo said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Ran across this over at The Blaze...  it's a great read.
> ...


Gay animals?  Animals are happy?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

You are in the minority with that opinion, GW, and it is shrinking.  The American people solidly support Marriage Equality, and that is increasing.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jun 30, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


Funny about winning...since no real offspring can come of such "same sex" unions, eventually normalcy will reign...provided the government feel good PCers eventually fall to the wayside, as they must.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



The Law of man has no bearing upon human physiology.  Thus such is irrelevant in such matters... .   Where  human law seeks to reject natural law, it merely sets humanity subject to the unenviable consequences of departing from the laws of nature that govern viability.

So, Nature doesn't give a dam' if you depart from it's law... it allows you to make choices and holds you accountable for those choices.  

The HIV and AIDS is a fair example of those little consequences... 

Just as the Collapse of the International Economy was a fair example of the consequences of turning from the laws of nature governing sustainable lending, for a perverse notion of 'fairness', we can rest assured that this vastly more destructive notion, will be no less catastrophic and we haven't even begun to realize what THAT idiocy has done to us.

But with that said... For the Federal Judiciary to have a say in the law and expect that say to be meaningful, they must have the consent of the governed, in which the means to enforce their law rests.

When they apply subjectivism to a system that only works through objectivism, they forfeit that consent.  

And that's roughly where we're at right now.  

At the end of the day, no nation has ever survived the national licensing of degeneracy... so the matter is largely academic for us... all that is left to do now is to await the catastrophe you idiots have set upon us and when it comes, to seek you out, and erase you... so that when whatever comes from what was the USA, comes... it will do so sans Foreign Ideas Hostile to the Principles in Nature assuring Viability.


----------



## G.T. (Jun 30, 2015)




----------



## gallantwarrior (Jun 30, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> You are in the minority with that opinion, GW, and it is shrinking.  The American people solidly support Marriage Equality, and that is increasing.


I have never said I was against homosexuality or "marriage equality".  I have often expressed that given the stated goal of acquiring equal access to government and other benefits for same sex couples could also be achieved by other means that did not trample on long held and deeply ingrained concepts of "marriage" should be acceptable.  The unfortunate thing about this entire debate is, "marriage" has become a means to denigrate and diminish a traditional religious construct.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

Only in the mind of the far right small minority that make it so.

They don't like it, which is fine.  It is not going away, which is a fact.

All the far right can do is look stupid on this issue, and they are doing a mighty fine job of it.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...


I hope you realize you have revealed to us you R a bisexual who chooses to be straight. You said it not me. There are three types of people. Straight people who could never choose to be gay gay people who could never choose to be straight and then bisexuals who choose one way or the other but could go either way. If you say being gay is a choice then that must be true for you. Is the only reason you don't go for it because you're worried about God?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

keys has every right to deny his hardwired orientation for straight relationships.  That his business.

I know such a guy who has been married for thirteen years and has three kids, his wife is aware, and they have a great marriage.

Josh has not warped himself, but keys has done so.  If he can't have it, no one can.

I think you have figured keys out.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 30, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Only in the mind of the far right small minority that make it so.
> 
> They don't like it, which is fine.  It is not going away, which is a fact.
> 
> All the far right can do is look stupid on this issue, and they are doing a mighty fine job of it.


Because really gays are not breaking any of our secular laws. Who gives a flying F what religious people think. They can think whatever they want. If they're allowed to believe an invisible man is watching over them and cares about them and has a heaven for them waiting where their great great great great grandmother is waiting for them then I guess they can believe whatever they want


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Well, you have to understand how homosexuality is manifested.

A sexual deviant molests an infant/toddler.  The molestation is in the form of play, wherein there is much smiling and cooing... the play involves the stimulation of the genitals which triggers a premature hormonal reaction that imprints the experiences... associating sexual stimulation with play, resulting in the relating of sexual attraction to the gender of the molester.

The age of the rape is critical, in that during infancy and toddler development, speech and long term memory are not developed, thus there is no chance that the child could, even innocently relate its experience when "Uncle Cab touched his privates" or any memory of the encounter.  

The perspective being that they _'had always been that way'... . _

This is why you will find that homosexuals relate sex with "FUN", as demonstrated by the endless parade of Deviants who demand that the human physiological standard 'conflates FUCKING with Marriage'.

Sex is merely 'fucking'... OKA: FUN.

They simply have no means to accept that sex is purposed for procreation...  as they lack the objectivity to even recognize that otherwise SELF EVIDENT, thus obvious _fact of nature._


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

Yes, we can believe whatever we want, just as you can or cannot.  Doesn't matter at all.  You have nothing to say about our 1st Amendment religious freedom.  No one has the right to discriminate against marriage equality.

The US Constitution is the greatest document in the history of the human race.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 30, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> keys has every right to deny his hardwired orientation for straight relationships.  That his business.
> 
> I know such a guy who has been married for thirteen years and has three kids, his wife is aware, and they have a great marriage.
> 
> ...


Is his name Marcus Bachmann?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


Were you molested? Is that why you're conflicted? Or why you're so angry about this?


----------



## G.T. (Jun 30, 2015)

wow...this guy should be in a psyche ward


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

Keys has revealed himself as a repressed bi-sexual.

He has every right to say what he wants, but filter it through his experience.  He is denying himself, therefore everyone must do so.

I don't know if Keys was molested by a homosexual, but I do believe that Silhouette has given every indication of that happening and just can't deal with it.

I am not attacking anybody here, just figuring motivation and intent, and my reckoning is much kinder than simply slamming them with deliberate evil intent.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > keys has every right to deny his hardwired orientation for straight relationships.  That his business.
> ...


Josh Weed.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


What the hell are 60 year olds f****** 4 if it's meant for procreation? Why do people take the pill or wear condoms?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 30, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Keys has revealed himself as a repressed bi-sexual.
> 
> He has every right to say what he wants, but filter it through his experience.  He is denying himself, therefore everyone must do so.
> 
> ...


I'm being sincere on this too. I don't think they even realize how much they're revealing about themselves when they make their arguments


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

If they would admit it, and try to argue the high from there, I believe they would get much more respect.

They have to let the mean-spiritedness go.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 30, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> If they would admit it, and try to argue the high from there, I believe they would get much more respect.
> 
> They have to let the mean-spiritedness go.


Great example. Has Larry Craig ever come out and admitted he's gay?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > If they would admit it, and try to argue the high from there, I believe they would get much more respect.
> ...


To his priesthood file leaders maybe, but although I have LDS friends galore, I know very little about internal disciplinary actions.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 30, 2015)

I like my homos flaming. I like Bruce Jenner not Larry Craig. I like RuPaul not Dennis Hastert or that Mark Foley pervert remember him?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 30, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


He's a Mormon?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> I like my homos flaming. I like Bruce Jenner not Larry Craig. I like RuPaul not Dennis Hastert or that Mark Foley pervert remember him?


Yeah, sad figures all.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I believe so.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

*"Gay Activists Demand Churches Lose Their Tax Exempt Status… Already?!"*

*Remember how the leftists said all of the Christian worrying over the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage was bunk? Christians pointed to other countries where the church had lost its religious liberties. The left said they were crazy. Well, leftists are already foaming at the mouth calling for just that. Hold onto your butts…

Well—it just so happens the New York Times published an article literally titled…

“Now’s the Time To End Tax Exemptions for Religious Institutions”
The argument in a nutshell: churches should now be considered “political” entities, therefore the government should be allowed to take away their tax exempt status. Of course the entire goal here is to effectively terminate the church.

Boom. Would an ‘I told you so’ here be too cliché? In record time too!



Read more: Gay Activists Demand Churches Lose Their Tax Exempt Status... Already Louder With Crowder*

Now... knowing that, it should be clear to you the deception in which our in-house cultists have been advising you.

Again... they are Relativists, thus unworthy of your trust.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Were you molested? Is that why you're conflicted? Or why you're so angry about this?


_
Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Again Reader, the key to defeating Leftists in debate rests upon two critical elements:

1- Find a Leftist

2- Get them to Speak_


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

Any relativist like Keys will argue that church organizations should be political when it is clear they should not be so.

Keys you all but admitted your bi-sexual inner conflict.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 30, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Key's philosophy is poppy cock, nothing else, the feverish phantoms of a mind poisoned by the hash pipe.
> ...



I loves me some hash.


----------



## Asclepias (Jun 30, 2015)

I guess eventually...one day...in the future... the nut cases will be right. A volcano will wipe life from the earth and they can claim god did it because gay marriage was legalized.


----------



## Faun (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Gay_Keys said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Same sex marriage
> ...


Where_r_my_Gay_Keys . . . .


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

Now how cool is it that instinctively, the homo-cult runs to denigrate their opposition, by projecting sexual deviancy upon them.

Recall Reader that I've often spoke of the Homosexuals desperate grope for Legitimacy... and that they will never be able to find it.

What you see in the last couple of pages is their telegraphing their own shame.  

Again... Sexual Deviancy is a presentation of Mental Disorder and THAT is what it looks like.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

It is what you look like, Keys.

It reeks in your writing.  You have every right to deny that side of your persona, but you should be transparent in terms of this subject.  

Sil has the same mix messaging issues.


----------



## Faun (Jun 30, 2015)

Where_r_my_Gay_Keys said:


> Ran across this over at The Blaze...  it's a great read.
> 
> _"I received a lot of feedback this past weekend about my piece responding to the Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling. Many people seemed to take exception to my radical position that men and woman can conceive children. They didn’t explicitly disagree with that theory, but they did deny the one single conclusion that inevitably stems from it, which is that the union between a man and a woman is special and different.
> 
> ...


Where_r_my_Gay_Keys . . . .


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

Fawn said:
			
		

>



Whuh? 
_
Don't worry about it... your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

Doesn't work for you, Keys.  Never has.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Thunderbird said:
> ...


One last time .... it isn't about gay people ... it's about the government interfering with my individual rights. Try to keep up.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 1, 2015)

There is no law mandating that you be nice to any gay person.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

Tipsycatlover said:


> There is no law mandating that you be nice to any gay person.



Well, as a matter of fact, there is ... if he comes into my bakery, I must serve him. If I, however, go into his bakery, he is free to refuse me service.

Explain again just how that works ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


It's about you trying to impose your morals on folks, spare.  MYOB.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 1, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> I guess eventually...one day...in the future... the nut cases will be right. A volcano will wipe life from the earth and they can claim god did it because gay marriage was legalized.


It's just like them saying liberalism is going to destroy the country. Meanwhile they are destroying the country with their conservativism. Unfair taxation, too wide of an income gap between the rich and poor destroying ss. Defunding schools and police nafta pollution wars. I could go on and on but I think you get my point. Their policies are ruining the world and yet when it's finally done theyll look back and say it was our fault


----------



## WinterBorn (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > There is no law mandating that you be nice to any gay person.
> ...



The same laws apply to his bakery as to yours.  Any business that has public access is barred from discriminating.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jul 1, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Now how cool is it that instinctively, the homo-cult runs to denigrate their opposition, by projecting sexual deviancy upon them.
> 
> Recall Reader that I've often spoke of the Homosexuals desperate grope for Legitimacy... and that they will never be able to find it.
> 
> ...



I would say having a growing majority of support is legitimacy.  It's your position that is struggling.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 1, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Now how cool is it that instinctively, the homo-cult runs to denigrate their opposition, by projecting sexual deviancy upon them.
> ...



You want to 'say' that, as such is the nature of Relativism.  In reality, Legitimacy is not a function of popularity, but you NEED to believe it is, so in what serves as you mind, it is.

The coolest part of this little exchange is that you demonstrate that you do NOT... through the projecting of illegitimacy upon your opposition.

You'll notice that few people are_ "Called"_ Dentists or Plumbers as a means to associate the subject with the illegitimacy that THEY RECOGNIZE is inherent in the concept that they are projecting.

Which as I've said many times, you people are some seriously sick fucks.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 1, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> It's just like them saying liberalism is going to destroy the country.



Liberalism has destroyed the country.  Or did ya miss the Economic Collapse of the US Financial markets as a result of "Liberal" (socialist) coercion of the interests in those markets to set aside sound actuarial lending principle in favor of the Left' perverse notion of Fairness...? 

Oh and how about the part where 5 Liberals (socialists) on the Federal Judiciary just Licensed Degeneracy, unleashing what amounts to Nazism upon anyone who recognizes that Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman?  

Don't see how ya could given that it's the only thing you've thought about in the last 7 years... only to find out that there's no more legitimacy in abusing the judicial process then there is in sexual deviancy.

Legitimacy is a simple but irretrievable consequence of human physiology, which is a consequence of how Nature designed humanity, which is how God designed Nature. Thus anyone who recognizes the simple facts of nature and the God who created Nature is now required to accept that which is otherwise UNACCEPTABLE, which puts the majority of the nation in direct confrontation with the US Federal Government.  

Thus every person of any sense of decency is injured by their responsibility to never stop contesting the public display of and support for degeneracy and to do so without apology and the consequence of that will inevitably be catastrophic. 

Because... it ain't anywhere over and it's never going to be over until the Federal Government of the United States reverses that Decision, voids all unions between same gender couples and states in no uncertain terms that there is no potential right to promote Degeneracy... or whatever government replaces it.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 1, 2015)

Now a lot of people ask, 'How did the United States ever get to a point of Degeneracy that it became legal for men to Marry Men.

And of course the answer is communism and the failure of Joe McCarthy to make the case and the failure of those alive at the time to heed his warning.  

And the point where McCarthy was dispatched, was the point of demarcation, whereupon Evil became firmly entrenched in US Culture setting the mark indicating "The Beginning, of the End."


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 1, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > It's just like them saying liberalism is going to destroy the country.
> ...


 I'll stop you after your first paragraph because you're wrong immediately. Why did all those houses get foreclosed? Because everyone's jobs get shipped overseas. A result of Bush policies. It's much more than that but basically your boy Bush f***** up


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 1, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > It's just like them saying liberalism is going to destroy the country.
> ...


Remember you guys worried so much that we had such an immoral President in office? Don't you miss Bubba?


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 1, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > LOL.....the Nazi's hated gays as much as you do.
> ...



You are as ignorant of history as you are of, well everything else.

The Nazi government rounded up homosexuals, and shipped them off to concentration camps. 
Persecution of Homosexuals in the Third Reich

From 1937 to 1939, the peak years of the Nazi persecution of homosexuals, the police increasingly raided homosexual meeting places, seized address books, and created networks of informers and undercover agents to identify and arrest suspected homosexuals. On April 4, 1938, the Gestapo issued a directive indicating that men convicted of homosexuality could be incarcerated in concentration camps. Between 1933 and 1945 the police arrested an estimated 100,000 men as homosexuals. Most of the 50,000 men sentenced by the courts spent time in regular prisons, and between 5,000 and 15,000 were interned in concentration camps

Prisoners marked by pink triangles to signify homosexuality were treated harshly in the camps. According to many survivor accounts, homosexuals were among the most abused groups in the camps.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 1, 2015)

Thunderbird said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, not one person harmed by Marriage Equality.
> ...



And not one of those people was harmed by 'gay marriage'- they were harmed by their refusal to follow the laws regulating business in their city or state.

What kind of person insists that a business should follow its legal obligation to provide service? 

Well if some business denied my wife or daughter service because of their skin color or gender- I would happily file the necessary complaints against that business to the State. If they just refused me service I might walk away- but if they refused to serve my wife- yeah- I would be willing to respond with the law.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 1, 2015)

G.T. said:


> The bigotted butthurt continues.
> Meanwhile, gay marriage legal in all 50



Can't be repeated often enough

'Meanwhile- marriage is legal in all 50 states- regardless of the gender of the spouse.'


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 1, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



and one man and one man- and one woman and one woman.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 1, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



Glad to know you are respectful of each other- public accommodation laws are not intended for those who respect their customers by providing service to them- only for business's who intentionally discriminate against their customers. 

If you are not doing that, you have nothing to be concerned about.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 1, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



LOL......'normalcy' to me is allowing people in love to marry.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 1, 2015)

Tipsycatlover said:


> There is no law mandating that you be nice to any gay person.



Nope- the haters can continue to hate homosexuals and blacks and Chinese and women and whoever else they want to hate.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 1, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > It's just like them saying liberalism is going to destroy the country.
> ...



The United States is going strong- our economy is one of the strongest in the world. Our financial markets are thriving. Stock market doing well. 

Shame you hate America and Americans so much.

Maybe Russia would be more to your liking?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 1, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



First, your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

And second, I miss the days that Clinton was the worst example of would-be Leadership in US History.  

But I should point out that at the time, I said that Clinton; 'as wicked as he is... will perpetuate an evil in the US that we cannot imagine and that will lead to the destruction of the United States.' 

So... of the things I miss most; _lucid, viable adult leadership,_ is certainly at the top of that list.


----------



## Agit8r (Jul 1, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Yeah, yeah, but god punished them by killing their innocent newborn child.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 1, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> I'll stop you after your first paragraph because you're wrong immediately. Why did all those houses get foreclosed? Because everyone's jobs get shipped overseas. A result of Bush policies. It's much more than that but basically your boy Bush f***** up



*ROFLMNAO!  I SAY IT HERE*... and it comes out *^ THERE! ^*.

Reader, that screed is  a classic demonstration of: _RELATIVISM ON PARADE!_

There is absolutely NO connection between the_ 'subjective need'_  expressed above and _REALITY_... _none.  _

Which, it should be noted, is precisely as I described it.  Relativism is DELUSION.  The rejection of objectivity... despite objectivity being the SOLE MEANS TO RECOGNIZE _*TRUTH*_.

And the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality rests ENTIRELY in Relativism... .


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > There is no law mandating that you be nice to any gay person.
> ...



ROFLMNAO!

Once again: Sexual Deviancy _EQUALS_ *BLACK PEOPLE*, and apparently the Chinese and Woman are now being qualified as equating to Sexual Deviants.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



ROFLMNAO!   

Absolutely *NO KINSHIP* with _Reality_...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> and one man and one man- and one woman and one woman.



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


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 1, 2015)

And Keys continues to come unglued.  We scan quickly his ranting, smile, and move on.

SCOTUS in American law has the final say.  End of the line for Keys.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 1, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Which explains every one of your posts.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 1, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > I'll stop you after your first paragraph because you're wrong immediately. Why did all those houses get foreclosed? Because everyone's jobs get shipped overseas. A result of Bush policies. It's much more than that but basically your boy Bush f***** up
> ...


Why don't you explain give examples so we understand what the hell you mean


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 1, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> And Keys continues to come unglued.  We scan quickly his ranting, smile, and move on.
> 
> SCOTUS in American law has the final say.  End of the line for Keys.


I tend to agree with keys on this one. I don't like the Supreme Court legislating from the bench. They side with corporations 100% of the time + BFD they give us gay marriage


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 1, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > and one man and one man- and one woman and one woman.
> ...


Gay marriage hurt me personally too. I married a guy and I was the wife on our honeymoon and woke up the next day with my butt hurting


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 1, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > And Keys continues to come unglued.  We scan quickly his ranting, smile, and move on.
> ...


And ACA and FH Act plus plenty of other matters.  You leave it to the legislature to decide our civil rights democratically and  you will cry worse.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 1, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Explain?  It's all right there in writing.  

I noted the catastrophic consequences of the Left coercing the Financial Markets to set aside the Laws of nature that govern viable lending practices in favor of the the Left's perverse notion of "Fairness"... and you rejected reality and substituted things which are not real... because you NEED those things to be real to avoid recognizing the truth which otherwise demonstrates the vacuous nature of your 'beliefs'.

Now, does that help,_ in any way at all?_


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 1, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > And Keys continues to come unglued.  We scan quickly his ranting, smile, and move on.
> ...




An interesting syllogism...

If the court hears suits brought by corporate interests, and 'deciding for corporate interests' is BAD... the Court is axiomatically BAD.

Of course, the thing is NOT the decision, but the reasoning. 

The Court's reasoning in the Licensing of Degeneracy is wildly unreasonable, illogical, and inappropriate, lacking lucidity... .  Leaving little room to reasonably believe that the decision had absolutely no basis in reason and was entirely a function of a majority establishing a right, where reason precludes any potential for such a right to exist. 

The same was true for the decision on ObamaScare, with such being separated from any sense of principle and having no relevance to the US Constitution.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jul 1, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > and one man and one man- and one woman and one woman.
> ...



That did not change.  Marriage joins one man and one woman.   But it now also joins two men, and it joins 2 women.  All according to the choices of the people involved.  Your input is not needed, nor is mine.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 1, 2015)

Keys' motivation becomes ever more important.

His syllogism fractured in the first sentence.  In fact, marriage IS two people of appropriate age.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 1, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


What about the general welfare clause?


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...





WinterBorn said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...




Apparently, they don't ... you can discriminate against anti-gays, but not against gays. Get used to it ... today, it's anti-gay bakers, tomorrow it's priests, and the day after, it's you.

This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here s Why That s Not Discrimination. ThinkProgress


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




You REALLY need to work on your history ---- this is revisionist history at its finest ... at least, pretend to be honest.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




The "general welfare" clause is only appropriate when it does NOT interfere with individual rights ..... until now.


----------



## MikeK (Jul 1, 2015)

Because I am one of those heterosexuals who happens to believe same-sex marriage is simply none of my concern I feel compelled to respond to this assertion by the _Blaze_ contributor.

(Excerpt)

_"An improper understanding of a squirrel is one thing, though. An improper understanding of marriage, on the other hand, will destroy us. Marriage is the bedrock upon which all of human civilization rests. To expand its definition into oblivion is to weaken and destabilize it."_

(Close)

Slightly more than 50% of all marriages end in divorce or permanent separation.  http://www.divorce.usu.edu/files/uploads/lesson3.pdf

About half of the remaining percentage are dissatisfied with their partners, regret being married to them, and admit to either regular or occasional infidelity.   So according to the _Blaze_ article these statistics mean our society is resting on a bedrock composed of approximately one-fourth of today's marriages.

I believe the simple fact of the matter is marriage just ain't what it used to be.  The social and material changes which have taken place in our ever-evolving social order have made the moral institution of marriage wholly dispensable -- with the single exception of the legal obligation to care for children.  The romantic promise to "love, honor and obey 'til death do we part" has become almost comically redundant -- as well as a rather flimsy "bedrock."


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...






G.T. said:


> The bigotted butthurt continues.
> Meanwhile, gay marriage legal in all 50



Knock off the bullshit ... aren't you capable of having an intelligent discussion about an issue? Must you, and the rest of the left, always resort to childish attacks, rather than addressing the issue?

Grow the hell up.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> So Keys and Spare Change are sliding down a non-existent slippery slope.
> 
> Nothing, by their own admission, has happened.
> 
> ...



Are you really that incapable of having an intelligent discussion? Must you always act like some schoolyard bully who tries to cover their ignorance by calling people names?

As for your comment ---- you REALLY want to go there? You REALLY want to claim that slavers had an individual right that was violated??? REALLY?

Let me guess ---- you're a product of the US public education system, right?


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Key's philosophy is poppy cock, nothing else, the feverish phantoms of a mind poisoned by the hash pipe.




Well done. Your mom must be proud of the quality of this response ... clearly, it reflects the quality of your education.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_Change, there is no discussion to be had about the validity of Marriage Equality with those of us who believe in it.

We think you are defective in character or deficient in intellect or both if you oppose it.

I am not being mean.  I am telling you what the majority of America thinks of your opinion: it stinks.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Key's philosophy is poppy cock, nothing else, the feverish phantoms of a mind poisoned by the hash pipe.
> ...


It reflects the lack of yours and Keys.  I can't address you as normal, intelligent people.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 1, 2015)

It doesn't matter if Gay Marriage or Transgender or Yes-Means-Yes hurts you.  You will:




7355 by boedicca on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Spare_Change, there is no discussion to be had about the validity of Marriage Equality with those of us who believe in it.
> 
> We think you are defective in character or deficient in intellect or both if you oppose it.
> 
> I am not being mean.  I am telling you what the majority of America thinks of your opinion: it stinks.




First of all, you have absolutely no idea what my opinion is .... I have not stated, one way or the other, my position on gay marriage. So, I would appreciate it if you would grow up and actually read what is written.

My objection has been, and will consistently be, that the ruling by SCOTUS has violated my First Amendment rights ... that has NOTHING, NIL, NADA to do with gay marriage. Quite bleating that same ol' garbage, attacking people for what you THINK they feel, and actually engage in the conversation.

If you can't do that, I strongly recommend you just shut the hell up.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



Please read the laws concerning operating a business.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Try to keep up --- this has nothing to do with operating a business (unless, of course, you want to talk about selective application of the law).

This has to do with my First Amendment rights, which for the first time in history, SCOTUS has decided can be selectively applied, as well.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_Change, there is no discussion to be had about the validity of Marriage Equality with those of us who believe in it.
> ...



How?

You still have every legal right to the same speech today that you had last Thursday.
You still have every religious right today that you had last Thursday.
You still have every free press right today that you had last Thursday.

The only thing that has changed is that you now have the right to marry someone of the same gender in all 50 states.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



_Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]_

Feel free to provide a specific example of which of your First Amendments Rights has been violated and how.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



You're wrong ... but it's nice to finally have your attention. I was getting a little tired of the childish antics.

The First Amendment - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, *or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;* or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

My religion dictates that homosexuality is a sin - period. Further, my religion believes that aiding and/or abetting the commission of a sin makes you as guilty as the sinner.

The government is, for the first time in history, forcing me to choose between my religion and compliance with the law.

Whether it is by forcing me to acknowledge their homosexuality, participate in their ceremonies, or pay taxes that support their lifestyle, the government has mandated that I will aid and abet their sin.

Now - to be clear - I firmly believe that gays should receive equal treatment under the law. However, I do not believe that my individual rights should be violated to make it happen.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



Oh please.  The 10 Commandments told you that you shall have no Gods before your God, that you shall not make graven images, and that you will remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.   But all of those commandments are violated by millions of people, including the federal gov't, but that wasn't aiding and abetting their sin??

Your individual rights have not been violated.  Funny that you don't mind your taxes being spent on war, but object to them being spent on gays.  That sort of blows your claims of being harmed because of the your religion.


----------



## guno (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...




I am old enough to remember the same argument about integration

watch the entire video


----------



## G.T. (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...


the entire opposition is childish, deserves no more than what it's getting.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



And this argument could be used against racial integration, women's rights or any of a number of equality issues.

Maybe if you fought against divorce with as much passion.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



Your religion states clearly that it is a sin to have any god other than God- but millions of Hindu Americans do exactly that- and their temples all receive the exact same tax breaks- i.e. your tax subsidy- as your church gets.

Remember- you don't care whether homosexuals are Christian or not- you believe that they are committing a sin- regardless of their religion.

So tell me how you rationalize paying taxes to support Hindu lifestyles?

Let us review the 10 Commandments again:

_*You shall have no other gods before me.*


*You shall not make for yourself a graven image*, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.


You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.


Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your manservant, or your maidservant, or your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it.


Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the LORD your God gives you.


You shall not kill.


You shall not commit adultery.


You shall not steal.


You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.


You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor’s_.

The only 'injury' you have suffered is by yourself- to yourself. Not a single freedom of yours has been infringed upon today, that was not 'infringed' upon on Thursday.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 1, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Spare_Change, there is no discussion to be had about the validity of Marriage Equality with those of us who believe in it.



"My objection has been, and will consistently be, that the ruling by SCOTUS has violated my First Amendment rights ..." is flatly wrong morally, ethically, legally.  To think otherwise is to believe in a nothing.  In no way is anybody's religious 1st Amendment rights infringed by Marriage Equality.  Folks have the right to talk about it, have the right to oppose it politically if futilely, and not be forced to participate in it.


----------



## Faun (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_Change, there is no discussion to be had about the validity of Marriage Equality with those of us who believe in it.
> ...


How has that ruling violated your First Amendment rights?


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



It bent his nose out of joint.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 1, 2015)

The Bible and religious belief has nothing to do with American law other than one has the right to believe as one believes.  Public Accommodation laws are constitutional.  No one is going to force anyone to marry a homosexual in church or to be married to one.  To argue otherwise merely reveals "feeling" not intellect or reasoning.

I don't care someone's nose is bent out of joint on this issue.

SCOTUS ruled, it is over, and discussion as to why is over.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


Yes and gay marriage doesn't interfere with you whatsoever


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 1, 2015)

MikeK said:


> Because I am one of those heterosexuals who happens to believe same-sex marriage is simply none of my concern I feel compelled to respond to this assertion by the _Blaze_ contributor.
> 
> (Excerpt)
> 
> ...


Agree. Giving gays equal rights just feels right to me


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Actually, that is absolutely wrong ... and clearly indicates the lack of depth of your knowledge of the law.

In fact, racism and misogyny IS against most Christian religions (I only say most, because there must be one out there somewhere that is different).

Your counter-argument holds no position.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



First ... the government is incapable of violating the 10 commandments. Those are God's direction to PEOPLE, not things. Your argument carries no weight.

Second --- you're saying so doesn't make it so. Explain to me how my rights have NOT been violated. Explain to me how my free expression of my religion have NOT been violated.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

guno said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...




Who cares? God's name has been used to equivocate the sins of man forever ... it isn't man's word that's important; it's God's.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Frankly, your argument is nonsensical, and doesn't deserve an answer. Surely, you can do better than this ....at least, your cohorts tried.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_Change, there is no discussion to be had about the validity of Marriage Equality with those of us who believe in it.
> ...



.... but I AM being forced to participate in it. See the 'baker' case ... see the two cases (one in NC, the other in Illinois) winding through the federal court system, asking the government to declare all religious speech as 'hate speech'.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



If you don't understand my position, you haven't been paying attention. Get back to us when you're caught up.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare, explain how your rights have been violated when they clearly have not.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



More childish nonsense ... are you SURE you don't have anything substantive to contribute?


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> The Bible and religious belief has nothing to do with American law other than one has the right to believe as one believes.  Public Accommodation laws are constitutional.  No one is going to force anyone to marry a homosexual in church or to be married to one.  To argue otherwise merely reveals "feeling" not intellect or reasoning.
> 
> I don't care someone's nose is bent out of joint on this issue.
> 
> SCOTUS ruled, it is over, and discussion as to why is over.




Thank you for your opinion --- however wrong it might be.


----------



## guno (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...




The 10 commandments were given to the Jewish people , not others


The Hebrew God never brought you or your ancestors out of Egypt! Ex 20:2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery."
The Hebrew God has not given you the promised land of Canaan! Ex 20:12 "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the Lord your God gives you"
There is nothing requiring non-Jews to keep it (Ex. 31:13,17; Ezek. 20:12, 20)
If it was intended for all mankind, then why specifically say "strangers within your gates". Obviously the Gentiles (strangers) were never required to follow the 10
In addition the christian 10 commandments that you claim and  use are different for the Hebrew 10

http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.pdf


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > Because I am one of those heterosexuals who happens to believe same-sex marriage is simply none of my concern I feel compelled to respond to this assertion by the _Blaze_ contributor.
> ...



Giving gays equal rights IS right --- that's what should be done. Curtailing my individual rights is wrong .... and shouldn't have been done. There were obvious viable alternatives ... most of which were ignored in the firestorm of political correctness.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 1, 2015)

People who are anti gay say what about pedalfiles and polygamists. I just don't see public opinion ever going in their favor.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 1, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Yes and gay marriage...



Marriage is the Joining fo One Man and One Woman.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

guno said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...




Is this what we can call a non sequitur .... or is it a blatant attempt to raise post count without contributing to the discussion?


----------



## WinterBorn (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



Yeah, not misogynistic as long as they shutup in church and do what their husbands tell them.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> People who are anti gay say what about pedalfiles and polygamists. I just don't see public opinion ever going in their favor.




Is there a mod around???? Are we REQUIRED to respond to stupidity????


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...




I rest my case ... your knowledge isn't a well ... it's more like a puddle ---- very shallow and kinda murky.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...


What individual rights of yours were curtailed


----------



## WinterBorn (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



You are cherry-picking my statement.  You want to ignore the gov't violations of the 10 Commandments?  How about the millions of people?

Your freedom of religion was violated by Hindu weddings, Buddhist weddings, and pagan weddings.  Even atheist weddings didn't bother your religious freedoms.   All of those are a sin.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




LOL --- now THAT is funny shit, I don't care who ya are!!!


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...


 That's why I have the revolting troll on ignore. Waste. Of. Breath.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



I can quote chapter and verse of this from the same bible you are using to condemn homosexuality.   But I guess it is up to interpretation in that case, huh?


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



Your free expression of religion has not changed at all- it is what it was on Thursday last week. 

You can still pray- you can still go to church. 

Nothing has changed at all. 

You have yet to express one actual violation of your First Amendment.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I ignore nothing ---- you dissemble.

I am concerned about my adherence to the word of God. I am not my brother's keeper - they will do what they will do, and they will be judged accordingly.

I am mystified, however, on why you believe that others practicing their religion interferes with mine.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



LOL- in other words you cannot explain how 'homosexuals marrying' violates your First Amendment rights but Hindu's having a church in America do not.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Obviously, you didn't bother to actually read the previous posts, did you???

Why don't you get back to us when you catch up? If you like, I can make a reader available for you.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



No- you are not being forced to participate.

You are not the the baker- or the photographer. 

You have not been told to do anything- or forced to do anything. 

No one has stopped you from praying or going to Church or going door to door to spread the good word.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 1, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


 
Uh...I don't eve know where to start, the depth and breadth of the ignorance in that post is so vast.

Did we require special laws to force us to accept Hindu marriages? Nope. Hindus didn't seek them. Because Hindus have no interest in forcing Christians to perform Hindu marriages. They have their own clergy. Hindus have no interest in declaring the bible "hate speech", even though our bible says that worshipping other gods is a sin. Because Hindus aren't insane and mentally ill. The don't demand that the tenets of their faith be taught to young school children, or invade our businesses and demand business owners participate in sacrilege.

Hindus aren't interested in targeting Christians in this country, or shutting down churches. Homos are.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



Your free expression of religion has not changed at all- it is what it was on Thursday last week.

You can still pray- you can still go to church.

Nothing has changed at all.

You have yet to express one actual violation of your First Amendment.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



See, this is what I mean. I have stated my case ... you have ignored it.

I am NOT opposed to equal treatment for gays - I am ADAMANTLY opposed to SCOTUS usurping my individual rights in order to make it happen.

You truly need to catch up.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



It is a sin to worship another God.  It is a sin to worship a graven image.  It is a sin not to keep the Sabbath holy.

YOu are not your brother's keeper, but somehow if that brother is gay and wants to marry the man he loves, suddenly you are responsible for his sin??    Nice double standards.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



No one understands 'your position' because you haven't been able to show us this 'violation of your First Amendment' you keep claiming but cannot demonstrate.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



For the first time in history, the government has decreed that I must forgo the free expression of my religion in order to comply with the law. For the FIRST time ... 

It's not about gay marriage .... it's about protecting my individual rights.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jul 1, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



Have gays forced Christians to perform gay marriages?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


You and keys remind me of Lenny and Squiggy


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



Again- you cannot explain how your individual rights are being violated.

Prior to Thursday- in 13 States, the rights of gay couples were being violated because they could not legally marry- that is an actual harm- an actual violation of rights.

You have yet to explain how your rights changed on Friday.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


I don't know what that means. What do you mean you have to forgo the free expression of your religioun?


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Weak, man, very weak ..... 

I don't care if my brother wants to marry the man he loves .... I wish him all the happiness in the world. I just don't want to have to aid and abet his sin. Is that so difficult to understand?

Your litany of other sins .... as long as I don't do them, I don't have to worry about them, do I? But, if the government forces me to do it .... then I have a problem... the SAME problem I have now.


----------



## Faun (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


No, they haven't. You are still free to bash gays all you want. Your First Amendment rights are intact.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



Homosexuals marrying does not interfere with you or your religion- yet somehow you believe that violates your rights.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 1, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Yes and gay marriage...
> ...



"I think I can, I think I can"

"There is no place like home, there is no like place like home"

Maybe it will work for you.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



And you do not have to 'aid or abet' anyone's sin.

No more than you need to 'aid or abet' a Hindu's sin of worshipping another God.

What homosexuals do- or what Hindu's do- are not your business.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > People who are anti gay say what about pedalfiles and polygamists. I just don't see public opinion ever going in their favor.
> ...


Hint: don'r respond.

Most of us take breathers at time with Keys and Sil.  Just too stupid to reply to.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 1, 2015)

Tell us what religious freedoms were curtailed of yours, Spare?


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



The government is not going to force you to a) gay marry or b) attend a gay marriage.

Government not forcing you to do anything.


----------



## Faun (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


You're still free to exercise your religion as before. Your First Amendment rights are still intact.


----------



## Faun (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


There are no First Amendment protections against being butthurt. So your First Amendment rights are still intact.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


Who are you? Nobody cares what you think you're free to think whatever you want but the society you live in disagrees with your position on this. If you want to live somewhere where they agree with you move to a Muslim country


----------



## WinterBorn (Jul 1, 2015)

What has happened is that these freaks are no longer able to use their religion to force others to live as THEY believe, so they are throwing tantrums.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 1, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



I don't put revolting trolls on ignore- that way I can mock your posts.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Actually, you REFUSE to accept the violation, because you inherently do not understand the violation. I can make it no simpler than I have ... your refusal to understand is your problem, not mine. Your willingness to cede your individual rights is a problem for both of us. 

You clearly do not understand this basic precept of Christianity --- "Love the sinner, hate the sin". Devotion to God means to stand against sin. Suddenly, the government says I can't do that. Suddenly, it's 'hate speech'. Suddenly, it's 'discrimination'. My position, and commitment, to God should not bring me into conflict with the government. That is the purpose of the 'free expression' clause.

Today, I am allowed to only practice my religion in my church ... to do elsewhere brings me into direct conflict with the law. PLEASE explain to me how that is NOT violating my individual rights.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...




You should be embarrassed by your simplistic, and obviously cursory, knowledge of the First Amendment. Feel free to study up, and get back to us.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...




Thank you --- I can't believe you have finally seen the light. Or, are you truly misunderstanding completely?

Gay marriage does NOT interfere with my individual rights ... but the actions of the government does.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



And what actions of the government would that be? 

Still waiting for some example.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change is using the old segregationist excuse, "If you can't understand it, I can't explain it."

Well, Spare, if you can't explain it clearly, then it is not a problem to anyone else that counts.

The government is not making your marry a gay.

The government is not making you participate in a wedding.

Those are private 1st Amendment issues.

If the state has PA that makes you conduct business in a certain way, that way is to make sure everyone's civil rights are balanced.  As a business person, you do not have the right to discriminate against others because of your religion.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 1, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> What has happened is that these freaks are no longer able to use their religion to force others to live as THEY believe, so they are throwing tantrums.


The exact words that he used to describe what was happening to him I asked him back exactly how that was happening and I've yet to hear him respond and I doubt I will. He can explain nonsense and walk back him into a corner


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> What has happened is that these freaks are no longer able to use their religion to force others to live as THEY believe, so they are throwing tantrums.




NEWSFLASH!!!

I don't give a damn how you live your life ... but you can be damn sure I care about how the government has dictated that I will live my life.

Obviously, when presented with a cogent argument, you resort to name calling, false attacks, and childish antics.

PLEASE --- don't bother.


----------



## Faun (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


Your First Amendment rights are intact. You can still say the same things about gays you said a week ago and you are still free to exercise your religion as you were a week ago.

Nothing has changed in that regard.

You are not forced to marry a homosexual; you are not forced to attend a gay wedding; you are not forced to support a gay marriage.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...


I asked what individual rights of yours were curtailed? Is that backing you into a corner?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 1, 2015)

You, Spare, have no cogent argument.  We all are waiting with bated breath for it.  Please, deliver.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



The government is not saying any such thing. 

You can say whatever you want, with the usual restrictions regarding public assembly and yelling 'fire'- wherever you want it. 

You can go to any public forum in the United States where speakers are permitted and you can tell everyone how homosexuals are sinners- and you will not get arrested.

As long as practicing your religion doesn't mean pulling chicken's heads off in the public square or some such other issue, you can practice your religion as you see fit. 

Friday has not changed how you can practice your religion at all.


----------



## Faun (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


Nonsense. Unless the government is forcing you to marry a homosexual, the government is imposing nothing upon you in terms of affirming gays have the same fundamental  right as you to marry the person they love.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 1, 2015)

The Catholic Church is officially against divorce- and it is a clear sin within the Catholic Church for Catholics to divorce.

Are Catholics rights being violated if the government allow a divorced Catholic couple to be legally married outside the church?

And if not- explain the difference between your position and the Catholics.


----------



## Rambunctious (Jul 1, 2015)

Muslim bakeries refusing to bake cake for Gay weddings...
HIDDEN CAMERA Gay Wedding Cake At Muslim Bakeries

someone cal the ACLU and tell them to get off their butts and stop the horror LMAO


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 1, 2015)




----------



## sealybobo (Jul 1, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> You, Spare, have no cogent argument.  We all are waiting with bated breath for it.  Please, deliver.


The half a f ag is thinking give him a minute. Or he's consulting his Rush Limbaugh Fox Drudge archives for the answers


----------



## Faun (Jul 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


His argument is especially stupid since homosexuality was already legal before last week's decision. All that changed since then is that states can no longer ban gay marriages. Meanwhile, 3/4ths of the states already made it legal before last Friday.

All his complaints amount to is a new twist from cons in expressing their massive butthurt after getting royally bitch-slapped on one of their most sacred issues. Between abortion and gay marriage, aneurysms across the nation are popping like crazy.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


They've actually passed a lot of anti abortion legislation on the state level these last few years. But I guess if people don't care enough to vote to show up and vote? What should I give a damn?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 1, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Agree. Giving gays equal rights just feels right to me



Sexual Deviants have never had inequitable rights...

What you're refusing to recognize is actions have consequences... science calls it the natural law of 'cause and effect'


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 1, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Agree. Giving gays equal rights just feels right to me
> ...


It's been going on for thousands of years


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 1, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Agree. Giving gays equal rights just feels right to me
> ...



Keys with his usual looniness


----------



## WinterBorn (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > What has happened is that these freaks are no longer able to use their religion to force others to live as THEY believe, so they are throwing tantrums.
> ...



LMAO!!

The gov't is not dictating anything about your life.


----------



## turzovka (Jul 1, 2015)

konradv said:


> Same sex marriage has become accepted by the majority of Americans because they've come to realize that they've been lied to by those who say it would adversely effect their heterosexual marriage.  Those who continue to spout that line are the moral equivalent of Holocaust deniers.


Ten years ago 30 out of 30 states voted down gay marriage in referendums.    Wow, how quickly people change their minds on something as serious as this.  (I should trust their wisdom?)   You liberals are fantastic brainwashers, with enormous thanks to your secular humanist anti-god media.    That's all it really takes.


If someone does not believe there is a God above, then I cannot convince them that gay marriage is a danger and pox upon this nation.  I get that.

But for those who believe the Judeo-Christian god is God, they are as naïve as a school boy to think this codifying of sin does not cause a greater harm to this nation.  Just as legalizing abortion has debauched society. 

God is not one to be mocked.  So don’t.  Don’t go crowing about how gay marriage is so wonderful.  The reason we have so many wars is because of sin.  Corporate sin within a nation is worse than individual sin as far as judgments fall upon us. 

But I suppose there is a frightening majority out there who think we are living in a fine world.  Never mind the trends of youth wantonness, and rudeness, and selfishness, and lust on demand.  And a drug addled society fighting depression, loneliness, rejection and being totally lost as to what the purpose of life is.  No, it’s all good isn’t it secular humanism.  “Live lustful and die.”


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 1, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



LOL!

There's just no hiding DELUSION!


----------



## konradv (Jul 1, 2015)

turzovka said:


> No, it’s all good isn’t it secular humanism.  “Live lustful and die.”


We're not talking about lust.  This is about people who love each other being allowed to marry.  In this country you're barred from  imposing your religious standards on others.  If you think things are going wrong, pray for the country, but don't assume you have any right to place your standards ahead of anyone else's


----------



## turzovka (Jul 1, 2015)

konradv said:


> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> > No, it’s all good isn’t it secular humanism.  “Live lustful and die.”
> ...


Look, artificial contraception and abortion has caused an explosion in sex amongst our youth and the unmarried, and an increase in adultery.   If you do not think that is sin, and if you do not think that sin causes extreme hardship for the person and society, then I will not convince you of anything.

If you think gay marriage does not advance the notion amongst the youth and young adults that experimenting in gay sex is perfectly Ok, then once again we are world's apart.    But I do not care who tries to say homosexuality is the same as always, it is not.   It is far worse now and that is bad for the nation, bad for good morals, and bad for the soul.   It affects everyone, and every family trying to do the right thing.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 1, 2015)

konradv said:


> We're not talking about lust.  This is about people who love each other being allowed to marry.



LMNAO!

Whose stoppin' 'em?

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.   

All they need to do to be Legitimately married is to meet that natural standard.

Of course, the Homo-cult isn't interested in marriage, they're grope is for the appearance of Legitimacy.  

They simply lack sufficient objectivity to understand that Legitimacy isn't possible through illegitimate means.  So, today, they remain as illegitimate as they were the day they succumbed to their obsession and groped the first cock that wasn't their own... and it's never going to change until they turn from their illegitimate behavior.

Nothing complex about any of this... .


----------



## konradv (Jul 1, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > We're not talking about lust.  This is about people who love each other being allowed to marry.
> ...


The USSC would beg to differ.  They determine legitimacy, not you.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 1, 2015)

konradv said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



ROFLMNAO!

You people are _HELPLESS!

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## konradv (Jul 1, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> You people are _HELPLESS!  Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


What concession?  You're delusional.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 1, 2015)

konradv said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > You people are _HELPLESS!  Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._
> ...



That would be the one wherein you conceded that you have no means to understand what legitimacy is... .  

I hope that helps.


----------



## konradv (Jul 1, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > What concession?  You're delusional.
> ...


I never did any such thing.  The USSC determines legitimacy when it comes to the law of the land.


----------



## Asclepias (Jul 1, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


You should stop trying to hide it then. Everyone can see you.


----------



## Asclepias (Jul 1, 2015)

konradv said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > You people are _HELPLESS!  Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._
> ...


I think he has flipped his lid.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > What has happened is that these freaks are no longer able to use their religion to force others to live as THEY believe, so they are throwing tantrums.
> ...




Your failure to accept my input does not create a crisis for me. You are the loser.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



When lacking a cogent and coherent response, attack the poster.

Well done.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 1, 2015)

konradv said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...




The SCOTUS has no say in what is legitimate and it sure as hell has no means to get a say when its practices are illegitimate.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Absolute unmitigated nonsense.

I MUST bake the cake .... I MUST acknowledge the sanctity of their union ... I MUST avoid practicing my religion in public so as to avoid the ire of the government.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Spare_change is using the old segregationist excuse, "If you can't understand it, I can't explain it."
> 
> Well, Spare, if you can't explain it clearly, then it is not a problem to anyone else that counts.
> 
> ...



In other words, I am not allowed to practice my religion as i see fit ... got ya!!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 1, 2015)

Here's a golden oldie....   a few years back.

Homo-cult shame-fest mobs a street evangelist:


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> The Catholic Church is officially against divorce- and it is a clear sin within the Catholic Church for Catholics to divorce.
> 
> Are Catholics rights being violated if the government allow a divorced Catholic couple to be legally married outside the church?
> 
> And if not- explain the difference between your position and the Catholics.



God, this gets old ... please grant me strength.

This is NOT about gay marriage --- I've said that 1,000 times. This is about the government putting restrictions on the manner in which i practice my religion.

Your supposed conundrum only indicates that you don't understand my point at all .... please go back and study.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...




One last time ... this is not about gay marriage. You seem to be incapable of getting away from your obsession with homosexuality. This is about the government restricting the ways in which I can practice my religion.

You need to grow up ... or shut up. I really, really, don't care which.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Is that right? They aren't dictating anything?

 Am I required to bake the cake? Am I required to defend attempts by the left to have religious speech labeled as 'hate speech'? Am I required to keep my opinion of this particular sin to myself - or, within the confines of my church - under penalty of being accused by my government of 'hate speech'? The list goes on ...


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

konradv said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...




You're right ... but ask yourself .... by what authority?


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

konradv said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...




Oh ... so now you changed it.

The SC does NOT have the authority to restrict my individual rights ... PERIOD.

But, they've done it anyway, haven't they?


----------



## Asclepias (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


One last time. No one is putting restrictions on you practicing your religion. You just dont get to force others to bend to your idiocy.


----------



## Asclepias (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


The peoples authority.


----------



## Faun (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change is using the old segregationist excuse, "If you can't understand it, I can't explain it."
> ...


Don't be ridiculous, your right to exercise your religion is not being infringed.


----------



## Faun (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > The Catholic Church is officially against divorce- and it is a clear sin within the Catholic Church for Catholics to divorce.
> ...


What restrictions?


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



One last time. This is categorically false. 

I am now allowed to practice my religion, only within the confines of my church. I am no longer allowed to have my Christian beliefs dictate my interactions with others. I no longer am free to express my opinion through my actions.

Those who choose to be intentionally obtuse will never admit they understand ... those of us who are being infringed upon will never forget.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Sorry --- I set a personal limit of explaining a position not more than 47 times.

Your request was the 48th ... feel free to read my previous posts.


----------



## Faun (Jul 1, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


Nah, I'll just dismiss your whiney complaint as the made up nonsense you intended it to be.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Is that right? You're sure now, right??

I am now allowed to refuse to serve a gay couple because I consider it a sin to aid and abet a sinner, right? I am now allowed to conduct public discourse that says that homosexuality is a sin, and will be punished in the fires of hell, right? I need have no fear of being sued for 'hate speech', right? I am now allowed to remove my children from the class of a homosexual, and will receive continued government support (and funds) because of my exercise of my religion, right? I am now allowed to campaign against a gay congressman because he/she is a sinner and I don't want them representing me, right? I am now allowed to picket gay weddings because my religion considers them an abomination, right?

I can do all these things without fear of retribution, right?


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Somehow, your condemnation means so very little to me .... I expect that from the ignorant and the shallow.


----------



## Faun (Jul 2, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


What are you forced to serve to a gay couple that prohibits your ability to freely exercise your religion??

You're perfectly within your rights to "conduct public discourse" and cry about what a sin you believe that to be.

Who's suing you for hate speech?

Have no idea what you're talking about regarding receiving government funds for exercising your religion.

You're allowed to campaign against gays.

And you're allowed to picket gay weddings as long as you do so peacefully.

Your freedom to exercise your religion is not infringed.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 2, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


Correct.

You're allowed to do all those things and more, where hate speech is entitled to Constitutional protections.

And should you live in a jurisdiction whose public accommodations law has a sexual orientation provision, such a law in no way 'violates' or 'interferes with' your religious liberty because one may not use religious beliefs as an 'excuse' to ignore just, proper, and Constitutional laws. (_Employment Division v. Smith_)

So yes, your right to exercise your religion is not being 'infringed.'


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 2, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > The Catholic Church is officially against divorce- and it is a clear sin within the Catholic Church for Catholics to divorce.
> ...


No, this is what's getting old.

The issue was solely about the states denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in.

Nothing else.

In no way, shape, or form was _Obergefell _about government putting restrictions on the manner in which one practices his religion.


----------



## Asclepias (Jul 2, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


Youre free to do whatever you want. You just have consequences for trying to impose your idiocy on others. Interactions are two way. You dont get to dictate anything because you believe your sky fairy is the best. This country has religious freedom for all religions not just your particular brand of lunacy.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 2, 2015)

SPARE_CHANGE SAID:

“Am I required to bake the cake?”

Again, _Obergefell _concerned the 14th Amendment, where the states violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of that Amendment by denying same-sex couples access to marriage law.

Public accommodations laws have noting to do with the 14th Amendment, they are authorized by the Commerce Clause, they are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures designed to safeguard the integrity of the local market and all other interrelated markets, where to refuse to accommodate a patron due to race, religion, or sexual orientation is disruptive to the markets.

If one operates a business open to the general public in a jurisdiction whose public accommodations law has a sexual orientation provision, then he is expected to provide services to gay patrons as a matter of regulatory policy. If the business owner disagrees with that provision, he needs to petition his state or local government to remove the provision or repeal the law.  

But this ridiculous obsession with 'baking cakes' has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of same-sex couples marrying, it is extraneous and irrelevant demagoguery propagated by those hostile to the _Obergefell_ decision.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 2, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



You're responding to the classic delusion common to Relativism... this presenting how the absence of objectivity precludes the means to accept responsibility for their actions, advocacies or policies developed as a consequence of such.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 2, 2015)

Again Readers, the secret to defeating Leftists I. Debate is two fold:

1- Find a Leftist

2- Get it to speak.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 2, 2015)

turzovka said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Same sex marriage has become accepted by the majority of Americans because they've come to realize that they've been lied to by those who say it would adversely effect their heterosexual marriage.  Those who continue to spout that line are the moral equivalent of Holocaust deniers.
> ...



I don't mock fairy tales- I mock those who insist I must believe in their fairy tales- and that we all are supposed to live our lives according your fairy tales.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 2, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



No- you must not bake any cake. 
No- you must not acknowledge the sanctity of anyone's union.
No- there is nothing preventing you from practicing your religion in public.

It is all in your mind.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 2, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change is using the old segregationist excuse, "If you can't understand it, I can't explain it."
> ...



In other words, you still cannot provide a single example of how you are not allowed to practice your religion as you see fit.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 2, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > The Catholic Church is officially against divorce- and it is a clear sin within the Catholic Church for Catholics to divorce.
> ...



And how is that any different when it comes to how Catholics practice their religion?

The Catholic Church is officially against divorce- and it is a clear sin within the Catholic Church for Catholics to divorce.

Are Catholics rights being violated if the government allow a divorced Catholic couple to be legally married outside the church?

And if not- explain the difference between your position and the Catholics.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 2, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



No
No
No

Glad to clarify that for you.


----------



## Faun (Jul 2, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Since when is baking a cake sacrilegious?


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 2, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



You as an individual have every right to refuse to have anything to do with anyone- black- Jewish- Hindu- Lithuanian- or homosexual- for whatever reason you want to.

Friday's decision did not change any of that.

Now if you run a business- you are obligated to follow the law governing business.

And Friday's decision did not change any of that.

Nor does 'gay marriage' change any of that.

What state do you live in- are business's in your state subject to public accommodation laws that include sexual orientation? 
If not- you are not obligated to serve homosexuals- you can put up a big sign on your window saying "No Fags Allowed".
If so- then you are obligated to serve homosexuals just as you are obligated to serve Hindus.


----------



## turzovka (Jul 2, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Who is insisting you have to believe in anything?  Explain.

Christians act within the law.    We are all allowed to vote however or for whomever we please.   I vote for a candidate because he believes in Christian morals and may enact such legislation for the common good.   Like laws against prostitution.   You have a problem with that?    You vote for some humanist who wants to take the word of God everywhere out of the public domain.   Fine.   Do as you please.

If we prevail then maybe abortion becomes illegal again.   You have a problem with that?
If you prevail then abortion is legal and that is the way the system works.   We still have the right to protest publicly against it.   You have a problem with that?


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



I am really wondering about the wierd cherry picking of these 'Christians'.

Most Christian flavors think that we are all sinners, and that the only way to be 'saved' is through believing in Jesus.

Therefore- I as an Atheist am a sinner in their view- and I am going to hell. And Hindu's- them too- they worship a 'false god'.

Logically they should be refusing to serve me- because that would be condoning my sin. 

And of course refusing to serve Hindu's also.

But somehow- serving homosexuals is the only sin that they think will remove them from the grace of Jesus forever.

I don't get it.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 2, 2015)

turzovka said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > turzovka said:
> ...



You told me not to mock your God- that is you insisting I must believe in your God. 

As long as you do not insist that I accept Biblical quotes as rational for laws we don't have any conflict.


----------



## turzovka (Jul 2, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


I told you what I am saying is good for you.  That is not insisting or else.    Just like you tell me I should exercise for my own good.

Quit acting like a demagog to make yourself look so noble.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 2, 2015)

turzovka said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > turzovka said:
> ...



But I am not telling you to exercise. Or to not believe your god. I am not telling you to do anything- you were the one telling us not to mock your God.


----------



## turzovka (Jul 2, 2015)

turzovka said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > turzovka said:
> ...



Now I am telling you that you are either a simpleton or acting like one to protect your phony and false claims.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 2, 2015)

The far right's immensity of butt hurt is awesome!

Good.  They deserved it one thousand times over.

Their rule of American morally and culturally and politically is over.  Praise Jesus!


----------



## turzovka (Jul 2, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> The far right's immensity of butt hurt is awesome!
> 
> Good.  They deserved it one thousand times over.
> 
> Their rule of American morally and culturally and politically is over.  Praise Jesus!


A nation that demands gay marriage deserves gay marriage.

Enjoy your decadence.    Sin has its pleasures, but only for a season.


----------



## Asclepias (Jul 2, 2015)

turzovka said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The far right's immensity of butt hurt is awesome!
> ...


What do you think is going to happen after the gay season is over?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 2, 2015)

turzovka said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > turzovka said:
> ...


You have a problem that the law is not what you want.

Sux to be you.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 2, 2015)

turzovka said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The far right's immensity of butt hurt is awesome!
> ...


That is for God to decide, not a morally weak human like you.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 2, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


The Gay World Series.


----------



## turzovka (Jul 2, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Don't get me wrong.  I do not dare assign degree of guilt or punishment to anyone's sin.   I do not rank a gay encounter as 10 years in purgatory and adultery 7 years and stealing a ham sandwich 4 months.

So it is not about a "gay season" or any kind of season.   It is about the fact that sin has its pleasures but the price that comes later (often during the judgment) is far worse than the fun there was.   That goes for ALL sin,  all unrepentant sin I should be careful to say.  

I am, I believe, quite sympathetic to those who have gay urges and lifestyles.  I cannot judge how they got to that point, although I am convinced many would not have become gay if they were not part of this "anything goes" culture.     Actually, it's a long story (my beliefs on all this) and I cannot get into it now.   But I do not call a gay person any worse than a promiscuous hetero, or any worse than a self-centered angry man in a pew.     That was not my point.


----------



## turzovka (Jul 2, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



No, I think you have a problem comprehending basic ideas and explanations.


----------



## Asclepias (Jul 2, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > turzovka said:
> ...


Dont they have the Gay Playoffs first?


----------



## Asclepias (Jul 2, 2015)

turzovka said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > turzovka said:
> ...


Doesnt judgement occur after you die?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 2, 2015)

"No, I think you have a problem comprehending basic ideas and explanations."  As a Christian, I comprehend exactly what you are saying.  Telling you that you are wrong on this is not disrespecting your religion; it is only disagreeing with you.  And you don't like that.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jul 2, 2015)

_If you make same sex marriage illegal then.._

*Only gay outlaws would have in-laws*


----------



## turzovka (Jul 2, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Absolutely.   For all of us.     The good news is that purgatory may save many of us undeserveds from the nether world.     Would not dare speculate who is in which crowd, of course.

But to be sure, there are partial judgments and ramifications while here on earth as well.    I mean, look around --- are there really very many happy people secure in their lives and their futures?


----------



## turzovka (Jul 2, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> "No, I think you have a problem comprehending basic ideas and explanations."  As a Christian, I comprehend exactly what you are saying.  Telling you that you are wrong on this is not disrespecting your religion; it is only disagreeing with you.  And you don't like that.


No, that's ok with me.     You are right, it is your opinion of how you think I act or believe.

Yes, I do lament some of our laws, but it really does not alter my attitude on life or daily experiences.  I adopt, as we all must.    So you need not feel sorry for me because I am hanging my head that gay marriage is now the law of the land.      Life is far more complex and demanding for any one person than to be overtaken by one political act.    

For the record, I am a very worried man and often sad.  It has very much to do with how those I know so well treat God or ignore God, and how they are so self indulgent and do so little for others.   Hell scares me, I do not wish for anyone to perish.


----------



## Asclepias (Jul 2, 2015)

turzovka said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > turzovka said:
> ...


I think those partial judgments and ramifications are a result of mindset. For instance I lead a great life but I've sinned a lot according to the bible. However, my mindset is one that allows for these sins. People that fret and worry about unexplained sins attract bad things to them.  

I guess my point is that if final judgement occurs after death how does one that is still alive know what actually happens?


----------



## turzovka (Jul 2, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Your questions and comments are not easy to answer.       From my understanding ---- none of us can know if the pain and disappointments in our lives are the result of our own personal sins or something altogether different.     God does subject us to trials for our own good, so even bad things can be good.

I would like to think that if I sin without care it will surely haunt me, and I keep that as a moral guide.   Whether that means now or later, again, who can say for sure?

If you think your mindset that allows for sins is a healthy perspective to make you a better person, that one is a bit odd, but once again hard to say?    We should confess our sins and try to overcome them, but I guess God does not want us wallowing in self pity and self abasement because we are so weak.  So that one deserves a longer thought process to clarify.

As a Catholic, none of us know what will happen to us come Judgement Day because we do not claim heaven is ours the way many Protestants do.   We "work out our salvation in fear and trembling" as St. Paul says in one of his epistles.    Purgatory is absolutely real and a lot can be said about that. 

But I have to leave the office  go to my cabin right now.  I am not avoiding controversy.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 2, 2015)

turzovka said:


> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



And I am telling you that I don't really care what your religious zealotry makes you think.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 2, 2015)

turzovka said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > "No, I think you have a problem comprehending basic ideas and explanations."  As a Christian, I comprehend exactly what you are saying.  Telling you that you are wrong on this is not disrespecting your religion; it is only disagreeing with you.  And you don't like that.
> ...


Good to hear your true concerns worded in such a way that shows your compassion.  For me, I am not worried about God's mercy and judgment.  He loves us, and He will judge us fairly.  I have never doubted that.  He will, I think, be guided by the son's Two Great Commandments.


----------



## Faun (Jul 2, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


That's exactly the point. To a Christian, everyone is a sinner and all sin is the same. They shouldn't be allowed to bake a wedding cake for anyone.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 2, 2015)




----------



## Spare_change (Jul 3, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...





Syriusly said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



*Christian bakers fined $135,000 for refusing to make wedding cake for lesbians

Christian bakers fined 135 000 for refusing to make wedding cake for lesbians Fox News
*
I must acknowledge the sanctity of their union, or be liable to discrimination charges. I must rent to them ... I must feed them ... I cannot refuse to have my charitable donations used to support them ... my taxes must support them ... etc., etc., etc.

There are currently three cases in federal court attempting to make any speech denigrating gays to be defined as 'hate speech' ....


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 3, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...




I don't' give a good God damn how you live your life, who you sleep with, or what you consider fairy tales .... I only ask that I be allowed to believe in my God, if I wish, and that I be allowed to worship in the manner in which I wish .... I am getting sick and tired of know-it-all atheists trying to tell me how, when, and where to worship my God, telling me what sin I must support, and posing themselves as the know-all, be-all of something with which they are not the least be familiar.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 3, 2015)

Faun said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



When baking that cake constitutes aiding and abetting a sin ...


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 3, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



It's is amazing how all-knowing you posture yourself to be about something of which you obviously have no knowledge. Your post is a anthem to ignorance and an embarrassment to educated discussion.

You could not be more wrong ... and that DOES seem to be epidemic among your leftist brethren.


----------



## Faun (Jul 3, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


No, they were sued for discrimination. Baking a cake does not acknowledge the sanctity of gay marriage. A marriage license does that. A cake feeds the guests. Furthermore, there is nothing in the Bible forbidding the baking of cake (as long as it's not made with meat) so it violates no ones religious freedoms.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 3, 2015)

Faun said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Where did you hear this bullshit???? Are you, too, one of the unwashed ignorant? You, once again, have embarrassed yourself.


----------



## Faun (Jul 3, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


They are not having sex with the cake. A cake does not aid or abet gay sex.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 3, 2015)

Faun said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...




This is funny shit, I don't care who you are. No wonder we can't have a reasonable discussion with the left about the Bible and religion. You know nothing about it.

By my count, your post contains 5 errors of ignorance ....


----------



## Faun (Jul 3, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 Which part did I get wrong? Is everyone not a sinner?

Are sins different in G-d's judgment?

Which of those are wrong?


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 3, 2015)

Faun said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Genesis 2:24


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 3, 2015)

Faun said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




All of those are wrong .... have a nice day.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 3, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> The far right's immensity of butt hurt is awesome!
> 
> Good.  They deserved it one thousand times over.
> 
> Their rule of American morally and culturally and politically is over.  Praise Jesus!




One thing we can count on ...... when we are looking for a post of incredible stupidity, an amazing lack of applicability, and a full measure of over-inflated sense of self importance .... we can always turn to you.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 3, 2015)

"I only ask that I be allowed to believe in my God, if I wish, and that I be allowed to worship in the manner in which I wish" does not mean that baking a cake is worship.  Step along.

Spare, you can count on me to always correct your self-inflated, self-righteous nonsense.

No one is telling you that you can't think Marriage Equality is shit, that you can't worship as you believe.  You are being told that you will treat everyone equally in public.  Not hard.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 3, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> "I only ask that I be allowed to believe in my God, if I wish, and that I be allowed to worship in the manner in which I wish" does not mean that baking a cake is worship.  Step along.



"... worship in the manner in which I wish ... " 

What part of that don't you understand? What makes you think you are qualified to judge?


----------



## Faun (Jul 3, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


Well it's a good thing someone is keeping count. 

Btw, if you don't believe me -- *read the lawsuit* that was filed.

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweetcakes signed PO.pdf

They were sued for discrimination for violating Oregon statute 659A.403

Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.

(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not prohibit:

(a) The enforcement of laws governing the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors and the frequenting by minors of places of public accommodation where alcoholic beverages are served; or

(b) The offering of special rates or services to persons 50 years of age or older.​(3) It is an unlawful practice for any person to deny full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation in violation of this section.​


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 3, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



As pointed out again- no one is forcing you to do anything- you are not a baker- you probably don't even live in a state that protects the rights of persons based upon their sexual orientation. 

What you are whining about are public accommodation laws- which were in effect long before Friday's ruling- and have nothing to do with legal marriage.

You sure can refuse to have your charitable contributions support homosexuals- just pick the right charity- probably some charity right now that specializes in making sure that they don't help anyone who is homosexual.

Your taxes however- just like my taxes- are used to support Americans. Your church does not pay any taxes- my taxes support your religious choice- are my First Amendment Rights violated? I don't think so- but feel free to send me the moneys if you think that they are.

I am looking forward to your citation of the 'three cases in federal court attempting to make any speech denigrating gays to be defined 'hate speech'.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 3, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > turzovka said:
> ...



 Hey watch it with the sinning here! 

No one is preventing you form believing in your God or preventing you from worshipping in any manner you wish to. 

No one.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 3, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > "I only ask that I be allowed to believe in my God, if I wish, and that I be allowed to worship in the manner in which I wish" does not mean that baking a cake is worship.  Step along.
> ...



Tell us again who is preventing you from worshipping in the manner you wish- and how?


----------



## Faun (Jul 3, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Cracks me up when people are insisting they're losing their religious freedoms while using language like that.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 3, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

Not one word about cakes.


----------



## Faun (Jul 3, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


He can't say -- which is why he hasn't.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 3, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > "I only ask that I be allowed to believe in my God, if I wish, and that I be allowed to worship in the manner in which I wish" does not mean that baking a cake is worship.  Step along.
> ...



So if a person decides that he wants to worship his god by standing in the middle of the street and jacking off- we are violating his First Amendment rights for arresting him for public indecency?


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 3, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...





Faun said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



I have told you 47 times ... I refused to tell you the 48th. If you can't keep up, you probably should order the Cliff Notes (elementary school version) of the discussion.


----------



## Faun (Jul 3, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


 
*Genesis 2:24*

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall devour cake with his wife: and they shall be of one flour.​ 
Dayam! How did I ever miss that??


----------



## Faun (Jul 3, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


So we're not all sinners? We don't need Jesus to get into the Kingdom of G-d because we're not sinners?

And if you don't mind, show G-d's scorecard where he ranks sins. How else will I know which ones are worse than others?


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 3, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



Best I can make out- its something to do with you whining about your tax money supporting something you don't believe in like 'gay marriage' but you are okay with your tax money supporting Hindu's who worship a false god, and you are okay with atheists tax money being used to support your church...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 3, 2015)

Spare is not being prevented from believing or worshiping as he wants.  If he is a baker for employment, he is baking not worshiping if he is selling his ware publicly.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 3, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...




600 posts and you STILL don't know what the hell we're talking about .... 

Sorry, you've just plain got boring.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 3, 2015)

Faun said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Come to my church .... we'll explain it to you. Then, you can make an educated decision .... until then, you're just ignorant.


----------



## Faun (Jul 3, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


Since I'm not going to your church, why don't you explain it to me? My understanding is that we're all sinners and need Jesus Christ to enter the Kingdom of G-d. What part of that is wrong? And explain which sins are worse than others....


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 3, 2015)

Well said SC... 

And THAT Reader, was what is known in the Formal Debate world, as _"A SPANKIN'!"_.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 3, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > turzovka said:
> ...


You're truly delusional and ridiculous.


----------



## Faun (Jul 3, 2015)

Where_r_my_Gay_Keys said:


> Well said SC...
> 
> And THAT Reader, was what is known in the Formal Debate world, as _"A SPANKIN'!"_.


And your post is recognized as opening wide and splashing your uvula with SC's spunk. And here you've been _pretending_ to be against gay sex. Then again, you did boast of being gay rather  proudly.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 3, 2015)

Spare is simply delusional and Keys is challenged by his inner same sex.

The Spanking came last week, folks, when SCOTUS opined that marriage could include same sex couples.

You don't like it, no one is bothered by it.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 3, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> You're truly delusional and ridiculous.



ROFLMNAO!  

I SO adore the _sweeter ironies._


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 4, 2015)

Keys' submission is noted and duly accepted.


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jul 4, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> We are going to celebrate the 4th here in a few days.
> 
> All Americans are free.  Why would anyone want to deny civil rights to others, particularly when such a right in no way infringes on anyone.?
> 
> It's good to be an American.


Men marrying men is unnatural.


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jul 4, 2015)

guno said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Deniers, deniers, deniers.  What can I say?  The country is leaving you behind.
> ...


Of all the posters on USMB, you are the fullest of shit.  If gay msrriage is popular, then put it to a popular vote.


----------



## Faun (Jul 4, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > We are going to celebrate the 4th here in a few days.
> ...


So is smoking cigarettes but that is legal too.


----------



## Faun (Jul 4, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


Don't have to -- it's already the law of the land.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 4, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


No need, you already lost.  Losers lose.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 4, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



What an intelligent, insightful, and succinct contribution to the conversation. Too bad that personal attacks prove nothing ... except that you have NOTHING intelligent, insightful, or succinct to contribute.


----------



## Faun (Jul 4, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


Irony is ... ironic.


----------



## Politico (Jul 4, 2015)

konradv said:


> *Same sex marriage has become accepted by the majority of Americans *because they've come to realize that they've been lied to by those who say it would adversely effect their heterosexual marriage.  Those who continue to spout that line are the moral equivalent of Holocaust deniers.


No it hasn't. It was legislated by the bench.


----------



## Faun (Jul 4, 2015)

Politico said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > *Same sex marriage has become accepted by the majority of Americans *because they've come to realize that they've been lied to by those who say it would adversely effect their heterosexual marriage.  Those who continue to spout that line are the moral equivalent of Holocaust deniers.
> ...


Of course it was. In almost every poll, gay marriage was supported by a majority of people....

Civil Rights


----------



## konradv (Jul 4, 2015)

Politico said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > *Same sex marriage has become accepted by the majority of Americans *.
> ...


According to the Gallup poll, 60% of Americans accept same-sex marriage as valid.  Sorry to burst your bubble, but the court was only confirming what the people already believe.

Marriage Gallup Historical Trends


----------



## Politico (Jul 4, 2015)

Ok you believe Gallup. Bless your heart.


----------



## Faun (Jul 4, 2015)

Politico said:


> Ok you believe Gallup. Bless your heart.


Umm, Gallup wasn't alone in finding those results. Virtually every pollster determined most Americans supported gay marriage. Just how fragile is your position?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 4, 2015)

Politico said:


> Ok you believe Gallup. Bless your heart.


I know it's hard to believe that not everybody in America believes the same way the freaks in your church do


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 4, 2015)

Politico said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > *Same sex marriage has become accepted by the majority of Americans *because they've come to realize that they've been lied to by those who say it would adversely effect their heterosexual marriage.  Those who continue to spout that line are the moral equivalent of Holocaust deniers.
> ...


Polling places acceptance at 60 to 63%.  If it were placed as a referendum, it would pass in more than 30 odd states.  But . . . it is a matter of constitutional rights, and if 99% opposed it, who would care.  Make an amendment against it if you can.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 4, 2015)

Politico said:


> Ok you believe Gallup. Bless your heart.


Most Americans disagree with your pastor, your co-parishioners, and you.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 4, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Oh... Well they did and they lost... BIG!  38-12.   Then the Rainbow-Ref's came driving up in their little claown car... declared that 37 were Homosexuals, leaving 13... and they declared themselves *popular* by Ref-Fiat.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 4, 2015)

Whine Whine Whine


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 4, 2015)

konradv said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...




NOT according to the Legislative Poll...  

Wherein THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE GOT INTO THEIR CARS TO DRIVE TO THE POLLS...  where the VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE, ELECTED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS, WHO LOG DEBATED AND PASSED BILLS DEFENDING THE NATURAL STANDARD OF MARRIAGE... BILLS THAT WERE SIGNED INTO LAW BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE GOVERNORS...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 4, 2015)

Millennials overwhelmingly think the Keys and their arguments are shitty.

The Keys and their buddies are becoming smaller in % and political and social strength every year.

All the far right is doing is whining, which is its right.


----------



## Faun (Jul 4, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...


Still butthurt over the United States Supreme Court, huh?

Too bad.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


Oh, yeah, Keys and Sil are simply screaming in denial.  saintmichaeldefendthem is in hiding, reliving the shame of a post-loss bacchanalia in which Fat Bastardo instructed him man love and self-loathing.


----------



## mdk (Jul 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



What tipped you off? The all CAPS diatribe or the foot stomping hysterics?


----------



## daws101 (Jul 4, 2015)

Have the gayest 4th ever!


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jul 4, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


The human psyche equates sex with many things, including "fun".  Sex is control, sex is reward, sex is punishment, sex expresses "love" for humans from all walks of life.  It's a "human" thing.  Most people cannot, or will not, acknowledge that fact.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jul 4, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yes, we can believe whatever we want, just as you can or cannot.  Doesn't matter at all.  You have nothing to say about our 1st Amendment religious freedom.  No one has the right to discriminate against marriage equality.
> 
> The US Constitution is the greatest document in the history of the human race.


And yet, some have the "right" to discriminate against religious freedom of expression.  Someone doesn't agree with you, or your chosen lifestyle...move on.  There are always those who will take your money, whether they agree with you, or not.  But, then, lack of integrity seems to be a hallmark of this so-called movement for equality


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 4, 2015)

GW, sure.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jul 4, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


And homos and gay are not trying to impose their morals on other folks?  Really?  Spare us...please!


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jul 4, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...


No shirt, no shoes...no service.  Guess you can't come in bare-assed naked and bare-footed.   As long as you have a shirt on...hey, all's OK.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jul 4, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Now how cool is it that instinctively, the homo-cult runs to denigrate their opposition, by projecting sexual deviancy upon them.
> ...


If you were paying attention, the press is supporting "legitimacy".  The majority of humans is NOT.  But it's all OK.  We should all kowtow to the press's PC twist on reality.  Go for it....


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jul 4, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


And yet your camp focuses on who marries whom?


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jul 4, 2015)

As long as you understand that "love" is a human construct and has nothing to do with otherwise "normal biological relationships.


----------



## MaryL (Jul 4, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Ran across this over at The Blaze...  it's a great read.
> 
> _"I received a lot of feedback this past weekend about my piece responding to the Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling. Many people seemed to take exception to my radical position that men and woman can conceive children. They didn’t explicitly disagree with that theory, but they did deny the one single conclusion that inevitably stems from it, which is that the union between a man and a woman is special and different.
> 
> ...





Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Ran across this over at The Blaze...  it's a great read.
> 
> _"I received a lot of feedback this past weekend about my piece responding to the Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling. Many people seemed to take exception to my radical position that men and woman can conceive children. They didn’t explicitly disagree with that theory, but they did deny the one single conclusion that inevitably stems from it, which is that the union between a man and a woman is special and different.
> 
> ...


It sounds like gay rights supporters want to hurt you, though. In their moralistic self righteous fury, they want to kill and destroy and humiliate in the name of self righteousness. Gays Always had the same rights as anyone else. But now we have to custom tailor rights to fit a single group, or they have hissy fits. Not how this is supposed to work, people. It's insulting.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 4, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


No just balancing the scales
Who judges what moralty is more important?


----------



## daws101 (Jul 4, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> As long as you understand that "love" is a human construct and has nothing to do with otherwise "normal biological relationships.


There is no normal in biology , there is what works and what's reached it's evolutionary end.
normal is also a human construct. 
Thanks for playing.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 4, 2015)

daws101 said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > As long as you understand that "love" is a human construct and has nothing to do with otherwise "normal biological relationships.
> ...


I'm not having kids so I guess I have reached my evolutionary end. So what? The planets already overpopulated. Maybe that's what this planet needs? Less breeders.

I have 2 nephews so I'm not sad. The sealybobo namesake will continue.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 4, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> And homos and gay are not trying to impose their morals on other folks?  Really?  Spare us...please!


who is making you marry someone of your own sex?  who is telling your church whom to marry or not marry?  Who is forcing you to believe that Jesus loves gays just like you?  MYOB.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 4, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > And homos and gay are not trying to impose their morals on other folks?  Really?  Spare us...please!
> ...


Jesus the guy who cleans my pool?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 4, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> And yet your camp focuses on who marries whom?


What business is it of yours who marries who?  You are an Alaskan, and of all the Americans I have known in my life, those bad boys and bad girls were the most freedom loving freaks of all.  They were wonderful.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 4, 2015)

MaryL wrote the most stupid post of the day so far, "It sounds like gay rights supporters want to hurt you, though. In their moralistic self righteous fury, they want to kill and destroy and humiliate in the name of self righteousness." What an irony alert.  No one wants to kill the idiot.  The good people want to make sure everyone else understands just what an idiot he is, for sure.  And Keys, in my opinion, is quite willing to use violence in the defense of his immorality.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 4, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...


That's hey-zeus.


----------



## Politico (Jul 5, 2015)

Faun said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > Ok you believe Gallup. Bless your heart.
> ...


No they don't. You like guys we get it for God's sake. You have your rights with no judgement. Why does everyone have to agree with your position? Straight people don't. Get gay married butt fuck and move on already.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jul 5, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Do not project your experiences on others.



> The age of the rape is critical, in that during infancy and toddler development, speech and long term memory are not developed, thus there is no chance that the child could, even innocently relate its experience when "Uncle Cab touched his privates" or any memory of the encounter.
> 
> The perspective being that they _'had always been that way'... ._




More projection.



> This is why you will find that homosexuals relate sex with "FUN", as demonstrated by the endless parade of Deviants who demand that the human physiological standard 'conflates FUCKING with Marriage'.



Dude...sex IS fun.  If not, you're doing it wrong.



> Sex is merely 'fucking'... OKA: FUN.
> 
> They simply have no means to accept that sex is purposed for procreation...  as they lack the objectivity to even recognize that otherwise SELF EVIDENT, thus obvious _fact of nature._



Most sex is not for procreation.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jul 5, 2015)

G.T. said:


> wow...this guy should be in a psyche ward



He should be in a straitjacket, in a padded cell with the door welded closed, in the highest-security wing of a maximum-security mental ward.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jul 5, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> *"Gay Activists Demand Churches Lose Their Tax Exempt Status… Already?!"*
> 
> *Remember how the leftists said all of the Christian worrying over the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage was bunk? Christians pointed to other countries where the church had lost its religious liberties. The left said they were crazy. Well, leftists are already foaming at the mouth calling for just that. Hold onto your butts…*
> 
> ...



Churches should never have had tax exempt status.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 5, 2015)

Religious organizations have no business in politics, none.  If they want to be so, let them voluntarily give up their tax-exempt status


----------



## Faun (Jul 5, 2015)

Politico said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...


You're simply wrong. Like I said, virtually every poll showed a majority of people favored legalizing gay marriage. 

Civil Rights

You can wish this wasn't the case, but you can't change reality.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 5, 2015)

And we are not anywhere near interested support in polygamous marriage.

Support for polygamy is rising. But it s not the new gay marriage. - The Washington Post
*
But while support for polygamy is rising, it has a ways to go before it catches up with same-sex marriage, and there are plenty of reasons it's unlikely to catch on in anywhere near the same way.

For now, it's illegal nationwide, recent legal attempt to overturn bans have been unsuccessful, and public support is low. But that support is increasing.

According to data from Gallup, support has increased from 5 percent in 2006 to 16 percent today. The biggest one-year jump happened in 2011, after TLC's "Sister Wives," about a polygamist family who lived in Utah and later Nevada (the Colliers also have appeared on the show), first aired.*


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 5, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Ran across this over at The Blaze...  it's a great read.
> ...



You are either lying or you are an idiot.

Up until recently homosexuals could be arrested - and were arrested for having sex together.

That is not 'have always had the same rights' 

For centuries Christian conservatives attacked homosexuals- attempting to hurt them through imprisoning them and firing them. 

You call the fight against that 'hissy fits'

You are an idiot.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 5, 2015)

Politico said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...



LOL- he mentions that the polls show that most Americans support gay marriage- and you whine about 'why does everyone have to agree with your position'- he never said you had to. 

Most Americans support the right of Americans to marry- regardless of the gender of the person they want to marry.

So you can butt fuck whoever you want- but move on already. Marriage is legal and being accepted by the majority of Americans now.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 5, 2015)

The active management of the family company is instituting a new personnel policy to be expanded to include a directive that no one will be allowed to discuss homophobia or heterophobia or marriage equality on site during works hours.  It is part of an universal respect one's fellow workers.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 5, 2015)

Jarlaxle said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > *"Gay Activists Demand Churches Lose Their Tax Exempt Status… Already?!"*
> ...



LOL!  That's because the Constitution precludes congress from establishing any law that precludes the free exercise of Religion.  

(The Constitution is a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed; see: The US Constitution.)


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 5, 2015)

Jarlaxle said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



ROFLMNAO!

Reader did ya see what the deviant did there?  

Instinctively, every person; with the deviants being no exception, knows that sexual deviancy is wrong.  Thus the chronic shame experienced be homosexuals and their hyper-grope for LEGITIMACY

So when, as they recognize that they're losing the argument, they run home to SHAME their opposition, by draping *their shame...* which came to them the instant that they moved from the mere relating of sex to fun with people of their own gender, to acting upon that deviant craving, upon those who oppose them and their attempt to spread that shame...

You see, they feel that if EVERYONE is a homo, then that shame will somehow vanish. 

The truth is, it_ would not._



Jarlaxle said:


> W.R. McKeys said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



See?

LOL!  I say it_ here _and it comes out *THERE!*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jul 5, 2015)




----------



## Toro (Jul 5, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Same sex marriage
> ...



And now, one man and another man, or one woman and another woman.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jul 5, 2015)

Toro said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



He said marriage, not mirage marriage


----------



## Toro (Jul 5, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



So did I.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jul 5, 2015)

Toro said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Wooosh,right over your head


----------



## Toro (Jul 5, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



Oh, I got it. 

Welcome to the 21st century. I hope it isn't too hard for you. 

Also; 

Hi Pubes!


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jul 5, 2015)

Toro said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Not hard at all for me, I see it as the mental illness it is.


----------



## Toro (Jul 5, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



Poor SassyIrishLass. 

Ravi Negged Me Three Times In One Day


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 5, 2015)

Toro said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Marriage IS: The Joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jul 5, 2015)

Toro said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



What the hell are you blabbering about, troll? Sweet Jesus, stay on point


----------



## Toro (Jul 5, 2015)

lol

At least Pubes has a sense of humor.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jul 5, 2015)

Toro said:


> lol
> 
> At least Pubes has a sense of humor.



You continuously act like a mentally challenged child, off to ignore with you


----------



## mdk (Jul 5, 2015)




----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jul 5, 2015)




----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 5, 2015)

POLITICO SAID:

“Why does everyone have to agree with your position?”

They don't, and no one says they must agree.

Anyone is at liberty to believe marriage is between only a man and a woman in the context of religious marriage ritual, with the understanding that as a fact of law that's not the case.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 5, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> POLITICO SAID:
> 
> “Why does everyone have to agree with your position?”
> 
> ...



Marriage IS, in the context of *Nature and the design of the Human Species*: THE JOINING of ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN!


----------



## Toro (Jul 5, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > lol
> ...



Thanks for playing, n00b!


----------



## Toro (Jul 5, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > POLITICO SAID:
> ...



Marriage is a legal construct, which can be altered by society.  That's what we have done.


----------



## Faun (Jul 5, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


Leave it to a rightie to classify the government securing the rights of Americans as, _"mental illness."_


----------



## Faun (Jul 5, 2015)

Where_r_my_Gay_Keys said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


In conserva-la-la land, maybe, but here in the United States of America -- marriage is the joining of two consenting adults. And will thusly remain so no matter how butthurt that makes you


----------



## Faun (Jul 5, 2015)

Where_r_my_Gay_Keys said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > POLITICO SAID:
> ...


Oh, nooo's, it's ranting now.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jul 5, 2015)

"Hurts me personally..."

Good.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Jul 5, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > lol
> ...




Is it a pretend ignore, or the real deal?


----------



## Carla_Danger (Jul 5, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > POLITICO SAID:
> ...




Thank you, Ted Haggard.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jul 5, 2015)

daws101 said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > As long as you understand that "love" is a human construct and has nothing to do with otherwise "normal biological relationships.
> ...


Sorry to disappoint, but biologically expressed, one male+one female = normal.  Anything else is not "normal" in any other context than a human emotional construct.  Unless you would claim that humanity has reached its evolutionary end and as a species should expire due to lack of "normal" biological behavior.

Oh, yeah, thanks for playing.  Too bad the rules do not favor your game.
It's all OK, though.  Homosexuals and lesbians, if "normal" should "breed" themselves out of existence fairly soon.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jul 5, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > And yet your camp focuses on who marries whom?
> ...


C'mon!  Now you're reading nonexistence content into my statements.  I have said this before...I could care less who fucks who, or how they do it.  I'm not a fan of PDAs, regardless of the source.  But I do believe that when one demands respect for one's opinions, one should extend the same respect to others.  Doesn't seem to be the case when gays/lesbians/what-the-fuck-ever attack those whose religion guides their opinions otherwise.  If the baker doesn't want to bake your cake, the photographer doesn't want to photograph your wedding, on and on... move on and find someone else who will take your money.  What's the deal with all the lawsuits?


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jul 5, 2015)

Jarlaxle said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...


You are right, most sex is for control.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jul 5, 2015)

Faun said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


You do understand that polls can, and are, often skewed the way the pollster wants, don't you.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jul 5, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> And we are not anywhere near interested support in polygamous marriage.
> 
> Support for polygamy is rising. But it s not the new gay marriage. - The Washington Post
> *
> ...


Based upon the logic used to legitimize "gay" marriage, polygamy and polyandry cannot be legitimately denied.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jul 5, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


Wait...I have been led to believe that the Constitution was pretty much like an unfortunate piece of toilet paper trailing Obama's shoe...


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jul 5, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > POLITICO SAID:
> ...



No matter how many times you shriek that to the heavens, *it is still bullshit*.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jul 5, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> You are right, most sex is for control.



Actually, no...most sex is recreational!


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jul 5, 2015)

Jarlaxle said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > You are right, most sex is for control.
> ...


It's a toss up.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 5, 2015)

Jarlaxle said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



ROFLMNAO...

Irony.

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


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 5, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


_
Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## konradv (Jul 5, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> _Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## Carla_Danger (Jul 5, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 5, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Marriage is marriage- Americans can get married in all 50 states now- regardless of the race of their spouse- or the gender of their spouse.

You can call legal marriage whatever the hell you want- but then again you are the kind of Christian who hopes that Americans who disagree with you get kneecapped.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 5, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



yeah- well you are the one showing signs of mental illness- you have delusions that marriage is not marriage- and you have delusions that homosexuality is a mental illness.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 5, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...



I understand that the people who bring that up- are the people who disagree with the polls- and have no evidence that they are skewed.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 5, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Wow......sounds like a fun marriage you have.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 5, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



Being left handed is not normal. 
Being Jewish is not normal.
And being homosexual is not normal.

But all are perfectly okay.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 5, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > POLITICO SAID:
> ...



There is no marriage in nature. 

And as always- you are delusional.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 5, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



LOL ---- your twisted perversion of reality is amusing.

Let me see if I can make it just a little clearer .... stay the fuck out of my religion! Neither you, your leftist friends, nor your government minions will come between me and my God.

Is THAT clear enough?


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 5, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



If someone I loved was denied service by a baker or photographer because of their religion, race or sexual orientation- I would happily drop a dime on them.

None of the persons denied service attacked the religion of the bakers or the photographers- they asked that their rights under the law be enforced.

What's the deal with business's not following the law?


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 5, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



No one is interfering with your religious rights.

Just your imagination.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 5, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > And we are not anywhere near interested support in polygamous marriage.
> ...



Based upon the logic used by those to oppose American marrying if they are gay, mixed race marriage bans should still be in effect.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 5, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



For you- apparently it is all about control.

For the rest of us- most sex is for recreation.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...




If you say it often enough, will it come true?

Or, is the same old leftist game plan? Lie, lie, lie.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 5, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Jarlaxle said:
> ...



Conservatives have been lying to you.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 5, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



Feel free to show me where I am lying.

If you can't- well then you are bearing false witness- and going to hell.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



See what I mean? You don't even understand the concept of 'false witness' - LOL.

How am I supposed to have an intelligent discussion with an eggplant??

If you don't understand the counter-arguments after 700 posts, there's nothing more I can say.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 5, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



Bearing false witness- which is lying- and you are going to hell now.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 5, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


Let me make this clear keep your religion out of public unless you want to be attacked. Nobody wants to be a member of your religion. We just want your religion to go back in the closet and let the gays out


----------



## Faun (Jul 6, 2015)

gallantwarrior said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...


Sure, a poll can be off. But when you have many polls and they all reflect the same sentiment, they are pretty accurate.

Like it or not; accept it or not; most Americans support gay marriage being legal.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 6, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> I ran across this and had a WTF? moment.
> 
> *In Confirmation Hearings, Elena Kagan Stated “There Is No Federal Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage”*
> Obama and Shrillary aren’t the only ones to “evolve” rather dramatically regarding the federal desecration of marriage on behalf of the radical homosexual agenda. Legal Insurrection recalls testimony by leftist Supreme Court Injustice Elena Kagan during her confirmation hearings. This is so straightforward, you had to know she didn’t mean it:
> ...



Yea, putting aside the bold faced lies, I'm just tired of the SC making up their own Constitution. It's been this way; it's just even worse in this generation. I mean, do they even have to pretend that there decisions are based on The Constitution at this point?


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2015)

Jarlaxle said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Yup. Marriage is what we say it is. As we invented it. Its no more intrinsic than English grammar.


----------



## NoNukes (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Same sex marriage
> ...


That would be known as an opinion.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2015)

NoNukes said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Exactly.


----------



## Politico (Jul 6, 2015)

Faun said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Again that is not the issue rainbow boy. Do your thing and move on like the rest of us.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 6, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Ran across this over at The Blaze...  it's a great read.
> ...


Maybe it hurts his dignity somehow.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 6, 2015)

Marriage is a social construct.

Organized religion will stay out of government.

No one is going to make Spare change marry anyone.


----------



## Faun (Jul 6, 2015)

Politico said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...


It is the issue in terms of you injecting doubt on the reality that most Americans support legalizing gay marriage. Most Americans do support even if you can't see that.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 6, 2015)

NoNukes said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



That IS an immutable fact, OKA: A law of nature.  And this without regard to how it is 'known'... .


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 6, 2015)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > I ran across this and had a WTF? moment.
> ...



Apparently not... because they didn't do much in the way of such a pretense... .   IT was pretty much defacto Legislation by the Supreme Legislature.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 6, 2015)

Faun said:


> ... support legalizing gay marriage.



Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 6, 2015)

Toro said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


 Not in my church. And I won't be attending their revels, either. Or be making anything to decorate those revels or for the revelers to eat.


----------



## NoNukes (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


Another opinion.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...


my wife and I have no kids either , my sisters have done more than their fair share to keep our family alive well into the future.
they're kids are having kids.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


great! then they will not have to worry about  shitty decorations and food poisoning!


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


false ! facts in nature are not immutable if they were we would still be a lifeless ball of rock ..


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Nope. That's your personal, subjective opinion. Which you insist must be immutable objective fact.

Subjective is not objective. No matter how hard you pretend otherwise.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2015)

to the op and all the other phobes screaming "NORMAL"

NORMAL
Biology, Medicine/Medical.

free from any infection or other form of disease or malformation, or from experimental therapy or manipulation.
of natural occurrence.
By that definition (the only one that counts) homosexuality is both normal and natural.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...


----------



## mdk (Jul 6, 2015)

Keys' Hysterics is the Joining of One Butt and One Hurt.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jul 6, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



If you want people to stay out of your religion, then keep it to yourself. When you shove it in others faces, you can't really cry when they shove back.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 6, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



No one is going to force you to go to any wedding- or probably even inviting you to one.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 6, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



ROFLMNAO!

Personally I welcome the Left's contest of my Religion.   They're the one's that inevitably calls the cops... braying on about intolerance and violent extremism.

The evidence that my Religion is the most tolerant on earth, is found in your own presence on this earth.

IF my religion were not tolerant of the differing ideas of others, you simply would not be here to differ with me.

No one in my religion was clambering to have you idiots fined for demanding that we should participate in your degeneracy... 

But I think you're about to find that change, as we move to take our government back.  And I don't think you're going to enjoy "CHANGE" as it comes to your neighborhood.  But, hey... ya might.  I guess you're just going to have to wait and see.

I hope ya do... because we're putting a LOT of thought and ammo in it and it promises to have a little *something* _for everyone._


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



You are so tolerant in fact that you are gathering ammo? Is your tolerance forcing you to  threaten violence?

You are a disturbed individual.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



Nothing says "I love Jesus" more than gathering ammo and thinking about the possibility of murdering your fellow Americans.

Luckily no ammo will work with your walker, so Americans should be safe.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 6, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...



Yessir, these little 'decisions' point to the certainty that there's not much left to debate.    And as a result, you idiots are on the precipice of cranking off the first actual Civil War in the US.  

Where No One is Seceding and the fight is over who will make the rules and who will no longer exist to complain about 'em.

Of course, you idiots could just shut the fuck up and stop 'fundamentally changing the United States of America" from a productive, peaceful, stable nation... into a war ravaged, pile of depravity and rubble.

Or not... 

We, the Americans are good to go, either way.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



Your religious beliefs are pretty violent, with your call for the 'eradication of homosexuals' and the like. You frequently talk about all the violence you and your ilk will inflict, all the people you'd kill. 

Given the time you dedicate to your violent murder fantasies, they seem to be the core and defining characteristic of your beliefs. As demonstrated here:



> But I think you're about to find that change, as we move to take our government back.  And I don't think you're going to enjoy "CHANGE" as it comes to your neighborhood.  But, hey... ya might.  I guess you're just going to have to wait and see.
> 
> I hope ya do... because we're putting a LOT of thought and ammo in it and it promises to have a little *something* _for everyone._



The obvious problem with your reasoning is that you don't have the numbers of folks that think like you do. Nor do you have the conviction to back your words with actions. Its always someone *else* that has to to fight, someone else that has to bleed.

But never you.

And that's not how wars are fought. You can fantasize about all the people that you'd like to kill. But you aren't willing to sacrifice to see it done. So you talk about it. And then have a beer. Where as the folks fighting for gay rights are in front of the court houses, acting to bring about their conception of a better world. 

And they're winning.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 6, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Your religious beliefs are pretty violent, with your call for the 'eradication of homosexuals' and the like.



Well sure... except that I've never "_called for the eradication of homosexuals."
_
I have; on many occasions, noted that the nature of the homosexuals; specifically the sociopathy that animates you idiots, will REQUIRE that you be eradicated.  

As they have been eradicated in the wake of the catastrophe that came as a result of the licensing of degeneracy by whatever culture that such inevitably crippled.

Its not like there's anything to debate about that.  All anyone needs to know about it, is what the word: Degeneracy, actually means.

Here's a clue... _"the state or property of being degenerate"
_
OH... Now that requires you to understand 'degenerate'.

Here's another clue: "_having lost the physical, mental, or moral qualities considered normal and desirable; showing evidence of decline."_

Now... in all of human history, would ya like to offer an example of a culture in decline, that did not result in war?


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Your tolerance is truly awe inspiring.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Your religious beliefs are pretty violent, with your call for the 'eradication of homosexuals' and the like.
> ...



Actually, you described it as the responsibility to eradicate gays:



			
				Where_r_my_keys said:
			
		

> But... the right to live in a viable culture, is sustained by the responsibility to eradicate those who demand such and refuse to accept 'shut the fuck' as an answer.
> 
> A Warning from Canada Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights Page 49 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



Your violent murder fantasies are one of the core tenets of your beliefs. Even in this thread you couldn't help but let the fantasies out:



			
				where_r_my_keys said:
			
		

> But I think you're about to find that change, as we move to take our government back. And I don't think you're going to enjoy "CHANGE" as it comes to your neighborhood. But, hey... ya might. I guess you're just going to have to wait and see.
> 
> I hope ya do... because we're putting a LOT of thought and ammo in it and it promises to have a little *something* _for everyone._



This is the product of your religion. Violent, thuggish threats of murder and 'eradication'. Insane murder fantasies. Where you list all the people you'd kill and all the ways you'd kill them.

No thank you.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 6, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...



Yes... well, you owe your life to it.  So I can see how you would see it that way.

The pity is that you can't show a little respect to those who've tolerated your nonsense... letting you 'be' who or whatever the fuck ya felt ya needed to 'be', to make ya happy and feel that ya need to force up to celebrate who or what ya are.

SO... because we're all about being sensitive to the needs of the freaks... we'll do it your way.  

Just keep on going the way you're going and nature will sort all of this mess out, just as it always has...


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



And by 'nature', you mean whatever violent murder fantasy you're going to make up?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 6, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Actually, you described it as the responsibility to eradicate gays...



Yes I have; _on many occasions_, noted that the nature of the homosexuals; specifically the sociopathy that animates you idiots, will REQUIRE that you be eradicated.

As they have been eradicated in the wake of the catastrophe that came as a result of the licensing of degeneracy by whatever culture that such inevitably crippled.

Its not like there's anything to debate about that. All anyone needs to know about it, is what the word: Degeneracy, actually means.

Here's a clue... _"the state or property of being degenerate"
OH... Now that requires you to understand 'degenerate'.

Here's another clue: "having lost the physical, mental, or moral qualities considered normal and desirable; showing evidence of decline."

Now... in all of human history, would ya like to offer an example of a culture in decline, that did not result in war?_


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Your religious beliefs are pretty violent, with your call for the 'eradication of homosexuals' and the like.
> ...



Actually, you described it as the responsibility to eradicate gays:



			
				Where_r_my_keys said:
			
		

> But... the right to live in a viable culture, is sustained by the responsibility to eradicate those who demand such and refuse to accept 'shut the fuck' as an answer.
> 
> A Warning from Canada Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights Page 49 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



Your violent murder fantasies are one of the core tenets of your beliefs. Even in this thread you couldn't help but let the fantasies out:



			
				where_r_my_keys said:
			
		

> But I think you're about to find that change, as we move to take our government back. And I don't think you're going to enjoy "CHANGE" as it comes to your neighborhood. But, hey... ya might. I guess you're just going to have to wait and see.
> 
> I hope ya do... because we're putting a LOT of thought and ammo in it and it promises to have a little *something* _for everyone._



This is the product of your religion. Violent, thuggish threats of murder and 'eradication'. Insane murder fantasies. Where you list all the people you'd kill and all the ways you'd kill them.

No thank you.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


so you ARE actually planning and broadcasting publicly  that you will cause violence with no real provocation.
what you just badly hinted at is a terrorist act.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...



If there was any will or backbone behind it. But Keyes and his ilk wear their own chickenshit nature like a protective cloak. Where we recognize that they won't do jack shit. And they know that we know.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 6, 2015)

Skylar said:


> This is the product of your religion. Violent, thuggish threats of murder and 'eradication'. Insane murder fantasies. Where you list all the people you'd kill and all the ways you'd kill them.
> 
> No thank you.



So my religion requires degenerates force themselves upon a public busy with trying to feed itself... A point which nature requires that war is the only potential consequence?

ROFLMNAO. 

I'm a Christian.  We're a peaceful and tolerant people.  We're the ones whose tolerance provided you the means to do what you've done.

You're just pissed that you're doing so has convicted you of crimes which nature has never allowed to stand... And now you're facing the natural consequences for such... Pinning all of your hopes that nature will be swayed to spare you in order to not avoid being called a hater.

Hey!  Ha know what.  It's worth a try.

Let's see how that works out for y.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


you are by no stretch of imagination or logic "THE AMERICANS matter of fact your just the kind" of psychopaths that Jim jones and David Koresh murdered...
good riddance too.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 6, 2015)

daws101 said:


> so you ARE actually planning and broadcasting publicly  that you will cause violence with no real provocation.
> what you just badly hinted at is a terrorist act.



I'm not causing any violence of any kind. 

I'm pointing out that the behavior of the ideological left has never failed to result in anything except war.

This due to the laws in nature which require that it must.

Those causing it know this... So if this surprises us, then you should probably take it up withy them.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > This is the product of your religion. Violent, thuggish threats of murder and 'eradication'. Insane murder fantasies. Where you list all the people you'd kill and all the ways you'd kill them.
> ...


you are no Christian.. I'm an atheist and I'm billions of time more Christian than any one of you fucks who lie about their so called Christianity.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> I'm a Christian.  We're a peaceful and tolerant people.  We're the ones whose tolerance provided you the means to do what you've done.



Most Christians don't call for the 'responsibility to eradicate homosexuals'. You do. Most Christians don't talk about all the people they're going to kill. Or all the ways they're going to murder them. You do.

Your violent murder fantasies are yours. Don't blame them on Christianity.



> You're just pissed that you're doing so has convicted you of crimes which nature has never allowed to stand... And now you're facing the natural consequences for such... Pinning all of your hopes that nature will be swayed to spare you in order to not avoid being called a hater.



I'm more dismissive. As your insane murder fantasies have nothing to do with nature, Christianity, god, or anything beyond your own personal desire to hurt people.

A desire tempered by a profound lack of conviction or willingness to bleed. Which results in anonymous thuggish threats.....followed by jack shit.

Which is generally yawn inducing.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 6, 2015)

daws101 said:


> you are by no stretch of imagination or logic "THE AMERICANS matter of fact your just the kind" of psychopaths that Jim jones and David Koresh murdered...
> good riddance too.


 Jim jones and David Korean were both communists... 

We are Americans... And it's our rights that you're usurping and still we have done NOTHING TO YOU FOR IT. And look at you wetting your collective pant... At the very idea that there's a limit to the tolerance that you owe your very life.

I gotta say... That's pretty rude.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > so you ARE actually planning and broadcasting publicly  that you will cause violence with no real provocation.
> ...



So you say now. Yet you forgot to phrase your threats in the passive voice;



			
				where_r_my_keys said:
			
		

> But I think you're about to find that change, as we move to take our government back. And I don't think you're going to enjoy "CHANGE" as it comes to your neighborhood. But, hey... ya might. I guess you're just going to have to wait and see.
> 
> I hope ya do... because we're putting a LOT of thought and ammo in it and it promises to have a little *something* _for everyone._



'We' kinda takes the polish off the 'I'm just pointing out' apple.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > so you ARE actually planning and broadcasting publicly  that you will cause violence with no real provocation.
> ...


bullshit!  you've already said as much.
as for the laws of nature you yammer about . you don't know jackshit about them .
except for ants humans are the only other creatures on earth who make war.
nature does not require it.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > you are by no stretch of imagination or logic "THE AMERICANS matter of fact your just the kind" of psychopaths that Jim jones and David Koresh murdered...
> ...



You citing yourself isn't 'we'. Its just you. You talking to yourself isn't 'we'. Its still just you.

As with most of your batshit arguments, none of us need to be here. As you are your own source, you are your own authority, you are your own audience.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 6, 2015)

Skylar said:


> And by 'nature', you mean whatever violent murder fantasy you're going to make up?



Still can't cite a single example at any point in world history wherein what you're doing, has not resulted in civil war?

Fair enough and to be fair... I asked you to cite such, knowing full well that no such example exists in human history, because no such example can exist; because anywhere else in the world at any other time in human history, the Ideological Left would have been erased in the US.

Had you people got the SCOTUS to issue such a 'ruling' in my GrandDad's day, Washington DC would already be a smolderin' hulk with Leftists heads scattered up on pikes ALL OVER THE EAST COAST.

So... as the modern America... I'd like to just offer our heart felt *YOU ARE WELCOME!*


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



The 'laws of nature' are whatever he cherry picks. If nature does something he doesn't like.....he ignores it. Demonstrating that the only source Keys has...is keyes. Anything that doesn't conform to what he already believes is ignored.

Including nature. Ask him about the predation of the sick, the young, the old. And if 'observations of nature' are the basis of natural law, then why isn't this predation natural law.

He'll give you all sorts of excuses why he ignores nature on natural law.


----------



## aaronleland (Jul 6, 2015)

Did words hurt him? Well, maybe gays have to give him a few pointers on not being a sissy.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > you are by no stretch of imagination or logic "THE AMERICANS matter of fact your just the kind" of psychopaths that Jim jones and David Koresh murdered...
> ...


false the only one I see shiting their collect pants (in your case depends)are you so called Christians.
btw you've done the
"limit to the tolerance that you owe your very life." falsehood to death.
it's my experience that people who say shit like that are petrified of their own shadow.
your over use of the word we, is classic appeal to the  masses fallacy.
fact is the masses have already shown who they support. and lots and lots are Christians..


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > And by 'nature', you mean whatever violent murder fantasy you're going to make up?
> ...



Again, you don't understand causation. You insist that any culture that embraces homosexuality eventually collapses. The problem with your reasoning is....*any culture that doesn't embrace homosexuality eventually collapses too.* When your effect exists regardless of the presence of your cause, your cause isn't.

This is basic logic. Yet basic cause and effect completely confounds you. And thus your premise that homosexuality has caused ANY collapse, let alone all of them, is merely Begging the Question. Yet another empty fallacy of logic.

Remember Keyes.....you citing you is meaningless jibber jabber. As you don't know what you're talking about. 



> Had you people got the SCOTUS to issue such a 'ruling' in my GrandDad's day, Washington DC would already be a smolderin' hulk with Leftists heads scattered up on pikes ALL OVER THE EAST COAST.
> 
> So... as the modern America... I'd like to just offer our heart felt *YOU ARE WELCOME!*



Nope. You're just offering us more of your violent murder fantasies, this time with smoldering cities and people on pikes.

And your fantasies reflect nothing but your desire to hurt people. No thank you.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


You are Jewish?


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > And by 'nature', you mean whatever violent murder fantasy you're going to make up?
> ...


odd you not posted a single fact that supports your bullshit.

what you have posted is propaganda nothing more.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Ah, but you have to understand Keyes. He believes that anything he thinks must be objective, universal truth. 

So per his 'logic', citing his personal opinion is citing a fact. 

Shrugs.....you can't fix stupid.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 6, 2015)

daws101 said:


> bullshit!  you've already said as much.



Yet... when ya had the chance to simply quote me saying such, ya DID NOT DO SO.

Now my guess is that this is because I did NOT actually say so.  Which of course, as the stereotypical spoiled child, THAT does NOT mesh well with your NEEDS... so instead of simply admitting that you're wrong, you can't resist your NEED to lie through your ass to CHANGE REALITY in order to comport with your own fantasy.

I wouldn't worry too much about this... as Nature has a cure coming for ya.    Which will end all of this angst you poor creatures are 'feelin'... . 

Your would-be 'Leaders' will eventually crank off the civil war they are busting THEIR ASS to start.  Of course, they honestly feel that when they start it, that they can stop it.  This is typical of the Arson's heart and it is always dead ass wrong.   As they don't want to stop it, and their hesitation to do so, which they always DO... precludes any chance that such can happen.

Again scamp(s), this is all part of Nature's (God's) plan...  and as the manifestation of Evil, you creatures are on the wrong side of if 'history', again.

But if it helps, you've done this many MANY TIMES... and this is how it has always ended as this is how Nature requires that it_ must end._


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bullshit!  you've already said as much.
> ...



I quoted you just fine:



			
				Where_r_my_keys said:
			
		

> But... the right to live in a viable culture, is sustained by the responsibility to eradicate those who demand such and refuse to accept 'shut the fuck' as an answer.
> 
> A Warning from Canada Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights Page 49 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



Your violent murder fantasies are one of the core tenets of your beliefs. Even in this thread you couldn't help but let the fantasies out:



			
				where_r_my_keys said:
			
		

> But I think you're about to find that change, as we move to take our government back. And I don't think you're going to enjoy "CHANGE" as it comes to your neighborhood. But, hey... ya might. I guess you're just going to have to wait and see.
> 
> I hope ya do... because we're putting a LOT of thought and ammo in it and it promises to have a little *something* _for everyone._



You forgot to use the passive voice, instead using 'we'.

And you're still going on about all the  violent murder fantasies, all the way that the 'left' would be killed, how their cities would be smoldering, how their heads would be on pikes.

That's not nature, god, Christianity or anything but your desire to hurt people


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 6, 2015)

daws101 said:


> odd you not posted a single fact that supports your bullshit.



ROFLMNAO!  What a delicious little irony. 

OH!  Ya need some facts?  Beyond those you've established in failing to sustain your whining, would-be _'argument'?

LOL! _

OK...

Fact: Evil Infests the United States.  (This indicated by the advancement of Evil... manifested through the Advocacy  to Normalize Degeneracy, which was recently licensed by the vote of the five Degenerates sitting on the SCOTUS)

Fact: Nature will destroy Evil.  (This indicated by the history of humanity, wherein Nature has always destroyed Evil...)

Does that help?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 6, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Well for a Relativist... yes.

All you did was remove my words from the context in which they were written.  Thus serving your own subjective needs.

What you did NOT do is "quote" me.

Now, you need for the tolerance that Americans have shown you to be infinite.  

The reality is that it is not infinite and it is vastly more finite than you can bring yourself to admit.  

The difference between you and an American, is that an American requires a valid moral justification to take the life of another.  And it is that valid moral justification that you idiots are building upon now, adding to it by the minute.

At some point, a point which you now have absolutely NO MEANS to avoid... you will do something that will trigger a response and unleash the rage which has been building as a consequence of your degeneracy for GENERATIONS... and when that happens, all of your decisions will be made for you.

The good news for you is that the only decision you'll have to make is whether or not to run and hopefully put off your demise... or let nature take its course, right there.

So don't sweat it... all the heavy lifting is behind you.  Now it is a simple matter of waiting.  Waiting for you people to do, what you can't begin to find the strength of character to NOT DO IT... because you're EVIL and THAT is what evil does.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2015)

Ravi said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


a


Where_r_my_Keys said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bullshit!  you've already said as much.
> ...


I don't play by your rules. 
QUOTEing you would just give you a hard on. 
Back to the point. There is no credible evidence of God. 


Where_r_my_Keys said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bullshit!  you've already said as much.
> ...


So any thing credited to god is speculation specious speculation.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > odd you not posted a single fact that supports your bullshit.
> ...


It does .not in the way you intended. 
Lol.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 6, 2015)

And THAT is how the the Licensing of Degeneracy will hurt us ALL.  

But wouldn't it be nice if Actions did not have consequences and people could just reject the Laws of Nature that govern human behavior?

Oh well... Reality can be SUCH a PAIN.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 6, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Well good for you.
_
And your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## G.T. (Jul 6, 2015)

No such thing as natural law. Quite literally everything that occurs in nature is natural.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


And what "concession" would that be, Sweetums?


----------



## G.T. (Jul 6, 2015)

Keyes still doesnt know what duly means


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 6, 2015)

daws101 said:


> So any thing credited to god is speculation specious speculation.



ROFLMNAO!  Of course it is... because if God is NOT speculation and God IS what Christians know that God is, well... that's bad news for Evil...  and given that you're squarely in that camp... that would be bad news for you and as a Relativist, bad news doesn't exist for you, so therefore, God can't exist.

LOL!  

You've clearly got it all figured out.

Your second concession is again, duly noted and summarily accepted.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 6, 2015)

bodecea said:


> And what "concession" would that be, Sweetums?



That would be the one wherein the individual sought to advance an argument and failed sustain that argument, thus yielding from the argument; therein conceding to the standing points, shug... .


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 6, 2015)

Again Reader, the key to defeating Leftists in debate rest upon two fundamental elements: 

1- Find a Leftist.

2- Get them to speak.


----------



## Faun (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Gay_Keys said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Gay_Keys said:
> ...


Looks like gay blade's butthurt is boiling over.


----------



## Faun (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Your religious beliefs are pretty violent, with your call for the 'eradication of homosexuals' and the like.
> ...


Then what's the ammo for? Why not just get biblical and stone gays to death? Either way, you're a freak.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Then by all means, go back to the original posts and pull the words from the posts I quoted that provide the context. You can't, of course.....as I've got the context dead on. You offered us thuggish threats of violence, insane murder fantasies, and in your latest round of threats, forgot to use the passive voice.

Instead using the word 'we'.



> What you did NOT do is "quote" me.




Says you. Anyone can follow the links I've offered and see that I most certainly did quote you. And every word I've attributed to you was uttered by you. And was most definitively in context. 

You're denying your words, alluding vaguely to imaginary 'context' that somehow makes the statement's I'm quoting something other than thinly veiled threats of thuggish violence and your own personal murder fantasies.

Alas, no such 'context' exists. It, like your fantasies of all the people you'd kill....is strictly in your head.



> The difference between you and an American, is that an American requires a valid moral justification to take the life of another.  And it is that valid moral justification that you idiots are building upon now, adding to it by the minute.



With your conception of a valid moral justification to 'eradicate homosexuals' being anything you make up. And that's where you're alone. Your 'we' is just you talking to yourself. Which doesn't establish any valid moral justification.

And the rest of us certainly aren't killing homosexuals or  fighting in a civil war that even YOU won't fight in....because you've got some elaborate murder fantasy.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2015)

Faun said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Nah, he's just a generic thug who would gladly hurt people....if it was easy, convenient, and didn't come with any personal cost. 

Which is why when offered the option of enacting his 'responsibility to eradicate homosexuals' or to merely talk about it while drinking a beer.......the beer belly inches outward. While gays continue to gain the rights they deserve.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 6, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...



The trouble with Keys 'reasoning' is that he has none.

He is a total loon.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > odd you not posted a single fact that supports your bullshit.
> ...



Fact: Keys is a total loon.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > So any thing credited to god is speculation specious speculation.
> ...





Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ROFLMNAO



I still don't get what the n denotes.

Nature ranger, nutty, narcissist, numbskull?
Anyone else have an idea?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


Are you saying the only reason athiests are alive is because you allow it? And maybe I would just do what a lot of people did throughout the centuries and just pretend to believe or keep quiet about their disbelief. I think he's actual number of real Christians here in America is probably 33 percent of the population. Heather 33% don't really believe they were just born into it and don't want to cause an argument so they just say they're Christians I've seen a lot of atheists do this


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 6, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Then by all means, go back to the original posts and pull the words from the posts I quoted that provide the context.



I did... and when you reposted it, I did it again... _as I always do_.

(Again Reader: The Secret to defeating Leftists in debate:

1- Find a Leftist

2- Get them to speak.)


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


This I have to see. And if you Ban abortion that's okay with me because I don't plan on having any children anyway. If you ban gay marriage I'm not gay so I don't care anyways really other than wanting to do what's right. So I don't know what change you think is going to affect me


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Then by all means, go back to the original posts and pull the words from the posts I quoted that provide the context.
> ...


Are ya taking names for the revolution a coming? Lol


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Then by all means, go back to the original posts and pull the words from the posts I quoted that provide the context.
> ...



You do realize that your 'Reader'.....is just you talking to yourself, right?

Which begs the question: does anyone else even need to be here for your conversation?

Oh, and you never did offer us the mythical 'context' that you vaguely alluded to that somehow makes your quotes anything other than thuggish threats of violence or your personal murder fantasies. 

While I did provide the quotes your threats and murder fantasies. With links! See how that works?


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 6, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...





Hutch Starskey said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I don't believe that I have ever "shoved it in other's faces", so your ad hominem attack serves no apparent purpose than to alleviate your symptoms of litldik disease.

If you can bring something substantive to the conversation, I suggest you just shut the hell up.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jul 6, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



Then explain who and how they are " in your religion".


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 6, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...



If you can't figure it out in 750 posts, I'm pretty sure one more isn't going to help you.

Go next door, ask the 6 year old neighbor kid to read the posts, and explain it to you. I'm guessing he will do better than you have been able to.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jul 6, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



My point stands. If you or the butcher, baker or candlestick maker assert  your faith inappropriately on a customer, don't cry when they push back. That's a situation created entirely by your or their Christy hubris and not an attack on your faith.


----------



## Spare_change (Jul 6, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...



Your point - made loudly many times - has absolutely no validity to the discussion at hand. But, it seems to be the only point you have. Go back and read the thread.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 6, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



And after 750 posts- you still are not able to articulate how you have been harmed- how your 'freedom' is less today than it was 2 weeks ago.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > And what "concession" would that be, Sweetums?
> ...


So...this is more about you.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jul 6, 2015)

Spare_change said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



I've read the entire thread and responded to you directly within the context of your post. 
I don't blame you for not answering though. We both know how silly you would look trying to further explain your position.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 6, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


As a christian business owner you can't descriminate against gays blacks athiests women men old people the disabled retards Jews Muslims or foreigners.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 6, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> As a christian business owner you can't descriminate against gays blacks athiests women men old people the disabled retards Jews Muslims or foreigners.


As a Christian business owner one doesn't desire to discriminate against anyone.

But if a retarded black homosexual Muslim woman came in and requested that I setup to support her celebration of the deaths of 3000 innocent people on 9-11-01, I'd discriminate against it... In ways which are also 'illegal'.

And that's because that would be the right thing to do, the morally sound thing to do and this without regard to how sharply it's comrades on the Left disagreed.

And when I got out of prison for that... I'd open up shop and of another twisted sister came in and asked the same thing again... I'd provide the same response.  

Because, again... _it is the right thing to do..._


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


Tell it to the judge although the person you discriminate would probably just not patronize your store. And also tell all their friends about the way you treated them. I find always seem to get theirs eventually. Usually they're not very happy to begin with so they are already being paid back for their evil ways


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 6, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Tell it to the judge...



Is the judge suppose to intimidate someone?

It's the RIGHT THING TO DO.

ROFLMNAO!  Leftists...


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > As a christian business owner you can't descriminate against gays blacks athiests women men old people the disabled retards Jews Muslims or foreigners.
> ...


Let's say you had a married gay couple living next door to you. What would you like the law be? Kill them? Jail them? Break them u? Make being gay illegal? 

You are president and have control of both houses.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > As a christian business owner you can't descriminate against gays blacks athiests women men old people the disabled retards Jews Muslims or foreigners.
> ...





You're obsessed with gay sex now....will you be when you get to prison?  Just curious.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 6, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



ROFL   And you're an insufferable shrew... 

Feel better?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 6, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Let's say you had a married gay couple living next door to you. What would you like the law be? Kill them? Jail them? Break them u? Make being gay illegal?
> 
> You are president and have control of both houses.



SO you're scenario includes my neighbor being a male and female who've joined together to form one legal entity... despite their both being sexual degenerates, respectively craving members of their own gender for sexual gratification?  Hmm...

How did this come up?  Over Tea in a game of gin, or... were they dancing in assless chaps accompanied with nekkid girl on oily girl?

It matters...

Because if it came up in polite conversation, what would be the issue?

While in the other scenario, it becomes a series of civil and criminal charges... .


----------



## Carla_Danger (Jul 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...




I do.  Thank you Ted Haggard.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 6, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...



You're Welcome Mrs Danvers...


----------



## Politico (Jul 7, 2015)

Faun said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


No they don't Get your gay on and stop insisting everyone agree with you.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



We?  Got a mouse in your pocket, boy?


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jul 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



He would not know a fact if it bit him on the scrotum.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 7, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


Naked. We don't call him Pubes for nothing.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jul 7, 2015)

Ravi said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Well that just upped his creep factor significantly.


----------



## Idadunno (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Ran across this over at The Blaze...  it's a great read.
> 
> _"I received a lot of feedback this past weekend about my piece responding to the Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling. Many people seemed to take exception to my radical position that men and woman can conceive children. They didn’t explicitly disagree with that theory, but they did deny the one single conclusion that inevitably stems from it, which is that the union between a man and a woman is special and different.
> 
> ...


The Progressive era ended in the 1920s but it's main objective was to instill stability in a era of fast progression. We were at the end of the second industrial revolution and pushing toward WWI. Rights, regulation of big business and government... what do gays have to do with this? Oh... they were granted protection of rights, thus we progressed in our thinking that all people are created equal. Got it. So why are you mad? How do you know those people are liberals? I read that piece...well, I started to. You over-write thus killing whatever message you were trying to convey. I did gather that you are against SSM and the insults are a result of your lack of knowledge about the Constitution and thinking you are smarter than a Supreme Court justice. Sucks to be you. That was not an insult; that was truth. You may quote me.


----------



## Faun (Jul 7, 2015)

Politico said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...


Seeing as how virtually every poll disagrees with you, what proof do you have that most Americans are against legalizing gay marriage .... ?

And why on Earth would I "get my gay on?" I'm not gay.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> And THAT is how the the Licensing of Degeneracy will hurt us ALL.
> 
> But wouldn't it be nice if Actions did not have consequences and people could just reject the Laws of Nature that govern human behavior?
> 
> Oh well... Reality can be SUCH a PAIN.


how could you possibly know that?
everything you post is based on a twisted fantasy about how the world works.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


oh no not the false victory ploy! a classic dodge!


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Its Keyes' tell. A little white flag to tell us that he's done.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > So any thing credited to god is speculation specious speculation.
> ...


dodge number two.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > As a christian business owner you can't descriminate against gays blacks athiests women men old people the disabled retards Jews Muslims or foreigners.
> ...


your idea of what is right is just as warped as your pov on everything else.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


the use of obscure movie and novel  references is pretentious .
do you have pictures of Judy garland in your bedroom too?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > And THAT is how the the Licensing of Degeneracy will hurt us ALL.
> ...



ROFLMNAO!

Yes... _Cause and Effect _ is just SO _FANTASTICALLY _*TWISTED*.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

daws101 said:


> the use of obscure movie and novel  references is pretentious .



ROFLMNAO!

Irony...  You gotta _LOVE IT!_


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



But you haven't established 'cause and effect'. You're merely alleged it. And your claims make no sense. You've claimed that if a society embraces homosexuality, it eventually collapses. Well, if a society doesn't embrace homosexuality it eventually collapses too.

Your 'effect' exists regardless of the presence of your 'cause'. Demonstrating elegantly that your cause isn't.

See how that works? A rational person could.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

daws101 said:


> your idea of what is right is just as warped as your pov on everything else.



Based upon what?  And Please... Be specifc.  At least as specific as your intellectual limitations allow.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > your idea of what is right is just as warped as your pov on everything else.
> ...



Your 'responsibility to eradicate homosexuals' along with your murder fantasies, where you wax eloquently about 'leftists' being decapitated and their heads placed on pikes while their cities burn.....which you insist is morally justified.

Your conception of right and wrong is quite warped. As are your insane murder fantasies.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Nonsense... I've established it myself, a half dozen times; in this thread and hundreds of times across the scope of this board; as have dozens of others... .

A lack of respect for God and God's Laws have stifled the Spirit of God within the Degenerate.  Absent the Spirit of God, the Degenerate lacks access to the light of God's Reason, thus is limited to mirky filth of subjectivism...  or that which is 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, perversion of reason, wherein relativism axiomatically rejects the *objectivity* that is essential to truth.  Lacking the means to recognize Truth, this cripples the means to trust as truth is essential to trust...

Lacking the means to trust, there is no basis on which to agree upon a soundly reasoned morality...

And absent a soundly reasoned morality... there is no basis from which to service justice.

And THAT is the greater outline of Degeneracy and how the US comes to the point where the Judiciary is Crowned by the Supreme Legislature, where the Majority of Votes supersede Reason, The Constitution and the Law; thus the means to serve justice is entirely CRIPPLED.

Now Reader, understand, they lack the means to reason objectively... therefore they have no means to _understand_ what was just provided for them... let alone the means to understand it sufficiently to_ agree with it._

The point here is not to convince those who lack the intellectual acuity to reason..._ the point is to demonstrate that they lack the means to reason.  _

Once people come to understand that in TRUTH, the Ideological Left IS: INSANITY.  The solution to the problem can be worked out.  And No... the Left is not going to agree.  But in fairness to the solution.._. their assent will not be sought._


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Oh! OK... So you're stating that Daws reasoning rests in your straw argument?

WOW~  That's pretty twisted.

But it's not even _close_ to the most irrational drivel you've offered in demonstrating your intellectual limitations.

Suit yourself... Now are you conceding on behalf of Daws or is this concession purely on you?

Well, tell ya what, you two work it out, I'll just accept it as your collective concession.
_
Your Collective Concession is Duly Noted and Summarily Accepted._


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



You've typed your accusation half a dozen times. Merely typing a claim isn't factually establishing anything. Remember, you may consider any hapless nonsense you make up be objective truth. But its still you're subjective opinion.

And your opinion doesn't factually establish anything either.

You'll need to establish causation factually. That embracing homosexuality causes a society to eventually collapse. Especially when not embracing homosexuality produces the same eventual result.
*
When the 'effect' exists regardless of the presence of your 'cause', your 'cause' isn't. Thi*s is basic logic. Yet it completely confounds you.



> A lack of respect for God and God's Laws have stifled the Spirit of God within the Degenerate.  Absent the Spirit of God, the Degenerate lacks access to the light of God's Reason, thus is limited to mirky filth of subjectivism...  or that which is OKA: Relativism...



Which god? Remember, your conception of god has no logical or rational basis either. When pressed you offer us the 'first mover' argument. Which mandates nothing more than something moved first. That's it. There's no mandate that it the first mover be sentient, that it be good, that it have a plan, that it be capable of planning, that it even exist after moving first. And certainly nothing that mandates your specific and subjective religious interpretations.

You're offering us your subjective religious interpretations as 'evidence' of your subjective personal opinion. And then laughably insisting that the former makes the latter somehow 'objective'.

I don't think 'objective' means what you think it means. Just as I don't think 'causation' means what you think it means.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



I'm stating that your insane and disturbingly specific murder fantasies are a specific example of your warped perspective of right and wrong. Where you go into elaborate detail about how the 'Leftists' would be decapitated. And how their heads would be put on pikes. All citing yourself. Along with your equally insane 'responsibility to eradicate homosexuals' and how its all morally justified.

That's not nature. That's not god. That's not Christianity. That's just you and your personal desire to hurt people. Which is yet another specific example of your warped point of view and twisted sense of right and wrong.

No thank you.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Reader, this appears to be prophecy on my part... where everything I said would happen, with regard to its inability to understand, due to its inability to reason beyond its own subjective need, DID happen... .

But it's not prophecy... it's just knowing what these creatures are and that they've no means to BE anything except what their low station provides that _they must be_.

It's like prophesying that a cow will chew its cud... .   It's going to happen because the simple beast has no choice but to do so.

The same rule applies here as well.

Now... in terms of humanity, subjectivism is a trait of the human animal... not of the enlightened being.

Enlightenment rests ENTIRELY in objectivism...

Thus, what you see in the lowly degenerate is a creature which appears human, with the bipedal locomotion, opposing digits and the ability to solve simple problems.

But in terms of the reasoning that separates mankind from the beasts... the light of God possessed solely in the spirit of God, these creatures fall well short of that... thus they are _at best,_ a function of a substandard example of humanity; OKA: _Subhumans. _

And yes, in greater nature they are recognized as simply: * "FOOD"*.

You may recall that one of their numbers recently demonstrated this on the TX/LA border, where, for whatever reason, it concluded that it had a RIGHT to swim with the Alligators; perhaps_ 'identifying' _*as* _An Alligator._


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> I'm stating that your insane ...



Understood... and _your concession is again, duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## G.T. (Jul 7, 2015)

Skylar just owned keyes.

Check mate.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



More accurately, I simply don't accept your personal opinion and subjective assumptions as objective anything. They are merely your subjective opinions. Your entire argument requires that we accept whatever you imagine as immutable and universal truth. And if we don't participate in your fantasy, your entire argument collapses.

As you have nothing else.

You have yet to even establish causation. Let alone factually establish the cause and effect you allege. You can't offer us any logical or rational basis for any of your subjective assumptions regarding god. 

*Leaving your entire argument without a rational, logical or factual basis.* Merely a litany of nested assumptions, each backed by nothing more than your personal opinion.

Which defines nothing objectively. You can't get around that.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jul 7, 2015)

Faith is important to former President Jimmy Carter, and he writes about it extensively in his new memoir A Full Life: Reflections at Ninety. But his religious beliefs don't keep him from supporting every American's right to marry the person they love ... (Huffington Post)


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > I'm stating that your insane ...
> ...



And your tell. Your little white flag demonstrating that you're done. Where you summarily declare victory....just before you run.

While the specific murder fantasies you've offered us and the twisted 'responsibility to eradicate homosexuals' that you've imagined demonstrate your twisted point of view and warped conception of right and wrong.

Exactly as Daws described.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> More accurately, I simply don't accept your personal opinion and subjective assumptions...



Now I said that Relativism rejects the existence of objectivity...   and the Relativist comes to reject the existence of objectivity.

I say it HERE... and it comes out *^ THERE! ^
*
And again, _the Concession of the Relativist is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## daws101 (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


there you go again talking out your ass about something you know nothing about.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Here we find the Relativist trotting out the vaunted "NUH UH!" defense... 

LOL!  Always entertaining, _if nothing else._


----------



## daws101 (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > the use of obscure movie and novel  references is pretentious .
> ...


yes when you used it t was...but not in the way you wanted


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > More accurately, I simply don't accept your personal opinion and subjective assumptions...
> ...



You citing your subjective personal opinion isn't objective anything. As subjective isn't objective. 

You can't get around that.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Yet ANOTHER example of the "NUH UH!" defense... 

OH they're ON FIRE TODAY!  Look at the brilliance of their reasoning, rejecting FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF NATURE, because those laws do not provide them with any means to satisfy their own subjective *NEED!*


----------



## G.T. (Jul 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


Youre wasting your time on keyes. 

Hes a bloviator of the highest magnitude, and a perpetrator of "online fake smart" children who attempt to conjur big and empty words into sentences while being wholly full of shit.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > your idea of what is right is just as warped as your pov on everything else.
> ...


your intentional or ignorant misinterpretation of your belief system aka pseudo Christianity.
if it's the former, you are one sick fuck .
if the latter, you are one  pathetic fuck
either way, you are fucked.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



I've 'trotted out' specific examples of your twisted perspective and warped conception of right and wrong. Specifically your imaginary 'responsibility to eradicate homosexuals' and your disturbingly precise and insanely violent murder fantasies.

Where you go into intricate detail on exactly how the 'leftists' would be murdered. How their heads would be removed. How they would be placed on pikes. How their cities would burn. All of which you insist is 'morally justified'.

And so elegantly demonstrate how twisted your perspective and how warped your conception of morality actually is.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Oh, Keyes' insane murder fantasies aren't Christianity. Or god. Or nature. Or anything but Keyes' own desire to hurt people. 

Which begins and ends with him.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


ohh it's the power of the WE fallacy and the my morality is better than yours fallacy
no that's the definition of insanity.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Ahhh... a teachable moment.

Skylar, please provide the board with what it is that you mean to convey, when you use the word "Objective".

(Reader, this will conclude this line of discussion, as Skylar has no means to understand what objectivity IS...

For instance, objectivity means:_ the quality of being objective._

Objective means: _not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts: not dependent on the mind for existence; actual._ 

Now even though I post the formal meaning of the words here... Skylar will be unable to define the words because to do so traps her into demonstrating her position as truthful, now that she is bound to the soundly reasoned absolute of what the words mean.

Not a comfortable place for a Relativist, thus the reason that they will not Go THERE.)


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

daws101 said:


> ohh it's the power of the WE fallacy and the my morality is better than yours fallacy
> no that's the definition of insanity.



ROFLMNAO!  A Relativist lamenting fallacious reasoning, even as it shamelessly _appeals to popularity.

LOL!  _Reader, you can* NOT *make that crap up!

(Anyone see anything that could be argued, represents Objectivity in the above cited position? If ya do, just post the elements which you feel are evidence of objectivity and we can set such against the actual meaning of the word and discuss it)


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Objective: (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

*What you call 'objective' is nothing but your opinion and personal feelings. *Your insanely violent and disturbingly specific murder fantasies, your imaginary 'responsibility to eradicate homosexuals', even your conception of god is your subjective opinion and personal feeling.

Which establishes nothing objectively. 

You're stuck, Keyes. As your entire basis of argument desperately needs us to accept whatever hapless nonsense you imagine as 'objective truth'. Without our willingness to play along with your fantasy, you've got nothing.

Just your feelings......and your subjective personal opinions. Which are objectively meaningless.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > More accurately, I simply don't accept your personal opinion and subjective assumptions...
> ...


false
*ethical relativism definition *

In ethics, the belief that nothing is objectively right or wrong and that the definition of right or wrong depends on the prevailing view of a particular individual, culture, or historical period.


objectively
[ ob jéktivlee ]
ADVERB

without being influenced by personal feelings
synonyms: impartially · dispassionately · neutrally · independently ·
disinterestedly · fairly
More
antonyms: subjectively · subjectively
on the basis of fact, experience, or some measurable quality
you've proven spectacularly that you are not and cannot objective or are the least bit ethical.
btw O castrated one  when YOU'VE bested me I'll let you know it.
on the other hand the odds of you ever doing that about the same as  you being buttfuck by bikers  and winning the lottery in the same day.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > ohh it's the power of the WE fallacy and the my morality is better than yours fallacy
> ...



You citing you isn't 'Objectivity'. Its just your personal feelings, your subjective opinion. You can't tell the difference.

A rational person can. Which is why you fail.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > ohh it's the power of the WE fallacy and the my morality is better than yours fallacy
> ...


keyless is on the cusp of TANTRUM  he just tried to dehumanize me by calling me It.
false key less appeals to (place chosen thing here) is your gig not mine. AS YOU'VE PROVEN ENDLESSLY.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



OH!  So you're separating yourself from Skylar's position?  (Can't say that this comes as a surprise... Rats/Ships and all...) 

So, tell me, where _*specifically* _does my position conflict with that of Christ? 

(Again Reader, you're going to find that this line of discussion is going to dry up on the other side of that query... and that is because to answer the question, one must apply objective thought.  What will happen is that it will apply subjective thought, by advancing straw reasoning with regard to Christ.., likely pinning such up as a welcome matt, where all behavior is accepted and no standard exists which precludes anyone from participation... as such is the common misnomer that is advanced by Relativism with regard to Christ. 

This in contrast to a man who to pay for the sins of humanity, willingly allowed himself to be CRUCIFIED after being unmercifully tortured... having violated no law, offended no one and having ever sinned against God.  

This is a being who not only recognizes standards, but who put himself on the line to pay for the SINS OF OTHERS, declaring that where those people merely recognize his gift, admit their own sins and ask his forgiveness, that they will be forgiven and given to fellowship with the Father, through him, enjoying everlasting life.

That is hardly the makings of what this individual must concoct... to tie its disembodied feelings together.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


 there's that we fallacy again and the appealing to a non existent higher intellect fallacy.
last time I checked no body appointed you as lord god king and teacher. How do you fit through doors with a head the large  and a cock so small?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Well there ya go...

She cites the definition, then professes that objectivity is not possible.  (Understand that its claiming that anything stated Is subjective, thus there is no means to convey objectivity... 
_
See how that works?)_


----------



## daws101 (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


making false assumptions and conclusions and talking irrelevant to the subject biblical tripe.is by no standard reasoned or reasonable.
and it violates the definition of objectivity  and analytical discourse.
making it  the worst kind of bigoted proselytizing.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Elaborate murder fantasies involving decapitation and placing the heads of 'leftists' on pikes? The 'responsibility to eradicate homosexuals'? Your obsession with civil war?

I've read the Sermon on the Mount. None of that is in there. That's just you.

And remember, you have no rational nor logical basis for your conception of god. Merely your subjective belief as the basis of your subjective belief.

Notice a pattern yet? 



> (Again Reader, you're going to find that this line of discussion is going to dry up on the other side of that query... and that is because to answer the question, one must apply objective thought.  What will happen is that it will apply subjective thought, by advancing straw reasoning with regard to Christ.., likely pinning such up as a welcome matt, where all behavior is accepted and no standard exists which precludes anyone from participation... as such is the common misnomer that is advanced by Relativism with regard to Christ.



You....you do realize that you're just talking to yourself again, Keyes? Right?

As your 'reader' is just you talking to you as you cite yourself, while quoting yourself as a source. Which you bizarrely label 'objective'. Despite the fact that your sources, your authorities, _even your audience_.....is just you.

Is there ever anything to your arguments but you citing yourself?


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Nope. I cite the definition *and then recognize that your subjective opinions and personal feelings aren't objective. But subjective.*

You citing your personal opinion and feelings defines nothing objectively. Nor do you have any rational basis of evidence, logic, or reason to back your violent murder fantasies. You can't even back up your conception of god. From top to bottom.....your entire argument is pure subjectivity. Where you offer your feelings as objective, universal truth. 

And still can't establish so much as basic causation. Where you insist that any society that embraces homosexuality eventually collapses.......because you say so. All while ignoring the fact that societies that don't embrace homosexuality eventually collapse too. 

Your 'effect' exists even when your 'cause' doesn't. Demonstrating elegantly that your cause, isn't. 

This is basic cause and effect, rudimentary logic....and yet it completely confounds you.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



And your tell, yet again. Your little white flag, where you abandon your every argument, summarily declare victory....and then run.

Color me shocked.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



As a complete nut.

You have established yourself as the King of USMB Loons- and that is an accomplishment.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



ROFLMNAO!  

Now isn't that _PRECIOUS?_

Relativism is just that...  The left loves to carve things up with the pretense being that _"the issue is relevant to these specific things...", _when in truth, a Relativist does not reason subjectively only in matters of ethics, or morality or socially.  A Relativist is one who REJECTS the existence of OBJECTIVITY... as you've witnessed in this thread, the ONLY thing that is relevant to a Relativist, is THEM and THEIR SUBJECTIVE NEEDS.  Every issue, every topic, every thing is about them, or it does not matter.

As I said, they can cite the formal definition, but they will turn from it in their very next breath.

And yes... they're quite mad.  As a great American once said:_ "These Fuckers are crazier than a shit-house rat at a community colon cleansin'."_ _ *Git'erdone!*_


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...




ROFLMNAO!

I say it HERE and it comes out ^ THERE ^ !!!

*Be AMaaAAAZED!  *


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

Again Reader, understand that the key to defeating a Leftist rest upon two fundamental elements:

1- Find a Leftist.

2- _Get them to speak._


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



And your reply is predictably gibberish.

Sorry, Keyes....but you citing your subjective opinion and personal feelings isn't 'objectivity'. But subjectivity. Nor can you factually establish your claims, your conception of god, or even basic causation.

Which is why you failed.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Again Reader, understand that the key to defeating a Leftist rest upon two fundamental elements:
> 
> 1- Find a Leftist.
> 
> 2- _Get them to speak._



Again, Keyes......you do realize that you're talking to yourself, right? Your 'reader' is just you talking to you as you quote you, while citing yourself as a source. You are literally your own audience.

Which begs the question: do we even need to be here?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Again Reader, understand that the key to defeating a Leftist rest upon two fundamental elements:
> ...



And yet another classic demonstration of the rancid subjectivism that is common to the lowly Relativist.  

Thank you, Skylar.

And your concession is again, _Duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

Again... let's review to bring the issue back to point.

A lack of respect for God and God's Laws have stifled the Spirit of God within the Degenerate.

Absent the Spirit of God, the Degenerate lacks access to the light of God's Reason, thus is limited to mirky filth of subjectivism... or that which is OKA: _Relativism..._

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's own 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 by lacking kinship with and, the means to recognize Truth, this cripples the means of the Relativist to *TRUST*; as *truth is essential to trust*...

Lacking the means to trust, there is no basis on which those so afflicted can come to agreement upon *a soundly reasoned MORALITY.*..

And absent a soundly reasoned morality...* there is no basis in Relativism from which to serve JUSTICE.*

And THAT is the greater outline of Degeneracy and how it _HARMS *EVERYONE*_*...*

The US has now come to the point where the Judiciary is crowned: *The Supreme Legislature*, wherein the Majority of Judicial Votes supersede Sound (Objective) Reason, The Constitution (Objective) and The Law (Objective); thus the means to serve justice is wholly and entirely: _CRIPPLED.  

It was this addled departure from sound principle which removed the Mental Disorder that Presents as Sexual Deviancy from the medical register of such maladies.  Was Medical Justice Served?   Of course not.  And did the ramifications of that profound error remain limited to Medicine?  NO IT DID NOT!  It trickled down and throughout the culture...  rotting it from it's core with catastrophic consequences.   _But, I digress... 

Now Reader, understand, they lack the means to reason objectively... therefore they have no means to _understand _what was just provided for them... let alone the means to understand such sufficiently to_ agree with it._

The point here is not to convince those who lack the intellectual acuity to reason..._ the point is to help them to  demonstrate that they lack the means to reason, for the edification of the sound human beings, so that they can finally come to understand where the problem is, why its a problem and to steel themselves for the unenviable tasks which are just before them, once these individuals mount the inevitable attack upon them.  _

It's not even a potential question in terms of "IF" they will attack, it is only a question of when the attack will come and in what form.

We've seen it tested in small markets with ruthless commitment, and all that remains is for them to adapt the local tactics, to the national scale.

Everyday we're treated to reports where the racial minorities among the Left have brutally murdered or savagely beaten innocents... we see it played out on Youtube and other web venues, we watch the Left foment racial animosity... we see them foment animosity at every point where such can be advanced.

So the intent is clear, the willingness is likewise just as clear.

We're now simply waiting for the main assault... and like most things profane, you will not have any problem knowing it when you see it... then, it falls to you, to do what you must to avoid the impact of it.  As the next day will be that of the "GREAT GETTIN' UP MORNIN'... " When all accounts are settled and the accounting doesn't stop, until there's none left to count.

Now, if THAT is not harm as a consequence of Degeneracy... then such simply _does not exist._


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Again... let's review to bring the issue back to point.
> 
> A lack of respect for God and God's Laws have stifled the Spirit of God within the Degenerate.



Which god? Remember, your conception of god has no factual, logical, or rational basis. When pressed for any such, you offer us the 'first mover' argument. But a first mover argument need do nothing more than move first. There's no mandate that it is sentient, no mandate it is good, no requirement that it have a 'plan' or the capacity for planning, that it be aware we exist, have awareness, _not even a requirement that it exist after moving first._

*You've imagined all of that.* Citing your feelings, subjective beliefs and personal interpretation. Which you laughably label as 'objective'.

Yeah, I don't think 'objective' means what you think it means. *As you keep equating anything you can possibly make up with 'objectivity'. *



> Absent the Spirit of God, the Degenerate lacks access to the light of God's Reason, thus is limited to mirky filth of subjectivism... or that which is OKA: Relativism...



Says you, citing you. Where you are quite literally citing your feelings and subjective beliefs as GOD. 

Which is about as relativistic as it gets.

You're stuck. You can't establish causation, can't factually establish that embracing homosexuality causes a society to collapse, can't even offer us a logical or rational basis for your conception of god. To say nothing of a factual one. 

Which again, is why you failed.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



You're citing your feelings and subjective beliefs as God. Which is about as relativistic as it gets. And you can't establish any of it rationally, factually, or logically. 

You can't even establish cause and effect. And you know it. 

Which is why you offer us your tell: an abandonment of your claims, a summary declaration of victory......and then a predictable rout.  If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have to run.


----------



## mdk (Jul 7, 2015)

(Now Reader, understand, that Keys is a huge pussy that believes his civil war fetish will come to pass but he expects you, the Reader, to do all the bleeding while he sits on his fat relativitist ass. Such is the nature of cowardly bitches)


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

mdk said:


> (Now Reader, understand, that Keys is a huge pussy that believes his civil war fetish will come to pass but he expects you, the Reader, to do all the bleeding while he sits on his fat relativitist ass. Such is the nature of cowardly bitches)



Its just another in a legion of examples of Keyes' fundamental disconnect from reality. Where he imagines a 'civil war' that he won't have to fight in or sacrifice for in any way... yet will still do whatever he wants it to do, killing who ever he wants killed.

Back in reality, the fighting age folks are Millennials who support gay marriage by about 80%. They're not killing anyone or shedding a drop of their blood because Keyes is convinced he speaks for God.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Again... let's review to bring the issue back to point.
> ...



That would be Nature's God.  

You know... the one which endows all men with inalienable rights.   

But hey, in fairness to you, as a Leftist; which is to say one who promotes Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle... THERE WAS NO WAY THAT YOU COULD HAVE KNOWN THAT!

Ya see Skylar, you are considering this equation purely from your own subjective experiences... colored through the hazy lens of your own NEEDS, WANTS AND DESIRES.

God is known to many people through many different names... as many as there are perspectives.

This is quite understandable for those who possess the spirit of God, thus who are bathed in the light of God's Reason.

I am one man... yet I am known to some as 'friend'... to others as "Boss", to others as Brother, Cousin, Son, Father... .

In this we see that it is only natural that with all of the various perspectives that come with 20,000 years of existence, and billions of individuals, scattered across dozens of various environs, that our respective understanding of God would be different, for different people, who live at different times... .

You claim such is evidence of human subjectivism... and I claim that such is evidence of human subjectivism.  The difference between us, is that I recognize God is objective and humanities eternal quest to know God, to be in his light, is evidence of God's objective truth, while you reject the existence of that truth, because such does not serve your subjective needs.

But hey... _such is the nature of evil.  _


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > (Now Reader, understand, that Keys is a huge pussy that believes his civil war fetish will come to pass but he expects you, the Reader, to do all the bleeding while he sits on his fat relativitist ass. Such is the nature of cowardly bitches)
> ...



(Reader, does that strike you as objectively reasoned, or the product of subjective need?

For instance, do Millennials recognize that Human Physiology provides for two distinct but complementing Genders?  Do they recognize that reasoning which rejects that self-evident truth is a perversion of reason?  Do they connect that perversion of reason with the perversion that advocates for the importation of TENS of Millions of Indigent Illegals, who are set upon the public dole and given the MEANS TO VOTE AGAINST THEIR BEST INTERESTS? 

Having raised several Millennials, who have served their nation and who are out there busting their butts to earn a living in a culture, where the Relativists are making it more difficult to do so EVERY SINGLE DAY... .   I can assure you that they see degeneracy as a threat to their children and when the day comes that the Left mounts its assault, they will be where they need to be, doing the unenviable work essential to _solving the problem.

And where they come upon Millennials who feel otherwise... they'll settle it using the tactics that they were taught, by their government using the means granted to them, by their God.)_


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> That would be Nature's God.



And what is your evidence that such a god exists? Let me guess.......subjective belief? That you 'feel' it? 

Shall I quote the definition of 'objective' for you again?



> God is known to many people through many different names... as many as there are perspectives.



Yeah, but you've already denounced perspectives that differ from your own. I believe that your exact words were 'eradicate Islam'. With you describing Islam as evil.

So clearly any conception of god is not as valid as any other. And yet comically you insist that *their* subjective beliefs and personal assumptions must be wrong. While *your* subjective beliefs and assumptions must be right.

Because you have the 'spirit of god'. That we have to take your word on. 

Laughing....all of which you call 'objective'. I don't think the word means what you think it means.



> I am one man... yet I am known to some as 'friend'... to others as "Boss", to others as Brother, Cousin, Son, Father... .



You're also known as the one calling for the 'responsibility to eradicate homosexuals', called for the 'eradication of Islam'* and have offered us a litany of insane murder fantasies where you describe in disturbingly precise detail exactly how the 'leftists' would be murdered,* how their heads would be removed, how those heads would be put on pikes, how their cities would be burned.

And you're also known as the one who insisted that was all 'morally justified'. Demonstrating your perverse conception of morality, your twisted perspective, and your skewed sense of right and wrong.

And its *your* word that you expect us to take as 'god's will'? Um, no. Your insane murder fantasies have nothing to do with god, Christianity, nature or anything but your desire to hurt people.

No thank you.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > That would be Nature's God.
> ...




LOL!  So we need to repeat this again?  (Reader Skylar has been schooled on the evidence of the existence of the Creation, demonstrating the existence of the Creator... MANY TIMES.  She simply lacks the means to reason objectively, necessary to understand it.)

You exist, therefore your Creator exists... .
_
See how easy that is?

.

.

.
_
OH!  *WAIT!*
_
Do you agree that you exist?  _


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> (Reader, does that strike you as objectively reasoned, or the product of subjective need?



Again, Keyes.......you're just talking to yourself. Your reader is you. Citing you. Quoting yourself as your source. *You are literally your own audience*. Your own source. Your own god.

Do we even need to be here?



> For instance, do Millennials recognize that Human Physiology provides for two distinct but complementing Genders?  Do they recognize that reasoning which rejects that self-evident truth is a perversion of reason?  Do they connect that perversion of reason with the perversion that advocates for the importation of TENS of Millions of Indigent Illegals, who are set upon the public dole and given the MEANS TO VOTE AGAINST THEIR BEST INTERESTS?



And in yet another fit of hopeless subjectivity and relativism, you're taking your beliefs and projecting them onto millions of Millennials and *then bizarrely concluding that Millennials are going to fight your imaginary 'civil war' and join in your insane murder fantasies.*

_Laughing.....um, no.  That's not happening._

Millennials, our fighting age folks, overwhelming support same sex marriage. They aren't killing anyone or shedding a drop of their own blood because *you* have insane murder fantasies and have deluded yourself into believing you speak for God.
*
And you're certainly not going to fight in your imaginary 'civil war'. *Its always someone else that has to bleed. Leaving you with nothing but comforting lies you tell yourself to excuse your own irrelevance.

As if the Obergefell ruling didn't demonstrate that elegantly enough already. I believe you confidently predicted that the courts were going to rule against same sex marriage, offering us a litany of pseudo-legal gibberish and Appeal to Authority fallacies.

Um, how'd that work out for you?


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Again... let's review to bring the issue back to point.
> 
> A lack of respect for God and God's Laws have stifled the Spirit of God within the Degenerate.



Which god? Remember, your conception of god has no factual, logical, or rational basis. When pressed for any such, you offer us the 'first mover' argument. But a first mover argument need do nothing more than move first. There's no mandate that it is sentient, no mandate it is good, no requirement that it have a 'plan' or the capacity for planning, that it be aware we exist, have awareness, _not even a requirement that it exist after moving first._

*You've imagined all of that.* Citing your feelings, subjective beliefs and personal interpretation. Which you laughably label as 'objective'.

Yeah, I don't think 'objective' means what you think it means. *As you keep equating anything you can possibly make up with 'objectivity'. *



> Absent the Spirit of God, the Degenerate lacks access to the light of God's Reason, thus is limited to mirky filth of subjectivism... or that which is OKA: Relativism...



Says you, citing you. Where you are quite literally citing your feelings and subjective beliefs as GOD.

Which is about as relativistic as it gets.

You're stuck. You can't establish causation, can't factually establish that embracing homosexuality causes a society to collapse, can't even offer us a logical or rational basis for your conception of god. To say nothing of a factual one.

Which again, is why you failed.


----------



## mdk (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > (Now Reader, understand, that Keys is a huge pussy that believes his civil war fetish will come to pass but he expects you, the Reader, to do all the bleeding while he sits on his fat relativitist ass. Such is the nature of cowardly bitches)



Hop to it, Pap Pap. People my age and younger are not willing to fight in this little civil war fetish you have going on. It only exists your little relativist head. Who does the fighting? We know you don't have the balls do it. You're nothing more then a huge pussy and folks my age laugh at your all footing stomping hysterics.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > (Reader, does that strike you as objectively reasoned, or the product of subjective need?
> ...



(Reader... don't panic, you are not me.  At the least, you're Skylar, who apparently has no means to find sufficiently objectivity to recognize herself as a reader, and this despite the reality that it had to read that, to respond to it, thus a "Reader".

Those Readers who are not Skylar, should have a firm handle on the destructive nature of Relativism at this point.)


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Again, you're offering us the first mover argument. And the only requirement for a first mover....is that it moved first.
*
That's it.*

Every other characteristic you've attributed, every 'design' you insist it created, every 'law' you insist it established, the idea that its sentient, the idea that its good, that its intelligent, the idea that its aware of us, the idea that it has awareness....._even the idea that it STILL exists after moving first..._

*......is just you citing your subjective beliefs and personal feelings. *And isn't supported by your argument. Or anything else but your subjective beliefs. Subjective beliefs that establish nothing objectively.

*As I said, there's no logical, rational or factual basis for your conception of god.* As moving first doesn't mandate *any* of the litany of additional attributes you've made up.



> You exist, therefore your Creator exists... .



So we exist, therefore a Creator exists. And a Creator exists, therefore we exist.

*That's a perfect circle of an argument. *Where your evidence and your conclusion are the exact same thing. You're literally basing your entire conception of god on a fallacy of logic. And an obvious one.

And 'poof'. Your entire argument crumbles again. _See how easy that was?_


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



And again, you're talking to yourself. You are literally your own audience. And your own source. With you citing your feelings and subjective beliefs as GOD. 

*Again, do we even need to be here? *

And there is still the elephant in the livingroom that you avoided like it were on fire. That in yet another fit of hopeless subjectivity and relativism, you're taking your beliefs and projecting them onto millions of Millennials and *then bizarrely concluding that Millennials are going to fight your imaginary 'civil war' and join in your insane murder fantasies.*

_Laughing.....um, no. That's not happening._

Millennials, our fighting age folks, overwhelming support same sex marriage. They aren't killing anyone or shedding a drop of their own blood because *you* have insane murder fantasies and have deluded yourself into believing you speak for God.

No matter how much you tell yourself otherwise.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

mdk said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...



Skylar, YOU and YOUR CULT... are forcing the war.  YOU and YOUR CULT... are already starting the war.  

That you will_ refuse to fight it,_ well... that's up to you.  But fight it, don't fight it... it's not going to change anything.

Evil can't win... because war has a way to bring reality down on ya.  And Evil doesn't do well in "Reality".  

Ya see scamp... people who are busy trying to defend what ever they have left, while trying to feed whatever is left of their family, don't have the time or the inclination to worry about the plastic banana rights of the degenerate.

They dam' well know the effects of Degeneracy, because they're surrounded by it.  And pretty much without exception... people experienced in the depravity of war, have no tolerance for degeneracy or the degenerates advocating for it.

And THAT is why wholesale sexual deviancy always precludes war... and is never found in the wake of such.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Again, you're offering us the first mover argument.



Well, to be fair, we just call it "The Beginning".

But thanks for sharing your feelings with regard to alternative names.


----------



## mdk (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



That sure is a lot of words just to say you're too much of a gash to fight in this war of yours.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar, YOU and YOUR CULT... are forcing the war.  YOU and YOUR CULT... are already starting the war.



There is no war. You have no army. You won't even fight yourself.

*All you have are comforting little lies you tell yourself for why nothing you predict actually happened.* And elaborate murder fantasies where you go into excruciating detail on exactly about how the 'leftists' will be murdered, how their heads will be removed, how they will be mounted on pikes, how their cities will burn.

*Back in reality, our fighting age folks aren't killing anyone or shedding a drop of their own blood to play out your civil war fetish or enact your insane murder fantasies.*

Get used to the idea. When even you don't buy your bullshit, surely you can understand why none of us are going to bleed for it.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

mdk said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...



Its just straight up delusion. In Keyes little world he imagines if he hates hard enough that Millenials will magically sacrifice their own lives and start playing out Keyes' insane murder fantasies.

Um, apparently 'because'.

Yet even Keyes won't fight in his imaginary 'civil war'. Its just another in a laundry list of hopeless self delusion, comic breaks from reality, and empty pseudo-legal gibberish that predicts nothing, effects nothing, and is gloriously irrelevant.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

And THAT Reader is how THAT is done.

Remember that the key to defeating Leftists in Debate requires respect for two essential elements:

1- Find a Leftist.

2- _Get them to speak._


----------



## Faun (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Gay_Keys said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Gay_Keys said:
> ...


Poor, demented, gay blade ... the war's over. You lost.

*Obergefell v. Hodges*

_They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right._

_The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed._

_It is so ordered._​ 
... you're like those Japs my grandfather told me about who kept fighting the war after it ended, not knowing their emperor already threw in the towel.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> And THAT Reader is how THAT is done.
> 
> Remember that the key to defeating Leftists in Debate requires respect for two essential elements:
> 
> ...



Non-sequitur much? You're literally cutting pasting phrases at random....all while abandoning your entire argument.

And newsflash: You STILL haven't factually established any cause and effect. With the most rudimentary application of common reason decimating your argument: as if a society embraces homosexuality or doesn't.....it still eventually collapses.

When the 'effect' exists regardless of the presence of your 'cause', your cause isn't.

*This is basic cause and effect.* And still, you're utterly confounded.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar, YOU and YOUR CULT... are forcing the war.  YOU and YOUR CULT... are already starting the war.
> ...



Huh... straw reasoning.  LMAO!  _Nothing particularly subjective about *THAT! 
*_
(Reader, what Skylar is telling you is that there is no war coming and just because the Supreme Court of the United States just conjured up a Right from the ether, which precludes the states from governing acceptable behavior... licensing degeneracy, which has a bull's eye printing on the diapers of your children, doesn't give you any reason to expect that these creatures intend to harm you or anyone else.  They're simply securing the rights of everyone to pursue anyone for sexual gratification and to marry whatever their respective kink leads them to join with, so that they can secure the same financial bonanza that you received when you married, conceived and raised a house full of kids.

So fear not... they're reasonable people who only require you to keep your religion to yourself and do whatever the homo-cult requires of you, *OR ELSE!)*


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

Faun said:


> Where_r_my_Gay_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...



Yes yes... Reader, there's NO CHANCE that the Left will be cranking up the campaign to secure equal protections for the Rights of your Children... and just because Hillary has been a longstanding purveyor of such filth, which FYI: Includes the right to sexual consent, doesn't mean that you've cause for 'concern'.  Because such concern is HATEFUL!

Now with the US Federal Government having already licensed Degeneracy, raising such to a protected class...  once your child has the right to sexual consent, then you will have no choice but to accept the budding relationship with a caring, loving adult, who perhaps enjoys employment which provides for some authority and influence over your child... but without regard to the overt violation of everything that is decent, you will have no say in it and anything you DO SAY, will be recognized as HATE SPEECH.

Now just stand by for the collective OUTRAGE... which you may recognize if you're sufficiently long in the tooth, was their reaction back in the 70s, when it was suggested that the removal of the sodomy laws could result in Homosexuals demanding the right to serve openly in the Military or... dare they suggest: TO MARRY!

OH!  How they were OUTRAGED at _the very SUGGESTION of such a thing!_


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


Clearly you have no idea what 'straw reasoning' means. 

As the fact that there is no war, no army, nor anyone to fight it is immediately relevant to the fact that your imaginary 'civil war' is just another variant of your insane murder fantasies. 

Even you aren't going to fight. And you're in excellent company.* No one else is either. *



> (Reader, what Skylar is telling you is that there is no war coming and just because the Supreme Court of the United States just conjured up a Right from the ether, which precludes the states from governing acceptable behavior... licensing degeneracy, which has a bull's eye printing on the diapers of your children, doesn't give you any reason to expect that these creatures intend to harm you or anyone else.  They're simply securing the rights of everyone to pursue anyone for sexual gratification and to marry whatever their respective kink leads them to join with, so that they can secure the same financial bonanza that you received when you married, conceived and raised a house full of kids.



No matter how many times you talk to yourself......Millennials still don't give a shit about your little civil war fetish and insane murder fantasies. They overwhelmingly support gay marriage. They're not killing anyone nor shedding a drop of their own blood because YOU think you speak for god.

You can't even convince yourself to fight. *Even you don't buy your bullshit. *And neither does anyone else.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Gay_Keys said:
> ...



You're still just talking to yourself. You are your own audience. And even YOU don't buy your bullshit. As you can't even convince yourself to fight in your imaginary 'civil war'.

Imagine how little your babble matters to anyone else. 



> Now just stand by for the collective OUTRAGE... which you may recognize if you're sufficiently long in the tooth, was their reaction back in the 70s, when it was suggested that the removal of the sodomy laws could result in Homosexuals demanding the right to serve openly in the Military or... dare they suggest: TO MARRY!
> 
> OH!  How they were OUTRAGED at _the very SUGGESTION of such a thing!_



You're not the 'collective', Keyes. You're expressing* your* feelings. And* your* emotions. *Your* subjective beliefs. *Your* assumptions. And even you can't sell you on your bullshit. To say nothing of some imaginary 'collective'.

And Milllenials, our fighting age folks, who support gay marriage by more than 80%......*they don't give a shit what you believe. *They don't care what comforting lies you tell yourself. They neither know nor care that you even exist.

And they're not sacrificing *their* lives to satisfy *your* insane murder fantasies. No one is. You're deluding yourself.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 7, 2015)

Lol...millenials. It is to laugh.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Again... let's review to bring the issue back to point.
> 
> A lack of respect for God and God's Laws have stifled the Spirit of God within the Degenerate.



Which god? Remember, your conception of god has no factual, logical, or rational basis. When pressed for any such, you offer us the 'first mover' argument. But a first mover argument need do nothing more than move first. There's no mandate that it is sentient, no mandate it is good, no requirement that it have a 'plan' or the capacity for planning, that it be aware we exist, have awareness, _not even a requirement that it exist after moving first._

*You've imagined all of that.* Citing your feelings, subjective beliefs and personal interpretation. Which you laughably label as 'objective'.

Yeah, I don't think 'objective' means what you think it means. *As you keep equating anything you can possibly make up with 'objectivity'. *



> Absent the Spirit of God, the Degenerate lacks access to the light of God's Reason, thus is limited to mirky filth of subjectivism... or that which is OKA: Relativism...



Says you, citing you. Where you are quite literally citing your feelings and subjective beliefs as GOD.

Which is about as relativistic as it gets.* Your subjective opinion doesn't establish 'truth', 'morality', the 'spirit of god', 'nature', or any of the other Appeal to Authority fallacies that you've deluded yourself into believing.*

You're stuck. You can't establish causation, can't factually establish that embracing homosexuality causes a society to collapse, can't even offer us a logical or rational basis for your conception of god. To say nothing of a factual one.

Which again, is why you failed.


----------



## mdk (Jul 7, 2015)

Keys has been reduced to spamming again. That should rally the troops to his cause. What a gash!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> You're still just talking to yourself. You are your own audience. And even YOU don't buy your bullshit. As you can't even convince yourself to fight in your imaginary 'civil war'.



LOL!

Well... There's nothing particularly SUBJECTIVE in *THAT*, _now is there?_

ROFLMNAO!  _Hysterical... and in every sense of the word._

Anyone need anything else?


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> Lol...millenials. It is to laugh.



Seriously. Its not like they're going to cancel their hot yoga or Pilaties class to start Keyes' 'responsibility to eradicate homosexuals' fantasy. Especially when they support gay marriage by 80% and more.

And these are our fighting age folks. They aren't killing anyone or shedding a drop of their own blood because some random internet poster despises gay people.


----------



## Faun (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Gay_Keys said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Gay_Keys said:
> ...


Hey, gay blade ... ya think _the reader_ won't notice your response had nothing to do with my post or won't they notice you're posting your delusions on the forum again?


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > You're still just talking to yourself. You are your own audience. And even YOU don't buy your bullshit. As you can't even convince yourself to fight in your imaginary 'civil war'.
> ...



You're talking to yourself about a war *you can't even convince yourself to fight.*

But for no particular reason, Millennials who support gay marriage by 80% and more are going to start fighting and dying in your little civil war fantasy because the Supreme Court upheld the very gay marriage_ they overwhelmingly support?_

Um, no. None of that is happening*. Your argument doesn't make the slightest sense.* You can't even convince yourself of your own bullshit. Imagine how meaningless your babble is to everyone else.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Faun said:


> Where_r_my_Gay_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Seriously. Its just word salad at this point, with Keyes' replies having almost nothing to do with the posts he's replying to. Its like trying to have a conversation with a Magic 8 ball.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

mdk said:


> Keys has been reduced to spamming again. That should rally the troops to his cause. What a gash!



Yeah,  like Ctrl + V is gonna convince Millennials to sacrifice their lives fighting a ruling _they overwhelmingly support. _

Sigh....you can't fix stupid.


----------



## mdk (Jul 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Keys has been reduced to spamming again. That should rally the troops to his cause. What a gash!
> ...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Again... let's review to bring the issue back to point.
> ...



OH!  That's wonderful Skylar.  But you should know that resubmitting points through which you've already conceded, do not actually induce validity... rendering the discredited points somehow worthy of consideration.

I hope that helps... . 

_Your Re-concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## mdk (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Notice you don't even attempt to refute any point I've raised. But are merely giving us excuses for _why you can't._ Remember that.

You're stuck. Your entire argument is hopelessly dependant on us accepting whatever haplessness nonsense you imagine as 'truth', 'morality', nature', and objectivity*. And when we don't join you in your fantasy......your entire argument collapses.*

*As its always just you citing yourself. *Which defines nothing objectively.

You can't get around that.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Again... let's review to bring the issue back to point.
> 
> A lack of respect for God and God's Laws have stifled the Spirit of God within the Degenerate.



Which god? Remember, your conception of god has no factual, logical, or rational basis. When pressed for any such, you offer us the 'first mover' argument. But a first mover argument need do nothing more than move first. There's no mandate that it is sentient, no mandate it is good, no requirement that it have a 'plan' or the capacity for planning, that it be aware we exist, have awareness, _not even a requirement that it exist after moving first._

*You've imagined all of that.* Citing your feelings, subjective beliefs and personal interpretation. Which you laughably label as 'objective'.

Yeah, I don't think 'objective' means what you think it means. *As you keep equating anything you can possibly make up with 'objectivity'. *



> Absent the Spirit of God, the Degenerate lacks access to the light of God's Reason, thus is limited to mirky filth of subjectivism... or that which is OKA: Relativism...



Says you, citing you. Where you are quite literally citing your feelings and subjective beliefs as GOD.

Which is about as relativistic as it gets.* Your subjective opinion doesn't establish 'truth', 'morality', the 'spirit of god', 'nature', or any of the other Appeal to Authority fallacies that you've deluded yourself into believing.*

You're stuck. You can't establish causation, can't factually establish that embracing homosexuality causes a society to collapse, can't even offer us a logical or rational basis for your conception of god. To say nothing of a factual one.

Which again, is why you failed.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Oh, Keyes.......use logic or reason to establish any characteristic of a 'first mover' beyond moving first. 

There's a reason you won't touch this with a 10 foot pole. As logically, factually or rationally.....there is none. Which you know. But really hope we don't.


----------



## Faun (Jul 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Gay_Keys said:
> ...


It's not just word salad. He is conveying a message, as crude as it is ... what he is saying, whether he's capable of realizing it or not -- it that he's no different than ISIS. He's promoting the same terrorist tactics they resort to for the same reason they resort to them. The same way ISIS terrorists cut off peoples' heads in barbaric fashion and display them for the world to see with their unforgiving measures to make people conform to their beliefs or die in the most brutal manners imaginable; so too, where_is_my_isis pines for such measures to be taken here in the U.S., to make Liberals conform to his demented world views.

gay blade and ISIS -- two peas in a pod.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Faun said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Down to the beheadings.


----------



## Faun (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Gay_Keys said:


> Again... let's review to bring the issue back to point.
> 
> A lack of respect for God and God's Laws have stifled the Spirit of God within the Degenerate.
> 
> ...


Your never-ending butthurt is duly noted.


----------



## Faun (Jul 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


Yup. Poor gay blade is thoroughly fucked in the head.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

Yet ANOTHER way that the Advocacy to Normalize Degeneracy harms people:

_"Abbate told the student he didn’t, in fact, “have the right, especially [*in an ethics class]*, to make homophobic comments or racist comments.”_

Of course, 'Homophobic' is a colloquialism which has no basis in reality... and serves only as a means to cow those who recognize degeneracy for what it is; _having lost the physical, mental, or moral qualities considered normal and desirable; showing evidence of decline, inviable. _

_"She said the class discussion was centered on restricting the rights and liberties of individuals, but said that making arguments against gay marriage in the presence of a gay person was comparable to telling Abbate that women's professional options should be limited. She invited him to drop the course if he opposed her policy."

Marquette U. grad student she s being targeted after ending a class discussion on gay marriage InsideHigherEd_


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

Again... let's review to bring the issue back to point.

A lack of respect for God and God's Laws have stifled the Spirit of God within the Degenerate.

Absent the Spirit of God, the Degenerate lacks access to the light of God's Reason, thus is limited to mirky filth of subjectivism... or that which is OKA: _Relativism..._

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's own 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 by lacking kinship with and, the means to recognize Truth, this cripples the means of the Relativist to *TRUST*; as *truth is essential to trust*...

Lacking the means to trust, there is no basis on which those so afflicted can come to agreement upon *a soundly reasoned MORALITY.*..

And absent a soundly reasoned morality...* there is no basis in Relativism from which to serve JUSTICE.*

And THAT is the greater outline of Degeneracy and how it _HARMS *EVERYONE*_*...*

The US has now come to the point where the Judiciary is crowned: *The Supreme Legislature*, wherein the Majority of Judicial Votes supersede Sound (Objective) Reason, The Constitution (Objective) and The Law (Objective); thus the means to serve justice is wholly and entirely: _CRIPPLED.  

It was this addled departure from sound principle which removed the Mental Disorder that Presents as Sexual Deviancy from the medical register of such maladies.  Was Medical Justice Served?   Of course not.  And did the ramifications of that profound error remain limited to Medicine?  NO IT DID NOT!  It trickled down and throughout the culture...  rotting it from it's core with catastrophic consequences.   _But, I digress... 

Now Reader, understand, they lack the means to reason objectively... therefore they have no means to _understand _what was just provided for them... let alone the means to understand such sufficiently to_ agree with it._

The point here is not to convince those who lack the intellectual acuity to reason..._ the point is to help them to  demonstrate that they lack the means to reason, for the edification of the sound human beings, so that they can finally come to understand where the problem is, why its a problem and to steel themselves for the unenviable tasks which are just before them, once these individuals mount the inevitable attack upon them.  _

It's not even a potential question in terms of "IF" they will attack, it is only a question of when the attack will come and in what form.

We've seen it tested in small markets with ruthless commitment, and all that remains is for them to adapt the local tactics, to the national scale.

Everyday we're treated to reports where the racial minorities among the Left have brutally murdered or savagely beaten innocents... we see it played out on Youtube and other web venues, we watch the Left foment racial animosity... we see them foment animosity at every point where such can be advanced.

So the intent is clear, the willingness is likewise just as clear.

We're now simply waiting for the main assault... and like most things profane, you will not have any problem knowing it when you see it... then, it falls to you, to do what you must to avoid the impact of it.  As the next day will be that of the "GREAT GETTIN' UP MORNIN'... " When all accounts are settled and the accounting doesn't stop, until there's none left to count.

Now, if THAT is not harm as a consequence of Degeneracy... then such simply _does not exist._


----------



## Carla_Danger (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Again... let's review to bring the issue back to point.
> 
> A lack of respect for God and God's Laws have stifled the Spirit of God within the Degenerate.
> 
> ...




Preach it, Ted!


----------



## Carla_Danger (Jul 7, 2015)




----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

Reader, Carla is implying that the contest of Degeneracy, is a certain sign of a degenerate.  

If you're keeping score, that is a profound demonstration of Relativism, OKA: Degeneracy.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

mdk said:


> (Now Reader, understand, that Keys is a huge pussy that believes his civil war fetish will come to pass but he expects you, the Reader, to do all the bleeding while he sits on his fat relativitist ass. Such is the nature of cowardly bitches)


----------



## mdk (Jul 7, 2015)




----------



## Carla_Danger (Jul 7, 2015)

Dear reader, I suggest you take a good look at Where_r_my_brains and his obsession with gay sex. It's almost all he posts about. This is his topic, morning, noon, and night. Frankly, there is something very unhealthy going on here. I suggest that we all be supportive during his transition.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> Dear reader, I suggest you take a good look at Where_r_my_brains and his obsession with gay sex. It's almost all he posts about. This is his topic, morning, noon, and night. Frankly, there is something very unhealthy going on here. I suggest that we all be supportive during his transition.



See?

Apparently, the Democrat Underground is demanding that their membership accuse those who contest the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Degeneracy... of being sexual degenerates.

This they do, as a result of their own experiences in trying to escape the shame intrinsic to sexual degeneracy.  They hope to project that shame on those who's contest of normalizing that shame... seeks to prevent others from being subjected to it.

Sadly, it seems that the Homo-Cult is determined to spread as much shame as is humanly possible, through whatever means possible.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

Another example of the intentions of the Homo-Cult to injure others:

*"Will anti-gay Christians be politically and socially ostracized? I sure hope so." Sally Kohn
*
*



*​
Read more: Leftist Pundit Christians Against Same Sex Marriage Deserve To Be Persecuted


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 7, 2015)

No, Keys has not established cause and effect.

He has alleged it, citing himself as an authority on natural law and God's will.

He is no authority, and in fact, he acts as a two-bit shyster in a cheap criminal novel. 

Jesse Pinkman marked the type of individual Key has become.  "You want a criminal attorney, an attorney who is a criminal."

Keys is a criminal shyster.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Dear reader, I suggest you take a good look at Where_r_my_brains and his obsession with gay sex. It's almost all he posts about. This is his topic, morning, noon, and night. Frankly, there is something very unhealthy going on here. I suggest that we all be supportive during his transition.
> ...




Your obsession is morning, noon, and night.

Right wing Christian zealots have given Christianity a black eye, by turning religion into a mean spirited political weapon.

Do you know who else uses their religion to hate?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

In yet another demonstration of how we are ALL injured by the Federal Government Licensing of Degeneracy, we find this: 






_"Parents across the state of Massachusetts are outraged after they found out a survey is being handed out to their middle and high school children that quizzes them on gay, oral, and anal sex....
_​_The quiz asks students if they are gay or transgender. It also asks them if they have ever had oral or anal sex or if they have performed these acts on up to six people.

According to Breitbart, experts say the affects of a quiz like this could be devastating.

The group MassResistance says the survey is “psychologically distorting” and will likely lead the child to think he is “abnormal if he is not doing it all.” They also claimed that “the survey results are used by radical groups from Planned Parenthood to LGBT groups to persuade politicians to give more taxpayer money [to] these groups.”

A public hearing took place Wednesday morning at the Massachusetts State House, where officials looked into the controversial sex survey. Parents should know that this quiz is given on a national basis, so children all across the country are being forced to take it."_

Schools Quiz Twelve-Year-Olds about Gay Oral and Anal Sex - Breitbart


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

Again... let's review to bring the issue back to point.

A lack of respect for God and God's Laws have stifled the Spirit of God within the Degenerate.

Absent the Spirit of God, the Degenerate lacks access to the light of God's Reason, thus is limited to mirky filth of subjectivism... or that which is OKA: _Relativism..._

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's own 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 by lacking kinship with and, the means to recognize Truth, this cripples the means of the Relativist to *TRUST*; as *truth is essential to trust*...

Lacking the means to trust, there is no basis on which those so afflicted can come to agreement upon *a soundly reasoned MORALITY.*..

And absent a soundly reasoned morality...* there is no basis in Relativism from which to serve JUSTICE.*

And THAT is the greater outline of Degeneracy and how it _HARMS *EVERYONE*_*...*

The US has now come to the point where the Judiciary is crowned: *The Supreme Legislature*, wherein the Majority of Judicial Votes supersede Sound (Objective) Reason, The Constitution (Objective) and The Law (Objective); thus the means to serve justice is wholly and entirely: _CRIPPLED. 

It was this addled departure from sound principle which removed the Mental Disorder that Presents as Sexual Deviancy from the medical register of such maladies. Was Medical Justice Served? Of course not. And did the ramifications of that profound error remain limited to Medicine? NO IT DID NOT! It trickled down and throughout the culture... rotting it from it's core with catastrophic consequences. _But, I digress... 

Now Reader, understand, they lack the means to reason objectively... therefore they have no means to _understand _what was just provided for them... let alone the means to understand such sufficiently to_ agree with it._

The point here is not to convince those who lack the intellectual acuity to reason..._ the point is to help them to demonstrate that they lack the means to reason, for the edification of the sound human beings, so that they can finally come to understand where the problem is, why its a problem and to steel themselves for the unenviable tasks which are just before them, once these individuals mount the inevitable attack upon them. _

It's not even a potential question in terms of "IF" they will attack, it is only a question of when the attack will come and in what form.

We've seen it tested in small markets with ruthless commitment, and all that remains is for them to adapt the local tactics, to the national scale.

Everyday we're treated to reports where the racial minorities among the Left have brutally murdered or savagely beaten innocents... we see it played out on Youtube and other web venues, we watch the Left foment racial animosity... we see them foment animosity at every point where such can be advanced.

So the intent is clear, the willingness is likewise just as clear.

We're now simply waiting for the main assault... and like most things profane, you will not have any problem knowing it when you see it... then, it falls to you, to do what you must to avoid the impact of it. As the next day will be that of the "GREAT GETTIN' UP MORNIN'... " When all accounts are settled and the accounting doesn't stop, until there's none left to count.

Now, if THAT is not harm as a consequence of Degeneracy... then such simply _does not exist._


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

*How does the Licensing of Degeneracy Injure US?*

*Here's a solid example: *

*Schools Give 11-Year-Olds Birth Control Without Parental Consent*
_
"School-based health clinics in at least 13 Seattle-area public high schools and middle schools offer long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs), including IUDs and hormonal implants, to students in sixth-grade and above at no cost, according to Washington State officials."

Schools Give 11-Year-Olds Birth Control Without Parental Consent_


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 7, 2015)

How does the Federal Licensing of Degeneracy injure people?

*‘Get the Hell Out’: Activist’s Frank Call for Military Chaplains Who Don’t Support Gay Marriage and Homosexuality.*

*Following the Supreme Legislature’s gay marriage ruling, an activist is calling for the removal of “all homophobic military chaplains” who openly share their biblical views about sexuality, pushing back against claims that gays and lesbians are “sinners” for “choosing” their lifestyle.

Mikey Weinstein, president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, a group that the monitors perceived violations of the separation of church and state, originally proclaimed in an op-ed publishedfollowing last month’s gay marriage ruling that chaplains vocally opposed to same-sex nuptials and homosexuality should voluntarily vacate their role, or be terminated by the Department of Defense.


“If chaplains believe that they must preach to their troops a message that their [lesbian, gay, bi] brothers and sisters are ‘sinners’ because they have ‘chosen to be [lesbian, gay, bi]‘ then MRFF demands that such chaplains either voluntarily leave the military or be immediately terminated,” Weinstein said in an email to TheBlaze.

Weinstein argued that anyone who preaches such sentiment in the military — even those who are not chaplains — should also be removed, as he believes that these denunciations are destructive to the cohesiveness, uniformity and morale that is sought within the armed forces.

 Get the Hell Out Activist s Frank Call for Military Chaplains Who Don t Support Gay Marriage and Homosexuality TheBlaze.com
*


----------



## Faun (Jul 7, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> How does the Federal Licensing of Degeneracy injure people?
> 
> *‘Get the Hell Out’: Activist’s Frank Call for Military Chaplains Who Don’t Support Gay Marriage and Homosexuality.*
> 
> ...


... and the butthurt drags on ...


----------



## Skylar (Jul 8, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Again... let's review to bring the issue back to point.
> 
> A lack of respect for God and God's Laws have stifled the Spirit of God within the Degenerate.



And again, your conception of god is without reason, evidence, or logic. As your sole basis of evidence is the first mover argument. Which doesn't infer or mandate anything beyond moving first. Your subjective assumptions that this first mover has any characteristics of your 'god' is unfounded. There's no need that a first mover be sentient. Or good. Or have a plan. Or design anything. Or be capable of designing anything. Or be all powerful. Or all knowing. Or have any awareness. Or even exist once it has moved first.

*You assume it all. And can factually establish none of it. *Rendering your entire basis of argument merely an empty Appeal to Authortiy fallacy and a Begging the Question fallacy. As you can't back any of it.

Which is why you keep running from the stunning lack of evidence, reason or logic behind your claims. And you run every time the topic is raised. *You always tell us where you know your argument is weakest.....but what you fastidiously avoid. And you won't touch the subjective nature of your conception of god with a 10 foot pole.*

If your argument had merit, it could withstand a few questions. Yours collapses when questioned.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 8, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> *How does the Licensing of Degeneracy Injure US?*
> 
> *Here's a solid example: *
> 
> ...



Which has nothing to do with same sex marriage. You're essentially posting at random at this point.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 8, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> How does the Federal Licensing of Degeneracy injure people?
> 
> *‘Get the Hell Out’: Activist’s Frank Call for Military Chaplains Who Don’t Support Gay Marriage and Homosexuality.*
> 
> ...



And what injury are you claiming? Specifically.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 8, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> In yet another demonstration of how we are ALL injured by the Federal Government Licensing of Degeneracy, we find this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



None of which has a thing to do with gay marriage. 

Try again.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 8, 2015)

WHERE_R_MY_KEYS SAID:

"According to Breitbart..."

You can't be serious.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 8, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...



Oh, its awful. I feel for actual Christians. As their faith is being hijacked by the most insane, hateful, batshit individuals our society can produce. Those calling for the 'eradication of homosexuals' and offering elaborate and deeply disturbed murder fantasies of the 'leftists', complete with ISIS style beheading and heads on pikes.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 8, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...


Perhaps this helps him vent his unwarranted hatred of gay Americans in a manner not harmful to himself or others.

But mental health treatment is very much in order.


----------



## Politico (Jul 8, 2015)

Faun said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


No one cares about gay marriage.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Jul 8, 2015)

Politico said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...




Hence the title of this thread....


----------



## mdk (Jul 8, 2015)

Politico said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...



Which is why thread after thread is started about it.


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2015)

Politico said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...


So prove it. You're even nuttier than you appear if you think I just take your word for it.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 8, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



ROFLMNAO!


Absolutely ADORABLE!

_Degeneracy_ is "The New Sanity"....  

Well... there's nothing particularly EVIL about THAT!  
​


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 8, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> WHERE_R_MY_KEYS SAID:
> 
> "According to Breitbart..."
> 
> You can't be serious.



OH!  How nice, our in-house would-be Barrister stops by to offer its Concession.

_Your concession is Duly Noted and Summarily accepted._


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 8, 2015)

Politico said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...



Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 8, 2015)

On the "Sanity Fights Back against Evil" Page...

*KANSAS issues an Executive Order on Religious FREEDOM After Gay Marriage Ruling*

*"Gov. Sam Brownback issued an executive order prohibiting state government from taking action against clergy members or religious organizations that deny services to couples based on religious beliefs.*

*Among other things, the order is intended to protect religious organizations that provide adoption services for the state from having to place children with gay couples if that conflicts with their beliefs.*

*“We have a duty to govern and to govern in accordance with the Constitution as it has been determined by the Supreme Court decision,” Brownback said in a statement. “We also recognize that religious liberty is at the heart of who we are as Kansans and Americans, and should be protected.”*

*The governor’s order came when that state workers were told their same-sex spouses could be added to their health plans.*

*Brownback said the order protects “Kansas clergy and religious organizations from being forced to participate in activities that violate their sincerely and deeply held beliefs.”*

*This is how Rev. Graham commented on the issue:*

*Today Kansas Governor Sam Brownback issued an Executive Order to protect ‪#‎religiousfreedom‬ in his state–thank you Governor for taking action! Executive Order 15-05, “Preservation and Protection of Religious Freedom,” protects Kansas clergy and religious organizations from being forced to go against their sincerely held religious beliefs. Our religious freedom is something to be protected at all cost—if you could ask all those who have died to give it to us, I’m sure they would be quick to tell you that we’d better not let it slip through our fingers. Let’s challenge every governor to step up and do the same for their state. Governor Pat McCrory of NC, how about it?"*

*Gov. Sam Brownback issues executive order on religious liberty after same-sex marriage ruling The Wichita Eagle The Wichita Eagle*


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 8, 2015)

Again... let's review to bring the issue back to point.

A lack of respect for God and God's Laws have stifled the Spirit of God within the Degenerate.

Absent the Spirit of God, the Degenerate lacks access to the light of God's Reason, thus is limited to mirky filth of subjectivism... or that which is OKA: _Relativism..._

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's own 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 by lacking kinship with and, the means to recognize Truth, this cripples the means of the Relativist to *TRUST*; as *truth is essential to trust*...

Lacking the means to trust, there is no basis on which those so afflicted can come to agreement upon *a soundly reasoned MORALITY.*..

And absent a soundly reasoned morality...* there is no basis in Relativism from which to serve JUSTICE.*

And THAT is the greater outline of Degeneracy and how it _HARMS *EVERYONE*_*...*

The US has now come to the point where the Judiciary is crowned: *The Supreme Legislature*, wherein the Majority of Judicial Votes supersede Sound (Objective) Reason, The Constitution (Objective) and The Law (Objective); thus the means to serve justice is wholly and entirely: _CRIPPLED. 

It was this addled departure from sound principle which removed the Mental Disorder that Presents as Sexual Deviancy from the medical register of such maladies. Was Medical Justice Served? Of course not. And did the ramifications of that profound error remain limited to Medicine? NO IT DID NOT! It trickled down and throughout the culture... rotting it from it's core with catastrophic consequences. _But, I digress... 

Now Reader, understand, they lack the means to reason objectively... therefore they have no means to _understand _what was just provided for them... let alone the means to understand such sufficiently to_ agree with it._

The point here is not to convince those who lack the intellectual acuity to reason..._ the point is to help them to demonstrate that they lack the means to reason, for the edification of the sound human beings, so that they can finally come to understand where the problem is, why its a problem and to steel themselves for the unenviable tasks which are just before them, once these individuals mount the inevitable attack upon them. _

It's not even a potential question in terms of "IF" they will attack, it is only a question of when the attack will come and in what form.

We've seen it tested in small markets with ruthless commitment, and all that remains is for them to adapt the local tactics, to the national scale.

Everyday we're treated to reports where the racial minorities among the Left have brutally murdered or savagely beaten innocents... we see it played out on Youtube and other web venues, we watch the Left foment racial animosity... we see them foment animosity at every point where such can be advanced.

So the intent is clear, the willingness is likewise just as clear.

We're now simply waiting for the main assault... and like most things profane, you will not have any problem knowing it when you see it... then, it falls to you, to do what you must to avoid the impact of it. As the next day will be that of the "GREAT GETTIN' UP MORNIN'... " When all accounts are settled and the accounting doesn't stop, until there's none left to count.

Now, if THAT is not harm as a consequence of Degeneracy... then such simply _does not exist._


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 8, 2015)

Yet another example of how the Pretense of Marriage for the lowly degenerate harms EVERYONE:

*Looks like Christian Colleges Are Next Target for Homo-Cult Activists’ Following Federal Licensing of Degeneracy!*

*"An activist who embraces strict parameters surrounding the separation of church and state said this week that it is “on the edge of the indefensible” for Christian colleges to take government funds, yet refuse to offer married housing to same-sex couples.*

*Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a First Amendment watchdog, told the Christian Post that the time has come to have a discussion about educational institutions that discriminate based on sexuality.*


*“I think that the issue with [LGBT] rights is a little bit different [from race]. The evolution of the issue is moving at least as quickly as we have moved in the area of race and that this is a national dialogue that ought to begin about, should in fact benefits be given to educational institutions that do in fact discriminate,” Lynn told the outlet. “Even now, I would not want to be a person at a fundamentalist academy who is trying to defend the practice, that is taking a reasonable amount of government funds and refusing to allow a same-sex married couple to live in the married student housing. I think even now, that would be on the edge of the indefensible.” "*

*Are Christian Colleges Activists Next Target Following Gay Marriage Legalization TheBlaze.com*


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 8, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> On the "Sanity Fights Back against Evil" Page...
> 
> *KANSAS issues an Executive Order on Religious FREEDOM After Gay Marriage Ruling*



Next Brownback is going to rule that the Kansas drought is illegal and that all government officials are obligated to not be part of the drought.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 8, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Again... let's review to bring the issue back to point.
> _._



Point by point- Keys thinks God is talking to him and is telling him that its okay to kill anyone he disagrees with.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 8, 2015)

Er...the headline is grammatically incorrect and makes no sense.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 8, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> Er...the headline is grammatically incorrect and makes no sense.



Yeah, that was a bit of a train-wreck.  Fixed it... .


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 8, 2015)

*How does Licensing Degeneracy hurt us all?*

*Here's yet another example:*

*"Leftists Call for Impeachment of OH Judge Who Refused to Marry Gays Over His Religious Principles"*

*"Liberals are now rallying forces in Toledo, Ohio to try and impeach a municipal judge who refused to marry a gay couple because of his personal religious principles.*

*Toledo Municipal Judge Allen McConnell respectfully refused to marry a gay couple on Monday and a second judge stepped in to do the deed. But that wasn’t enough for the left.*

*Now they want his head.*

*The Left is already calling for the impeachment of Toledo Municipal Judge Allen McConnell who respectfully declined to marry a same-sex couple Monday.*

*“I declined to marry a non-traditional couple during my duties assignment,” he said per Reuters. “The declination was based upon my personal and Christian beliefs established over many years. I apologize to the couple for the delay they experienced and wish them the best.”*

*Another Ohio judge, William Connelly, Jr., stepped in and performed the gay-wedding for the two women.*

*Reuters also reports that McConnell is looking for direction on this issue from the Ohio Supreme Court.*

*There really isn’t any logical grounds to impeach McConnell, here. The marriage was carried out and the new Supreme Court law does not require individual people to be forced to participate in gay marriage–even judges.*

*



*


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 8, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> *How does Licensing Degeneracy hurt us all?*
> 
> *Here's yet another example:*
> 
> ...



You conservatives sure do love yourselves the Nazis.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 8, 2015)

And all in only two weeks.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 9, 2015)

In another example of of The Licensing of Degeneracy HARMS EVERYONE, we find THIS:

*'Paedophilia is natural and normal for males'*

I've spoken to this many times and will do so many more, but this article is a demonstration of what the "Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality' is all about.

Now, the newly established US Supreme Legislature has now fully licensed Degeneracy, effectively establishing the adherents to such as a Legally Protected Class. 

So all that is necessary to FULLY IMPLEMENT LEGAL CHILD MOLESTATION is to secure Equal Protection Under the Law for YOUR CHILDREN; and the Democrats Leading Candidate for President of the Cult is a LONG TIME PROPONENT OF EQUAL PROTECTION UNDE THE LAW FOR CHILDREN!

You can rest assured that this will axiomatically include the right of sexual consent for your children... thus where a person that the Left has set into a position of trust and authority over your child, enters into a caring relationship with your child, who loves and understands him... you will have ABSOLUTELY NO MEANS TO SO MUCH AS CONTEST HIS SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR MINOR CHILD.

This article demonstrates the longstanding advocacy for such in Academia and other Leftist strongholds.

_*“Pedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” said the presentation. “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.”*

*Some yellowing tract from the Seventies or early Eighties, era of abusive celebrities and the infamous PIE, the Pedophile Information Exchange? No. Anonymous commenters on some underground website? No again.*

*The statement that pedophilia is “natural and normal” was made not three decades ago. It was made not in private but as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organizers, to many of the key experts in the field at a conference held by the University of Cambridge.*

*Other presentations included “Liberating the pedophile: a discursive analysis,” and “Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia.”*

*Hebephilia is the sexual preference for children in early puberty, typically 11 to 14-year-olds.*

*Another attendee, and enthusiastic participant from the floor, was one Tom O’Carroll, a multiple child sex offender, long-time campaigner for the legalization of sex with children and former head of the Pedophile Information Exchange. “Wonderful!” he wrote on his blog afterwards. “It was a rare few days when I could feel relatively popular!”*

*Ken Plummer is emeritus professor of sociology at Essex University, he said:*

*“Pedophiles are told they are the seducers and rapists of children; they know their experiences are often loving and tender ones. They are told that children are pure and innocent, devoid of sexuality; they know both from their own experiences of childhood and from the children they meet that this is not the case.”*

*....*

*A key factor in what happened all those decades ago in the dressing rooms of the BBC, the wards of the NHS and, allegedly, the corridors of power was not just institutional failings or establishment “conspiracies”, but a climate of far greater intellectual tolerance of practices that horrify today. *

*With the Pill, the legalisation of homosexuality and shrinking taboos against premarital sex, the Seventies was an era of quite sudden sexual emancipation. Many liberals, of course, saw through PIE’s cynical rhetoric of “child lib”. But to others on the Left, sex by or with children was just another repressive boundary to be swept away – and some of the most important backing came from academia. *

*In 1981, a respectable publisher, Batsford, published Perspectives on Paedophilia, edited by Brian Taylor, a sociology lecturer at Sussex University, to challenge what Dr Taylor’s introduction called the “prejudice” against child sex. Disturbingly, the book was aimed at “social workers, community workers, probation officers and child care workers”.*

_
Paedophilia is natural and normal for males - Telegraph


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 9, 2015)

Again... let's review to bring the issue back to point.

A lack of respect for God and God's Laws have stifled the Spirit of God within the Degenerate.

Absent the Spirit of God, the Degenerate lacks access to the light of God's Reason, thus is limited to mirky filth of subjectivism... or that which is OKA: _Relativism..._

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's own 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 by lacking kinship with and, the means to recognize Truth, this cripples the means of the Relativist to *TRUST*; as *truth is essential to trust*...

Lacking the means to trust, there is no basis on which those so afflicted can come to agreement upon *a soundly reasoned MORALITY.*..

And absent a soundly reasoned morality...* there is no basis in Relativism from which to serve JUSTICE.*

And THAT is the greater outline of Degeneracy and how it _HARMS *EVERYONE*_*...*

The US has now come to the point where the Judiciary is crowned: *The Supreme Legislature*, wherein the Majority of Judicial Votes supersede Sound (Objective) Reason, The Constitution (Objective) and The Law (Objective); thus the means to serve justice is wholly and entirely: _CRIPPLED. 

It was this addled departure from sound principle which removed the Mental Disorder that Presents as Sexual Deviancy from the medical register of such maladies. Was Medical Justice Served? Of course not. And did the ramifications of that profound error remain limited to Medicine? NO IT DID NOT! It trickled down and throughout the culture... rotting it from it's core with catastrophic consequences. _But, I digress... 

Now Reader, understand, they lack the means to reason objectively... therefore they have no means to _understand _what was just provided for them... let alone the means to understand such sufficiently to_ agree with it._

The point here is not to convince those who lack the intellectual acuity to reason..._ the point is to help them to demonstrate that they lack the means to reason, for the edification of the sound human beings, so that they can finally come to understand where the problem is, why its a problem and to steel themselves for the unenviable tasks which are just before them, once these individuals mount the inevitable attack upon them. _

It's not even a potential question in terms of "IF" they will attack, it is only a question of when the attack will come and in what form.

We've seen it tested in small markets with ruthless commitment, and all that remains is for them to adapt the local tactics, to the national scale.

Everyday we're treated to reports where the racial minorities among the Left have brutally murdered or savagely beaten innocents... we see it played out on Youtube and other web venues, we watch the Left foment racial animosity... we see them foment animosity at every point where such can be advanced.

So the intent is clear, the willingness is likewise just as clear.

We're now simply waiting for the main assault... and like most things profane, you will not have any problem knowing it when you see it... then, it falls to you, to do what you must to avoid the impact of it. As the next day will be that of the "GREAT GETTIN' UP MORNIN'... " When all accounts are settled and the accounting doesn't stop, until there's none left to count.

Now, if THAT is not harm as a consequence of Degeneracy... then such simply _does not exist._

_
*



*


_


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 9, 2015)

Vigilante, posted this at this link.  

I am reposting it as:

*ANOTHER DEMONSTRATION OF HOW THE LICENSING OF DEGENERACY HARMS US ALL!
*​*We've OPENED the door, now the REAL PERVERSION will pour through! Thanks SCOTUS for fucking up our decades old culture!

thepcmdgazette.com ^ | july 8, 2015

A North Carolina elementary school teacher has resigned after his decision to read a gay-themed children’s book to his third-grade class led to controversy in the small town of Efland. Omar Currie said he read his students the book “King and King,” a fairy tale about two princes having a “love” encounter, after he perceived negative gay stereotyping in his class. Currie said that he was inspired to teach the little kids about two men “hooking up” because a boy in his class acted a little feminine. “When I read the story, the reaction of parents didn’t come into my mind,”Currie, 25, said...










*


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 10, 2015)

In ANOTHER example of how the Licensing of Degeneracy harms EVERYONE: 
*
Homosexual Man Files A $70M Lawsuit Against Bible Publishers For Verses Against Homosexuality*

*"A homosexual man has filed a $70 million lawsuit against Bible publishers Zondervan and Thomas Nelson, alleging that their version of the Bible that refers to homosexuality as a sin violates his constitutional rights and has caused him emotional distress."*

Read more at Homosexual Man Files A 70M Lawsuit Against Bible Publishers For Verses Against Homosexuality


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 10, 2015)

In ANOTHER Example of how the Licensing of Degeneracy harm EVERYONE.  There's THIS:


*



*
​


----------



## Skylar (Jul 10, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> In another example of of The Licensing of Degeneracy HARMS EVERYONE, we find THIS:
> 
> *'Paedophilia is natural and normal for males'*
> 
> ...



Pedophiles aren't a protected class. And the article you're citing is from the UK. Not the US. 

There isn't any part of this you got right. 



> So all that is necessary to FULLY IMPLEMENT LEGAL CHILD MOLESTATION is to secure Equal Protection Under the Law for YOUR CHILDREN; and the Democrats Leading Candidate for President of the Cult is a LONG TIME PROPONENT OF EQUAL PROTECTION UNDE THE LAW FOR CHILDREN!



Says you citing yourself as a legal authority. And your'e the same hapless soul that insisted that the Obergefell ruling was going to overturn gay marriage. Demonstrating how little your pseudo-legal gibberish has to do with actual court rulings. 

Back in reality, there's no such ruling legalizing child molestation, no such law legalizing child molestation, no such protected class of pedophiles.

You imagined all of it. Remember Keyes...and this point is fundamental: you have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 10, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> In ANOTHER example of how the Licensing of Degeneracy harms EVERYONE:
> *
> Homosexual Man Files A $70M Lawsuit Against Bible Publishers For Verses Against Homosexuality*
> 
> ...



And what harm did that cause? Nothing ever came of it.

And the suit was filed before the Obergefell ruling. So in your version of reality, the Obergerfell ruling comes out in 2015....and that causes a hand written law suit in 2008.

I don't think cause and effect work the way you think they work. As in our universe cause precedes effect. It doesn't follow it by 7 years.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 10, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Vigilante, posted this at this link.
> 
> I am reposting it as:
> 
> ...



He resigned before the Obergefell ruling. Once again, simple cause and effect utterly confounds you. 

It doesn't take much, does it?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 10, 2015)

In YET ANOTHER Demonstration of how The Licensing of Degeneracy harms EVERYONE, we find:

*"New Bible Translation “Queen James Bible” Eliminates “Homosexuality As Sin” Because It Insults Gays": AKA: 
The Gay Bible

*
*Don’t like the Bible and its TRUTH? Well, you could just create your own version. At least that’s what a homosexual group has done*

*The world’s first “gay friendly” (LIE) posing as "The Bible" has been fraudulently published as the “Queen James Bible.”*

*Multiple verses throughout the book have been rewritten to please the LGBTQ community and gay covens. *

*The website promoting the book says, “The Queen James Bible resolves any homophobic interpretations of the Bible…We wanted to make a book filled with the word of God that nobody could use to incorrectly condemn (to properly recognize the abomination represented by Degenerates) God’s LGBT children, and we succeeded.”*

*What they have succeeded in doing is misrepresenting the word of God, by FRAUDULENTLY publishing this Deceit, as a means to lead God's children into debauchery, shame and death.*

*

*

*Here are some examples of the deceit they are perpetrating: *

*1. Leviticus 18:22*

*KJV: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.*

*QJV: Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind in the temple of Molech: it is an abomination. (Page 75)*

*2. Leviticus 20:13*

*KJV: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.*

*QJV: If a man also lie with mankind in the temple of Molech, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Page 76)*

*3. Romans 1:26*

*KJV: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against their nature.*

*QJV: Their women did change their natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, left of the natural use of the woman, burned in ritual lust, one toward another. (Page 545)*

*4. Romans 1:27*

*KJV: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.*

*QJV: Men with men working that which is pagan and unseemly. For this cause God gave the idolators up unto vile affections, receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. (Page 545)*

*THIS IS AN ABOMINATION! *

*Let’s them hear this warning from the HOLY SCRIPTURE:*

*Revelation 22:18-19 *

*I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.*

*The Gay Bible*

_*



*_


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 10, 2015)

On the "Sanity Fights Back against Evil" Page...

*KANSAS issues an Executive Order on Religious FREEDOM After Gay Marriage Ruling*

*"Gov. Sam Brownback issued an executive order prohibiting state government from taking action against clergy members or religious organizations that deny services to couples based on religious beliefs.*

*Among other things, the order is intended to protect religious organizations that provide adoption services for the state from having to place children with gay couples if that conflicts with their beliefs.*

*“We have a duty to govern and to govern in accordance with the Constitution as it has been determined by the Supreme Court decision,” Brownback said in a statement. “We also recognize that religious liberty is at the heart of who we are as Kansans and Americans, and should be protected.”*

*The governor’s order came when that state workers were told their same-sex spouses could be added to their health plans.*

*Brownback said the order protects “Kansas clergy and religious organizations from being forced to participate in activities that violate their sincerely and deeply held beliefs.”*

*This is how Rev. Graham commented on the issue:*

*Today Kansas Governor Sam Brownback issued an Executive Order to protect ‪#‎religiousfreedom‬ in his state–thank you Governor for taking action! Executive Order 15-05, “Preservation and Protection of Religious Freedom,” protects Kansas clergy and religious organizations from being forced to go against their sincerely held religious beliefs. Our religious freedom is something to be protected at all cost—if you could ask all those who have died to give it to us, I’m sure they would be quick to tell you that we’d better not let it slip through our fingers. Let’s challenge every governor to step up and do the same for their state. Governor Pat McCrory of NC, how about it?"*

*Gov. Sam Brownback issues executive order on religious liberty after same-sex marriage ruling The Wichita Eagle The Wichita Eagle*


----------



## Skylar (Jul 10, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> In YET ANOTHER Demonstration of how The Licensing of Degeneracy harms EVERYONE, we find:
> 
> *"New Bible Translation “Queen James Bible” Eliminates “Homosexuality As Sin” Because It Insults Gays": AKA:
> The Gay Bible
> ...




And how were you harmed by this, keyes? 

Specifically. And of course, what does it have to do with gay marriage? Again, causation completely confounds you.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 10, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> On the "Sanity Fights Back against Evil" Page...
> 
> *KANSAS issues an Executive Order on Religious FREEDOM After Gay Marriage Ruling*
> 
> ...



Kansas has no PA protections for gays. Making the State order pointless. And any denial of state services based on religious objections violates federal law, over which Brownback has no authority. Making the State order pointless.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 10, 2015)

And today degeneracy is more entrenched in the US Culture than it was yesterday.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 10, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> And today degeneracy is more entrenched in the US Culture than it was yesterday.



I'll take a lesbian couple raising a family over your 'responsibility to eradicate homosexuals' and insane murder fantasies any day.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 10, 2015)

Yet ANOTHER example of How the Federal Licensing of Degeneracy HARMS EVERYONE!

*Top Senate Democrat Unsure Whether Religious Schools That Oppose Gay Marriage Should Keep Tax-Exempt Status*

*Following the Supreme Court decision that declared same-sex marriage a constitutional right, Democrats are considering the impact this will have on religious schools and their tax-exempt statuses.

Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, minority whip and the second most powerful Democrat in the Senate, told The Weekly Standard’s John McCormack that he was unsure if he supported revoking the charitable tax status of religious schools.

“There’s no question this was an historic decision, and now we’re going to go through a series of suggestions for new laws to implement it. I can’t predict how this will end,” Durbin said Wednesday. “But from the beginning we have said that when it comes to marriage, religions can decide what their standards will be.”

When The Weekly Standard asked Durbin if religious protections extend to Christian schools that require employees to hold the same beliefs as the faith’s teaching about marriage, he didn’t “have a quick answer.”
*


----------



## Skylar (Jul 10, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Yet ANOTHER example of How the Federal Licensing of Degeneracy HARMS EVERYONE!
> 
> *Top Senate Democrat Unsure Whether Religious Schools That Oppose Gay Marriage Should Keep Tax-Exempt Status*
> 
> ...




ANd how does this discussion hurt you personally? What was taken from you? What right did you lose? 

None, nothing, and none. 

See, Keyes......that's where your argument keeps breaking. You allege harm and causation. But you can't establish either.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 10, 2015)

Skylar said:


> I'll take a lesbian couple raising a family over your 'responsibility to eradicate homosexuals' and insane murder fantasies any day.



No Skylar, Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

We know this because Nature designed the human species with two distinct, but complementing genders. Each respectively DESIGNED to JOIN WITH THE OTHER... forming from two distinct bodies, one sustainable body; which I'm sure that even a person of your starkly limited intellectual means DEFINES MARRIAGE.

(Now Reader, understand that Homosexuality is a consequence of the rape of infants and toddlers which was presented in the form of a game, with much laughter and cooing, and the stimulation of the infant/toddler genitals. 

The stimulating of the child's genitals stimulates a premature release of hormones which imprint upon the child's nature the associating of Sexual Stimulation with PLAY, FUN and ACCEPTANCE WITH THE GENDER THAT IS RAPING IT DURING THAT SEX PLAY.

As a consequence the homosexual is prone toward associating Sex with PLAY... FUN and Acceptance. 

Now, Skylar is a professed homosexual. So pay close attention to Skylar's looming response... and see if you can see any sign of the perversion stemming from the above noted abuse, wherein it needs to separate sex from Marriage and to limit sex to purely that which relates to PLAY, FUN, ENTERTAINMENT and ITS OWN SUBJECTIVE NEEDS THROUGH THE PLEASURE INTRINSIC TO SEX).


----------



## Skylar (Jul 10, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > I'll take a lesbian couple raising a family over your 'responsibility to eradicate homosexuals' and insane murder fantasies any day.
> ...



Or one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman. Remember, marriage is our invention. It is what we say it is.



> We know this because Nature designed the human species with two distinct, but complementing genders. Each respectively DESIGNED to JOIN WITH THE OTHER... forming from two distinct bodies, one sustainable body; which I'm sure that even a person of your starkly limited intellectual means DEFINES MARRIAGE.



Nope. You're describing fucking. Not marriage. Marriage is our invention. It exists exclusively within human society and no where else. There are no ant marriages or chimpanzee marriages. It doesn't exist in nature. 

*We invented it. We define it. *And it means whatever we say it means. You insist marriage means whatever YOU say it means.

As gays and lesbians being happily married in your state demonstrates, your theory clearly isn't panning out for you.



> (Now Reader, understand that Homosexuality is a consequence of the rape of infants and toddlers which was presented in the form of a game, with much laughter and cooing, and the stimulation of the infant/toddler genitals.



You're talking to yourself again, Keys. And giving us a lovely window into the hapless batshit you tell yourself. 

But what relevance does your insanity have with the rest of us?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 10, 2015)

Yet ANOTHER EXAMPLE of how the Federal Licensing of Degeneracy hurts EVERYONE: 

*Senate Democrat: Free speech protected only in church*

*"The Constitution’s 1st Amendment protections for free speech apply only to “institutions of faith” and not individual Americans, according to Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.)."
*
Senate Democrat Free speech protected only in church

*Now Reader... do ya recognize the  900lb Trend-Gorilla in the middle of the room?*


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 10, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Or one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman.



No Skylar, Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

We know this because Nature designed the human species with two distinct, but complementing genders. Each respectively DESIGNED to JOIN WITH THE OTHER... forming from two distinct bodies, one sustainable body; which I'm sure that even a person of your starkly limited intellectual means DEFINES MARRIAGE.

(Now Reader, understand that Homosexuality is a consequence of the rape of infants and toddlers which was presented in the form of a game, with much laughter and cooing, and the stimulation of the infant/toddler genitals. 

The stimulating of the child's genitals stimulates a premature release of hormones which imprint upon the child's nature the associating of Sexual Stimulation with PLAY, FUN and ACCEPTANCE WITH THE GENDER THAT IS RAPING IT DURING THAT SEX PLAY.

As a consequence the homosexual is prone toward associating Sex with PLAY... FUN and Acceptance. 

Now, Skylar is a professed homosexual. So pay close attention to Skylar's looming response... and see if you can see any sign of the perversion stemming from the above noted abuse, wherein it needs to separate sex from Marriage and to limit sex to purely that which relates to PLAY, FUN, ENTERTAINMENT and ITS OWN SUBJECTIVE NEEDS THROUGH THE PLEASURE INTRINSIC TO SEX).


----------



## Skylar (Jul 10, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Yet ANOTHER EXAMPLE of how the Federal Licensing of Degeneracy hurts EVERYONE:
> 
> *Senate Democrat: Free speech protected only in church*
> 
> ...



Actually, this is what she says:

_“Certainly the 1st Amendment says that in institutions of faith that there is absolute power to, you know, to observe deeply held religious beliefs. But I don’t think it extends far beyond that....

....“We’ve certainly seen the set of arguments play out in issues such as access to contraception,” Baldwin said. “Should it be the individual pharmacist whose religious beliefs guides whether a prescription is filled, or in this context, they’re talking about expanding this far beyond our churches and synagogues to businesses and individuals across this country.”_

There's no mention of 'religious free speech'.

And while I have no doubt you are cool with forcing unwilling people to adhere to your religious convictions, that's not actually an abiding principle of our nation. Nor should be.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 10, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Or one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman.
> ...



You're spamming again. You didn't actually address the reply to this post. Nor could you.

Whenever I corner you with better logic, reasoning and evidence......you run. You ignore any reply, spam the same assertions over and over. And pretend no replies ever occurred.

Shrugs....keep running. My refutation of your argument remains uncontested. And per your naked rout, apparently uncontestable.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 11, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



No Skylar, Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

We know this because Nature designed the human species with two distinct, but complementing genders. Each respectively DESIGNED to JOIN WITH THE OTHER... forming from two distinct bodies, one sustainable body; which I'm sure that even a person of your starkly limited intellectual means DEFINES MARRIAGE.

(Now Reader, understand that Homosexuality is a consequence of the rape of infants and toddlers which was presented in the form of a game, with much laughter and cooing, and the stimulation of the infant/toddler genitals. 

The stimulating of the child's genitals stimulates a premature release of hormones which imprint upon the child's nature the associating of Sexual Stimulation with PLAY, FUN and ACCEPTANCE WITH THE GENDER THAT IS RAPING IT DURING THAT SEX PLAY.

As a consequence the homosexual is prone toward associating Sex with PLAY... FUN and Acceptance. 

Now, Skylar is a professed homosexual. So pay close attention to Skylar's looming response... and see if you can see any sign of the perversion stemming from the above noted abuse, wherein it needs to separate sex from Marriage and to limit sex to purely that which relates to PLAY, FUN, ENTERTAINMENT and ITS OWN SUBJECTIVE NEEDS THROUGH THE PLEASURE INTRINSIC TO SEX).


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 11, 2015)

Skylar said:


> There's no mention of 'religious free speech'.



There's no separating religion from the God-given right to freely practice one's religion, Skylar.

But thank you for working so hard in trying to do so.

Your efforts prove the point which represents your concession to that point.

_Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted_.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 11, 2015)

Yawning.....and you're still spamming the same post over and over, utterly confounded by the reply that stumped you cold.. Here's the post that sent you running:



Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


'

Shrugging....keep running.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 11, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > There's no mention of 'religious free speech'.
> ...



There's no mention of 'religous free speech'. You're making up quotes for the speaker, quoting yourself as the person you're denouncing.

Is there ever an argument you've ever made....that doesn't degenerate into you citing yourself? I mean, ever?



> But thank you for working so hard in trying to do so.
> 
> Your efforts prove the point this represent your concession to that point.
> 
> _Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted_.



And now your tell. Your little white flag. First comes the spamming, then the abandonment of your argument and bizarre declarations of victory. Followed by the inevitable rout.

Do you ever get tired of running from me?


----------



## Politico (Jul 11, 2015)

Faun said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


My word lol. Turn on CNN.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 11, 2015)

In yet another demonstration of how we are ALL injured by the Federal Government Licensing of Degeneracy, we find this:







_"Parents across the state of Massachusetts are outraged after they found out a survey is being handed out to their middle and high school children that quizzes them on gay, oral, and anal sex....
_​_The quiz asks students if they are gay or transgender. It also asks them if they have ever had oral or anal sex or if they have performed these acts on up to six people.

According to Breitbart, experts say the affects of a quiz like this could be devastating.

The group MassResistance says the survey is “psychologically distorting” and will likely lead the child to think he is “abnormal if he is not doing it all.” They also claimed that “the survey results are used by radical groups from Planned Parenthood to LGBT groups to persuade politicians to give more taxpayer money [to] these groups.”

A public hearing took place Wednesday morning at the Massachusetts State House, where officials looked into the controversial sex survey. Parents should know that this quiz is given on a national basis, so children all across the country are being forced to take it."_

Schools Quiz Twelve-Year-Olds about Gay Oral and Anal Sex - Breitbart


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 11, 2015)

Anyone else as pleased as I am that Keys is finally showing how much he loves Hitler?


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 11, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Anyone else as pleased as I am that Keys is finally showing how much he loves Hitler?



I don't know about that, but I was pleased with your admission yesterday that one group being excluded from marriage due to procreation ability is a compelling state issue.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 11, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Anyone else as pleased as I am that Keys is finally showing how much he loves Hitler?








Yes... because posting up the shameful representation of Fag-Hitler is a symbol of support.

ROFLMNAO!

_Hysterical!_

You people are_ HELPLESS!_


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone else as pleased as I am that Keys is finally showing how much he loves Hitler?
> ...



I am pleased that you continue to be able to come up with any reason for your opposition to incestuous marraige.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 11, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone else as pleased as I am that Keys is finally showing how much he loves Hitler?
> ...



Keys and Hitler- two crazy peas in a pod- no wonder you worship him.


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 11, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



The question is why the left seems to support it?


----------



## Skylar (Jul 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Can you quote the left supporting incestuous marriage?

Or can you only quote yourself pretending to be the left. Because that's not exactly the same thing, is it?


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 11, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



You want polls on the number of the left that supported SSM?


----------



## Skylar (Jul 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




How about the ones that show support for incestuous marriage. You know, the claim you just made....and are now running from like it was carrying a butcher knife.

Show us. Don't tell us.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



The question is why you seem to believe that- when the only ones bringing up incestuous marriage would be conservatives.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 11, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Not just bringing up, they're obsessed with the topic. I mean, how many hundreds of posts has Pop alone dedicated to the topic?


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 11, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



They can't stop talking about incestuous marriage and polygamous marriage.


----------



## Faun (Jul 11, 2015)

Politico said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...


Why on Earth would I go hunting for your proof?? 

Either you could have proven your obviously fallacious claim or you can't. That you expect me to look for it means you can't; otherwise, you would have.

Yet more evidence that most people are in favor of legalizing gay marriage.


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 11, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



One goes hand in hand with the other. 

You could not include one group without the other. 

So, tell me the remarkable difference (legally) between a lesbian married couple and a straight same sex sister couple. 

If you can't, then you see the problem. 

Oh, and this was not a secret. There were warnings.


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 11, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Because you can't make any legal argument that would lead to believe it ain't so.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



And none of that is you showing any one on the left supporting incestuous marriage. 

Can you quote 'the left' supporting incestuous marriage? Or will you continue to yourself as the left supporting incestuous marriage. Because those aren't the same things.


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 11, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



One supports the other. The laughable part is how your side kept (and still say) this ruling legalized gay marriage, it did in a roundabout way, but the truth is that it legalized SAME SEX MARRIAGE. 

Without the safeguard of 1 man to 1 woman, denying entry, WITHOUT A COMPELLING STATE INTEREST is impossible. 

You knew that, but your side needed it hush hush, until the ruling came down. 

So Skylar, what is the COMPLELLING STATE INTEREST to deny these sisters from their rights to marry, NOW THAT SAME SEX MARRIAGE IS THE LAW OF THE LAND?


----------



## Skylar (Jul 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Says you. Back in reality, one never even mentions the other. Show us any reference to incestuous marriage in either Windsor or Obergefell. *There is none.*

You hallucinated it. And then insist that 'the left' is responsible for your hallucination.

Laughing...nope. Quote the left supporting incestuous marriage.....or admit you made the whole thing up.


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 11, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Did Loving mention same sex marriage?

Hmmmm


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 11, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



If I made it up, then why can't you point out the remarkable difference between a lesbian couple and same sex straight sisters?

You also realize that this was not an issue prior to same sex marriage, right?

I do understand your need to market it this way, I would not want to blamed for the legalization of plural and incesturous marriage. 

I think the politicians will drop gays in a blink of an eye. 

You?


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



The question is why you seem to believe that the left supports incestuous marriage- when it is only you and your fellow Conservative travellers that are obsessed with it.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



_"I would not want to blamed for the legalization of plural and incestuous marriage."_

Oh, if that were only the worst of it...  the horrific truth, is that the Advocacy to Normalize Degeneracy did this as a means* to get to our children*.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



The truth is that you are just lying.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 11, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Says you.



ROFLMNAO!  

It's as if that refrain were in some way; on some level... at some point, a function of sound reason.

You see Reader, the would-be _"Contributor" _is quite mad, having no association with the light that provides the means for reason.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



If you made it up, there's be no mention of incestuous marriage in either Windsor or Obergefell. 

Here's the Windsor ruling:

UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Nothing about incest there. Lets try the Obergefell ruling:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

And exactly as I said, there's no mention in either. *You've literally hallucinated it into both rulings. Then insisted that the left is responsible for your hallucination.*

Smiling....nope. 

So I ask again, can you quote 'the left' supporting incestuous marriage? This is the third time I've asked this question. And you've given us nothing but excuses why you can't. The reason is pretty obvious: you made it up.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 11, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Says you.
> ...



Dude....you do realize that your 'reader' is just talking to yourself, right? You citing you while talking to you kind of eliminates the need for anyone else to be here. As you're both your own source and your own audience.

And of course, that wasn't the extent of my reply. This was:



			
				skylar said:
			
		

> Says you. Back in reality, one never even mentions the other. Show us any reference to incestuous marriage in either Windsor or Obergefell. *There is none.*



Notice that you don't even disagree with me or even attempt to refute me. But instead omit any mention of either the WIndsor or Obergefell ruling. Y*our entire argument is based on pretending the rulings never happened. As if by closing your eyes, the world disappears.*

Alas, we don't base our law on your willful ignorance. And both the Windsor ruling and the Obergefell ruling are authoritative. While your subjective opinion is legally meaningless. You know how you can tell?

_All the same sex marriage happening in your city, county and State._ Get used to the idea.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 11, 2015)

How Does Licensing Degeneracy Harm Us ALL?

This is an example of the evil that Advocates for the Normalization of Degeneracy:


GERMANY, March 28, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – As parents in Germany have protested a new pro-homosexual “sexual diversity” curriculum in their schools, homosexual activists have attacked them by hurling feces and destroying their property, according to the Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians, which documents anti-Christian incidents in Europe.

"Protesters were physically attacked and it was felt that the police failed to protect the parents’ basic right of assembly," said a statement from the Observatory describing incidents at recent rallies in Baden-Württemberg and Cologne.

According to eyewitnesses, says the Observatory, "Christian parents were shouted at with obscenities.”

"They were spit at, eggs were thrown, and little bags with feces were thrown at them and their children."

“Pages were ripped out of the bible and used to wipe backsides, then formed into balls and thrown at the parents and their children.”

"Christians were deeply hurt in this process. At least one banner was snatched and destroyed in front of the eyes of the parents. Marshals were target[ed] with pepper sprays. Shouting by counter-demonstrator made the planned public speaking impossible.

Parents and children were shocked at the amounts of hatred and invective perpetrated by the homosexuals who the media have represented as 'Gay'.

"Up to 1000 parents; many with their children, came to express their irritation regarding early sexualization of school age children", the report said.


Gay activists hurl feces at German parents protesting pro-gay school curriculum report News LifeSite


----------



## Skylar (Jul 11, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> How Does Licensing Degeneracy Harm Us ALL?
> 
> This is an example of the evil that Advocates for the Normalization of Degeneracy:
> 
> ...




And what, pray tell, does that have to do with gay marriage being legalized in the US? 

And how is this hurting you personally?


----------



## Skylar (Jul 11, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



There's nothing about homosexuals or same sex unions in the Windsor ruling? Really? 

Have you actually read the Windsor ruling? Because that's pretty much all its about: whether or not the Federal Government has to recognize same sex marriages performed in States that have recognized them. Edith Windsor, the woman the ruling was named after, is a lesbian. 

You really don't know this?

Really?



> Of course, in reality, thus in truth.... the licensing of degeneracy by a disembodied vote of the majority of a nine person panel, has nothing to do with Windsor or the US Constitution or US Law, Legal Precedent or any other facet of sound reasoned (objective) Jurisprudence...  such was set entirely upon the subjective need of the degenerates.



But in reality, you're not the arbiter or what 'truth' is. You're just offering us your personal opinion. Which is irrelevant to the law. You citing yourself as the law is no more relevant than you citing yourself as god, nature, or any of your other Appeal to Authority fallacies.

You know how you can tell?

All the gay marriage that's happening in all 50 states. Including yours. And your complete and glorious inability to do anything about it. That's how irrelevant you are to anyone else's marriage. 

See how that works?


----------



## Skylar (Jul 11, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



All the 'licensing degeracy babble', I'll leave to you and your imagination. The Obergefell did recognize the right to marry:



			
				Obergefell v. Hodges said:
			
		

> Applying these tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution.
> 
> 
> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf



Remember, you've never actually read these rulings, don't understand the law, the 14th amendment, or have the slighest clue what you're talking about. And it tends to hamper your ability to tell us what is in rulings.

You'll notice, however....there's not the slightest mention of 'incestuous marriage' anywhere in either the Windsor or Obergefell ruling.



> And this despite Windsor stating in unambiguous terms that standards of behavior, this the standards regarding marriage was a fundamental issue which are regulated by the respective states.



Ah, but your argument breaks in the same place it always does: constituitional guarantees. You always pretend these don't exist, omitting any mention of them. Alas, the Windsor ruling didn't do either:



			
				Windsor v. U.S. said:
			
		

> , see_, e.g., Loving_ v. _Virginia_, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,”.



And its these constitutional guarantees where your argument broke. As state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. And if a state marriage law violates such guarantees, its invalid.

*With Obergefell finding that State same sex marriage bans did indeed violate those guarantees.* You can ignore individual rights if you wish. But you can't make the court ignore them.

Also remember that you still haven't read the Windsor ruling. While I have. That's how I'm always able to counter your ignorance with a better command of the topic. And why my predictions of the Obergefell ruling were astonishingly accurate. While you got every single detail wrong.

See how that works?



> Of course, in reality, thus in truth.... the licensing of degeneracy by a disembodied vote of the majority of a nine person panel, has nothing to do with Windsor or the US Constitution or US Law, Legal Precedent or any other facet of sound reasoned (objective) Jurisprudence...  such was set entirely upon the subjective need of the degenerates.



You citing you is neither truth nor the law. Leaving you with nothing but your subjective personal opinion. Which is legally meaningless.

As always.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 11, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



And you just blinked. You're back to spamming. Which will be followed by random declarations of victory......ending in a rout. Do ever get tired of running from me?

I've quoted Obergefell recognizing the right to marry, I've quoted Windsor recognizing that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. Ending both of your arguments so completely.....that all you can do is pretend that no such quotes exist and omit any mention of them.

That was easy.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 11, 2015)

Reader, the simple truth is that the world is presently experiencing a rise of the same Evil that you read about in the Old Testament Scriptures.  We're talking Sodom and Gomorra, deep and dark... utter destruction.

And is truly all one really needs to know about it, to know what should be done about it.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 11, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > If I made it up, then why can't you point out the remarkable difference between a lesbian couple and same sex straight sisters?
> ...



Oh that is SO true.

Of course, there is also nothing in there about licensing degeneracy by divining a fundamental right to marriage... .  Yet you claim that such is the basis for licensing degeneracy in Obergefell.

And this despite Windsor stating in unambiguous terms that standards of behavior, this the standards regarding marriage was a fundamental issue which are regulated by the respective states.

Of course, in reality, thus in truth.... the licensing of degeneracy by a disembodied vote of the majority of a nine person panel, has nothing to do with Windsor or the US Constitution or US Law, Legal Precedent or any other facet of sound reasoned (objective) Jurisprudence...  such was set entirely upon the subjective need of the degenerates.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 11, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Reader, the simple truth is that the world is presently experiencing a rise of the same Evil that you read about in the Old Testament Scriptures.  We're talking Sodom and Gomorra, deep and dark... utter destruction.
> 
> And is truly all one really needs to know about it, to know what should be done about it.



And what, pray tell, should be done about it?

Is this where you start in with your insane murder fantasies and the 'responsibility to eradicate homosexuals'? C'mon Keyes...if you can't even TALK about who you want to murder and why, you're gonna have a hard time convincing people to actually murder them.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 11, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Wow. And you're still spamming. I just completely broke you with my quotes from the Windsor and Obergefell rulings.

Windsor still  puts constitutional guarantees above state marriage laws. Obergefell still recognizes the right to marry. Closing your eyes doesn't change that. And just because you ignore these facts doesn't mean you can make us ignore them. 

See how that works?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 11, 2015)

Skylar said:


> I've quoted Obergefell recognizing the right to marry



The Right to marry is predicated upon the conditions of Marriage wherein Nature designed Marriage as The Joining of One Man and One Woman.




Skylar said:


> I've quoted Windsor recognizing that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees.



Did ya?

In Windsor the Court found DOMA to offend the Constitution because it represented an _*"unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage..."* *(*_*Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2693).*

The Court stated, *"By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage . . . has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States" (Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2689-90).
*
Thus the newly formed Supreme Legislature turned from its recent finding in Windsor to divine a federal right to marry, thus licensing degeneracy and in the process rendering Marriage effectively MEANINGLESS.

Which is purpose of the Advocacy to Normalize Degeneracy.  

As the goal of the Advocacy is to make possible for the Degenerates, the legal means to pursue children for sexual gratification.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 11, 2015)

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

We know this because Nature designed the human species with two distinct, but complementing genders. Each respectively DESIGNED to JOIN WITH THE OTHER... forming from two distinct bodies, one sustainable body; which I'm sure that even a person of your starkly limited intellectual means DEFINES MARRIAGE.

(Now Reader, understand that Homosexuality is a consequence of the rape of infants and toddlers which was presented in the form of a game, with much laughter and cooing, and the stimulation of the infant/toddler genitals. 

The stimulating of the child's genitals stimulates a premature release of hormones which imprint upon the child's nature the associating of Sexual Stimulation with PLAY, FUN and ACCEPTANCE WITH THE GENDER THAT IS RAPING IT DURING THAT SEX PLAY.

As a consequence the homosexual is prone toward associating Sex with PLAY... FUN and Acceptance. 

Now, Skylar is a professed homosexual. So pay close attention to Skylar's looming response... and see if you can see any sign of the perversion stemming from the above noted abuse, wherein it needs to separate sex from Marriage and to limit sex to purely that which relates to PLAY, FUN, ENTERTAINMENT and ITS OWN SUBJECTIVE NEEDS THROUGH THE PLEASURE INTRINSIC TO SEX).


----------



## Skylar (Jul 11, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > I've quoted Obergefell recognizing the right to marry
> ...



Says you, pretending that you are both nature, the USSC, and the law. But you're none of these things. Rendering your claims a mere declaration of empty personal opinion.

And poorly informed opinion at that. As marriage doesn't exist anywhere but within human societies. No where else in nature has it. We invented it, not 'nature'. And it is what we say it is. Every culture defines marriage in a manner that is consistent with their values. And we do as well, including same sex couples as their inclusion is consistent with our values.

As marriage is our invention and we define it.....it now includes same sex couples. Get used to the idea.



> Did ya?
> 
> In Windsor the Court found DOMA to offend the Constitution because it represented an "unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage..." (Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2693).
> 
> The Court stated, "By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage . . . has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States" (Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2689-90).



Yup. I did. As again, you omit any mention of constitutional guarantees, prtending that they don't exist. Despite the fact that Windsor explicitly found that state marriage laws are subject constitutional guarantees.



			
				Windsor v. US said:
			
		

> *Subject to certain constitutional guarantees*, see_, e.g., Loving_ v. _Virginia_, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” _Sosna_ v. _Iowa_, 419 U. S. 393.



You can pretend that constitutional guarentees don't exist. You can ignore any mention of them in the WIndsor ruling. But you can't make the actual constitutional guaratnees disappear. Nor can you make the court ignore them.

This, right here, is why your predictions about how the Obergefell ruling was going to go down were so wildly incompetent and so completely wrong: you ignored anything in the Windsor ruling that you didn't like. You even ignored the very concept of constitutional guarantees. ANd then laughably concluded that since you ignored them, the Courts were obligated to do the same.

I ask again....how'd that work out for you?



> Thus the newly formed Supreme Legislature turned from its recent finding in Windsor to divine a federal right to marry, thus licensing degeneracy and in the process rendering Marriage effectively MEANINGLESS.



On the contrary, the Obergefell court placed constitutional guarantees above state marriage laws. Exactly as the said in Windsor. In fact, the position of the courts on the issue was so ludicriously clear that Scalia predicted the Obergefell ruling based on the WIndsor ruling:



			
				Justice Scalia in Dissent of Windsor v. US said:
			
		

> *In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. *As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ ” couples in same-sex marriages. _Supra,_ at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status. Consider how easy (inevitable) it is to make the following substitutions in a passage from today’s opinion



'Beyond mistaking' and 'inevitable'. It was obvious what the court prioritized and how they were going to rule. Even Scalia could tell.

But you thought you knew better. You thought you knew what the court 'really meant', and insisted that the Obergefell ruling was going to overturn same sex marriage.

*You were laughably wrong.* As your willful ignorance doesn't limit the court in any way. And just because you ignored constitutional guarantees and individual rights doesn't mean the court's were similarly obligated.

The inept dismissal of anything you don't want to believe is at the heart of why you fail over and over and over again. And I'm almost certain she's told you the exact same thing. Just before she gave you divorce papers.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 11, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Says you...


_
And your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
_
And Marriage remains: The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

We know this because Nature designed the human species with two distinct, but complementing genders. Each respectively DESIGNED to JOIN WITH THE OTHER... forming from two distinct bodies, one sustainable body; which I'm sure that even a person of your starkly limited intellectual means DEFINES MARRIAGE.

(Now Reader, understand that Homosexuality is a consequence of the rape of infants and toddlers which was presented in the form of a game, with much laughter and cooing, and the stimulation of the infant/toddler genitals. 

The stimulating of the child's genitals stimulates a premature release of hormones which imprint upon the child's nature the associating of Sexual Stimulation with PLAY, FUN and ACCEPTANCE WITH THE GENDER THAT IS RAPING IT DURING THAT SEX PLAY.

As a consequence the homosexual is prone toward associating Sex with PLAY... FUN and Acceptance. 

Now, Skylar is a professed homosexual. So pay close attention to Skylar's looming response... and see if you can see any sign of the perversion stemming from the above noted abuse, wherein it needs to separate sex from Marriage and to limit sex to purely that which relates to PLAY, FUN, ENTERTAINMENT and ITS OWN SUBJECTIVE NEEDS THROUGH THE PLEASURE INTRINSIC TO SEX).


----------



## rcfieldz (Jul 11, 2015)

*Repent!*


----------



## Skylar (Jul 11, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Says you...
> ...



And the tell. I called it. First comes the spamming, then the random declarations of victory. Then the inevitable rout.

Do you ever get tired of running from me? Because I'll be honest, I haven't gotten tired of watching you run.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 11, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



OH!  A Re-Concession... how marvelous.
_
Your Re-Concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## Skylar (Jul 11, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Spamming  your tell.  Next comes the rout.

As those Windsor quotes just shut you down. Scalia's dissent just shut you down. What can you do but pretend that there are no constitutional guarantees, that Windsor never mentions them and that Scalia didn't see Obergefell coming *based on the Windsor ruling?*

Nothing. Which is why you always end up running.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 11, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Spamming your tell.  Next comes the rout... .



OH!  A Re-Re-Concession... how sweet.

_Your Re-Re-Concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## Skylar (Jul 11, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Spamming your tell.  Next comes the rout... .
> ...



And still....you won't even quote me quoting the Windsor ruling placing constitutional guarantees above state laws. Let alone admit the passage exists in the Windsor ruling.

Sigh.....how'd ignoring the Windsor ruling work out for you again?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 11, 2015)

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

We know this because Nature designed the human species with two distinct, but complementing genders. Each respectively DESIGNED to JOIN WITH THE OTHER... forming from two distinct bodies, one sustainable body; which I'm sure that even a person of your starkly limited intellectual means DEFINES MARRIAGE.

(Now Reader, understand that Homosexuality is a consequence of the rape of infants and toddlers which was presented in the form of a game, with much laughter and cooing, and the stimulation of the infant/toddler genitals. 

The stimulating of the child's genitals stimulates a premature release of hormones which imprint upon the child's nature the associating of Sexual Stimulation with PLAY, FUN and ACCEPTANCE WITH THE GENDER THAT IS RAPING IT DURING THAT SEX PLAY.

As a consequence the homosexual is prone toward associating Sex with PLAY... FUN and Acceptance. 

Now, Skylar is a professed homosexual. So pay close attention to Skylar's looming response... and see if you can see any sign of the perversion stemming from the above noted abuse, wherein it needs to separate sex from Marriage and to limit sex to purely that which relates to PLAY, FUN, ENTERTAINMENT and ITS OWN SUBJECTIVE NEEDS THROUGH THE PLEASURE INTRINSIC TO SEX).


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 11, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I noted that you left out the link to the Loving ruling that mentioned same sex

So, have you come up with the compelling difference between a lasbian couple and a straight same sex sister couple yet?

You are simply acting naive

This is the legal ramifications that the USSC left open. 

Can't answer you simply declare defeat. 

Sorry dude, your omission simply means you can't answer in a way to destroy my theory

But troll on, it's what you do best


----------



## Skylar (Jul 11, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman



You've already posted this in its entirety. And I already dismantled it with better reasoning and better sources. You're spamming the same post over and over again while ignoring any reply. 

That doesn't bode well for your argument*. As it requires you ignore anything that contradicts you....and pretend no contradiction exists.*

How'd that work for you with the Windsor ruling? Did ignoring Constitutional guaratenees mean that the court had to ignore them too? Or did it just mean that you were comically wrong in predicting their ruling?


----------



## Skylar (Jul 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> So, have you come up with the compelling difference between a lasbian couple and a straight same sex sister couple yet?



Have you come up with any mention of 'incest marriage' in either WIndsor or Obergefell? Or the court quoting Windsor or Obergefell in any ruling supporting incestuous marriage?

No? Nothing like that at all? Kinda puts a kink in your legal argument, dontcha think?

Remember, your basing your entire argument on you predicting how the courts will interpret precedent.* But we've already put your ability to predict the court's use of predict to the test with the Obergefell ruling.* You told us how the courts were going to rule against same sex marriage and you told us why. You insisted that the Loving decision was irrelevant to ruling and had no legal relevance.

*And you were dead wrong. On every point. *Your every prediction on how the courts would rule or apply precedent was comically incompetent and inept. Yet here you are.....basing your entire argument on your demonstrably inept capacity to predict how the courts will rule on precedent.

Can you see why your argument might be a little...underwhelming?



> You are simply acting naive



I don't think 'naive' means what you think it means. As you've been perfectly wrong in predicting court rulings. Naive would be taking any of your new predictions seriously.

Which I don't.


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 11, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Prove it. It's actually simple. 

Name the compelling difference between a lesbian couple wishing to obtain the right of marriage and a same sex straight couple of sisters that wish to obtain the right to the marriage?

What is the difference that would qualify as a compelling state issue to accept one and deny the other?

We will wait, likely you'll just tear up a bit and post more of your dumbfuckery.


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 11, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > So, have you come up with the compelling difference between a lasbian couple and a straight same sex sister couple yet?
> ...



Skylar is now reduced to a troll, and actually, by being unable to answer the question, a bigot.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I've asked you to make your case for why you want incestuous marriage. I've also asked you to quote any democrat supporting incestuous marriage, as you claimed they have.

You refuse to do the first. And you quote YOURSELF on the second. Um, you citing you isn't quoting a democrat.

You get that right? So show us the left is supporting incestuous marriage. Neither the Windsor ruling nor the Obergefell ruling even mention it.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Make your argument for why you want incestuous marriage.* But you keep insisting we refute an argument you're not even making. *

That's silly. If your argument for incestuous marriage has merit.......you could make the case for it. But you refuse.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 11, 2015)

Three weeks after the US Federal Government Licenses DEGENERACY:
*
"Statue paying homage to Satan to be unveiled in Detroit"
*
_*DETROIT, MI (WNEM) -*

*The Satanic Temple Detroit Chapter is getting ready to unveil a controversial sculpture in Detroit.*

*A bronze Baphomet monument will be revealed on Saturday, July 25 at Berts Warehouse Entertainment.*

*The one ton, 9-foot tall monument reportedly pays homage to Satan.*

*The Satanic Temple said the statue is “intended to complement and contrast the Ten Commandments monument that already resides on Oklahoma State Capitol grounds.”*

*The Temple also said the event will “serve as a call-to-arms” to kick off a fight “in the name of individual rights to exercise against self-serving theocrats.”*
_
_It shouldn't be long now... ._


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 11, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Poor dear shit for brains Skylar. 

Google the word RAMIFICATIONS. 

The left contend that one of "Lovings" RAMIFICATIONS was that it opened the path to same sex marriage. 

Post any link to the "loving" decision that uses the words GAY MARRIAGE, or SAME SEX MARRIAGE within the decision. 

Then get this, I contend, and if you can't post the requested link, I am correct in doing so, that a ramification of the recent USSC ruling is an open door to incestuous marriage. 

See how easy that was when you have a brain?


----------



## Skylar (Jul 11, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Three weeks after the US Federal Government Licenses DEGENERACY:
> *
> "Statue paying homage to Satan to be unveiled in Detroit"
> *
> ...



ANd what possible relevance does that have with gay marriage?

Or harm you personally? For all of your murder fantasies, the 'moral justification' you've offered for them don't actually involve harm to you in any way.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



"Troll" is what Skylar IS.  It's all it does.  

But hey... such is the nature of _Evil..._


----------



## Skylar (Jul 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Ramifications, huh? Gay marriage has been legal in this country for up to 10 years, depending on location. Yet absolutely nothing you've predicted has ever happened.

How do reconcile all the things you insist must happen as a consequence of same sex marriage.....*with the fact that none of them ever have?* 

Its been 10 years, and still nothing. Jack shit.

Its almost as if you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. *As the record of failure of your legal predictions is absolutely perfect. *What would the ramifications of your perfect record of failure in predicting anything be on anyone giving a shit about your predictions?

If your curious, I can give you a hint.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 11, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I just ask you both the questions you can't possibly answer. Like why when you've both been laughably, comically, incompetently wrong in your legal predictions....would anyone take your pseudo-legal gibberish seriously?

As you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

*While I predicted the Obergefell ruling down to some of the smallest details.* And you got every part of it wrong. How do you explain this inconsistency with what you believe will happen being utterly different from what actually does?


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jul 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> One supports the other. The laughable part is how your side kept (and still say) this ruling legalized gay marriage, it did in a roundabout way, but the truth is that it legalized SAME SEX MARRIAGE.
> 
> Without the safeguard of 1 man to 1 woman, denying entry, WITHOUT A COMPELLING STATE INTEREST is impossible.
> 
> ...



Birth defects.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 11, 2015)

Jarlaxle said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > One supports the other. The laughable part is how your side kept (and still say) this ruling legalized gay marriage, it did in a roundabout way, but the truth is that it legalized SAME SEX MARRIAGE.
> ...



So... does Birth Defects caused by foolish behavior trump, AIDS contracted through foolish behavior??

IF so, how so?

If not, why not.

Also... wouldn't a woman have a RIGHT to impart Birth Defects upon her unborn child, given the precedent set by your cult, wherein a woman has a right to kill her unborn child...

SOooo... how does that factor in to the crumbling credibility of your feckless assertion?

Just wonderin'?


----------



## Skylar (Jul 11, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Lesbians have one of the lowest AIDS rates in the nation. Lower than gay men, straight men, or straight women.

So.....you don't oppose lesbian marriage?

Or is this just another pseudo-standard that you'll wipe your ass with the moment its inconvenient.


----------



## Faun (Jul 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Difference #1: Lesbianism is not illegal, incest is.

Difference #2: gays were denied marrying the one they love while straight folks could marry the one they love; that violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. All siblings are denied access to marriage, regardless of skin color or gender; no violation of the equal protection clause.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 11, 2015)

Skylar said:


> ANd what possible relevance does that have with gay marriage?



Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.... except for the rationalizations advanced by evil... which is the energy that Satan represents. 

Ya see scamp, the Statue at issue symbolizes Satan, the utter personification of ... your _'lifestyle'._

Does that help?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 11, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Lesbians have one of the lowest AIDS rates in the nation.



So what?


----------



## Skylar (Jul 12, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > ANd what possible relevance does that have with gay marriage?
> ...



Or, you're assuming that your subjective opinion is objective truth. As you always do. And same sex marriage has nothing to do with your assumptions. As your assumptions have no objective value. 

Is there ever  an argument you make that_ isn't _you citing yourself as god, or satan, or nature, or whatever Appeal to Authority fallacy you're leaning on in that paragraph?

Because you insisting that you speak for god really doesn't have much in terms of persuasive power.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 12, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Lesbians have one of the lowest AIDS rates in the nation.
> ...



So AIDS has nothing to do with your opposition to same sex marriage. Making any mention of it a bullshit proxy that even you don't believe.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Or, you're assuming...


_
Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> Difference #1: Lesbianism is not illegal, incest is.



OH!  So we can therefore extrapolate that any contest that you might present against Adult/Child sexual relationships...  would be limited to legalities.

Now Reader... we have just seen that DECLARED SATANISTS: DEVOUT PURVEYORS OF EVIL... are now feeling sufficiently confident to ERECT STATUES OF THE EMBODIMENT OF EVIL IN YOUR PUBLIC SPACES.

Now we find that the vaunted "GAYS"... have come to profess that the ONLY REASON THAT THEY FIND PREVENTING AN ADULT FROM HAVING A SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR CHILD... IS THAT IT IS ILLEGAL!

Is "THE PROBLEM" becoming MORE *CLEAR?*


----------



## Skylar (Jul 12, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Difference #1: Lesbianism is not illegal, incest is.
> ...



Or, you could read what he's responding to: why incestuous marriage isn't legal. Not why Adult/Child sexual relationship are illegal.

But that would might cut in to your capslock hysterics about Satan and 'purveyors of evil'. So I can understand why you're completely ignoring the conversation you're responding to.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Skylar (Jul 12, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Or, you're assuming...
> ...



And your tell. Keyes, if nothing to offer but your white flag, why even respond? 

Your argument is the same as it always is: that your subjective opinion is 'objective truth'. You're a one trick pony. Its your every argument for any discussion. Which is why your arguments always devolve (usually within a few sentences of their beginning) into you citing yourself as god, or satan or nature or the constitution, or the dictionary or whatever Appeal to Authority fallacy your argument needs.

Subjective is not objective. We both know this. Which is why instead of trying to shore up your failed arguments.......you run.

Shrugs....keep running.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



HEY!  Another Re-concession!

Your most recent Re-Concession is _duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## Skylar (Jul 12, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Huh? Dude, are you even reading what you're replying to? Or is just random at this point?


----------



## Skylar (Jul 12, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Laughing.....and I've broken you again. Where all you can do is abandon your every argument while spamming at random.

Is there any topic I can't run you off of?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Laughing..


WOW~   The Re-re-Concession?

Love it...
_
Your Re-re-Concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## Skylar (Jul 12, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Wow...you're still running. You've still completely abandoned your every argument. And you've still been reduced to spamming.

Your babble about Windsor and Obergefell...abandoned.

Your babble about what constitutes a marriage.....abandoned.

Your babble about AIDS rates.....abandoned. 

Do you ever get tired of having to abandon your claims and running? Because I'll have to admit....I still haven't gotten tired of making you run.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



According to you.

Not according to any judge. 

Matter of fact- a judge has said specifically that is not the case.

But you ignore her- right?

Pop just dances around.

He can't come up with a reason why he is against sibling marriage except procreation- but he is also against sibling marriage if the siblings are infertile.

Which means he really has no reason- he is just 'agin' it.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 12, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



That is one subset of the group of people who can marry.

And by the way- slavery is no longer legal either.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 12, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Well that's just it. Pop's isn't a legal argument. Its an emotional one. As no matter what the courts say, Pop ignores them and replaces their judgment with his own. Then laughably concludes that the courts are bound to whatever gibberish Pop has assigned them.

Um, no. They're not. Not one of Pop's pseudo-legal conclusions have ever been affirmed by any court. Not in the 10 years where the US has incrementally embraced same sex marriage. Nothing Pop has predicted has happened.

But this time its different, huh?


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I have 'proven it' to you repeatedly- you just don't accept any 'proof' that knocks down your house of cards.
From Wisconsin's same gender marriage case:

_In other words, if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then how can
prohibitions on polygamy and incest be maintained?

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*

*That you cannot accept a judge's rational is frankly your problem- not mine.  Because a judge is the one that plaintiffs would have to convince- and unlike you- the judge actually has a rational argument that stands on its own. *


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



What is the compelling difference between allowing a sterile first cousin couple to marry- but not allowing a sterile sibling couple to marry?

I have asked this before. Wisconsin allows sterile first cousins to marry- but not sterile siblings. 

Clearly Wisconsin is only concerned about birth defects when it bans the marriage of fertile first cousins but not infertile first cousins.

But Wisconsin does not allow the marriage of infertile brother/sister couples- which demonstrates to a rational person that Wisconsin has another reason besides procreation for banning sibling marriage. 

I look forward to your Ginger Roger act as you dance away in your high heels avoiding addressing the question.


----------



## XploreR (Jul 12, 2015)

I guess you have to decide whether America represents a place where the words of the Declaration of Independence offering the right of every individual in their own "pursuit of happiness," is an empty concept or an actuality. If another person's gay marriage bothers you, then you don't really support the concept of America as a place guaranteeing individual rights. No one's "pursuit of happiness" in their own personal life, especially one as personal and private as marriage to a lover, should ever be a concern for anyone outside that relationship. I believe in the Declaration of Independence's descriptor of an American, and try hard to live up to its ideals personally. Yes, marriage is a religious institution, but it is also a legal one, and as a legal one, affects the human rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Since I believe every person has a natural right to pursue his or her own inner joy, I support gay marriage equally with hetero-marriage. Whatever actions spread personal freedoms in this country or elsewhere is always a good idea.


----------



## Politico (Jul 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Claim? I have made no claim you fucking Millennial. Don't hunt for whatever you want. Maybe your local Chipolte holds the answer.


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Your an annoying troll

How many years between "loving" and the first gay marriage?

See how ramifications work dummy?


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 12, 2015)

Jarlaxle said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > One supports the other. The laughable part is how your side kept (and still say) this ruling legalized gay marriage, it did in a roundabout way, but the truth is that it legalized SAME SEX MARRIAGE.
> ...



How will two same sex siblings produce a child with birth defects?

Or are you saying that one class of citizens can be denied a right based on another classes ability to procreate?

That is the exact argument that was overturned by the recent Supreme Court ruling. 

If that IS A COMPELLING STATE INTEREST, then states can ban all same sex marriage.


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 12, 2015)

XploreR said:


> I guess you have to decide whether America represents a place where the words of the Declaration of Independence offering the right of every individual in their own "pursuit of happiness," is an empty concept or an actuality. If another person's gay marriage bothers you, then you don't really support the concept of America as a place guaranteeing individual rights. No one's "pursuit of happiness" in their own personal life, especially one as personal and private as marriage to a lover, should ever be a concern for anyone outside that relationship. I believe in the Declaration of Independence's descriptor of an American, and try hard to live up to its ideals personally. Yes, marriage is a religious institution, but it is also a legal one, and as a legal one, affects the human rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Since I believe every person has a natural right to pursue his or her own inner joy, I support gay marriage equally with hetero-marriage. Whatever actions spread personal freedoms in this country or elsewhere is always a good idea.



You would agree that a pursuit of happiness has its limitations. Without that we have chaos.


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I predicted it correctly although I fought it. 

Because it passed however, does not make it good.


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 12, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



So we can ban one class of individuals right to marriage because another classes reproductive abilities. 

Is that your stand, it appears to be your judges?

So name the remarkable difference between a lesbian couple and a same sex sibling couple seeking the financial benefits afforded by marriage?

If you can't, you have proven both yourself and the judge wrong. 

You did once by claiming that the same sex sisters could be denied INCLUSSION because a completely different class of citizens, opposite sex sibling may procreate. 

You can run from your dumbfuckery, but not for long.


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 12, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Since dumbfucks have to have pictures painted for them:

Prior to same sex marriage being legalized the law was clear and the reasoning for a ban on same sex siblings from marrying was based on good policy, that being siblings would produce a corrupt blood line.

One Man could marry One Woman as long as they were not blood related because two siblings (because marriage was always opposite sex) could create corrupt bloodlines.

Now,

One man can marry one woman
One man can marry one man
One woman can marry one woman

Of the above three eligible partnerships:

One male sibling marrying one female sibling could produce a corrupt bloodline.

Two male siblings cannot produce a corrupt bloodline

Two female siblings cannot produce a corrupt bloodline.

What is in the STATES COMPELLING interest to deny all three distinctly different classes from INCLUSSION in the right to marry when only one of those classes can possibly produce an offspring with a corrupt bloodline?

Proceed with your argument that it would be strong legal reasoning that you must ban only the one class as good public policy.

You then argue that you can LEGALLY BAN groups based on reproductive ability, when there is no reproductive ability of the group simply because a distinctively different group can.

It does appear that the ruling indeed did  have far reaching effects. Readi it and weep dude:

Link

Gay incest legal in Iowa The Iowa Republican

Send this to the judge you keep referencing in your spam posts.


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 12, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Your point does not help you

Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, eligible partners were Male - Female. Sterility mattered. A fertile sibling couple could produce a corrupt bloodline. 

After, same sex couples are now eligible.

No same sex couple, fertile or not, related or unreated, have ever produced an offspring with or without s corrupt bloodline. 

I will ask you once again this simple question:

What is the remarkable difference between a same sex unrelated couple, seeking the protection and financial benefits of marriage, and a same sex couple of siblings seeking the protection and financial benefits of marriage?


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



#1. Incestuos marriage is illegal due to their ability to procreate creating corrupt bloodlines. That argument is absurd now. No same sex coupling, regardless of family status had ever produced a child. So that argument is void of any merit at all

#2. Love is not a requirement of marriage, marriage is an institution that grants protection and financial benefits to consenting adults. To deny anyone from INCLUSSION now, is based on absurd and arbitrary law.

Name the compelling state interest to deny two same sex siblings from
INCLUSSION in marriage when this couple is not remarkably different than a lesbian or gay male unrelated couple?


----------



## Faun (Jul 12, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > ANd what possible relevance does that have with gay marriage?
> ...


Oh, look.... an ISIS wannabe professing about Satan. Sweet. Lemme guess .... you don't think the desire for American Liberals to be beheaded is inspired by Satan, right?


----------



## Faun (Jul 12, 2015)

Politico said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...


I see, so you have no fucking clue what the words you post mean. No worries, I shan't challenge you to tax your feeble brain again.


----------



## Faun (Jul 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


1. Incest is illegal for everyone. Making it legal for just same-sex couples would violate equal protection, so it remains illegal for all.

2. While love is not a requirement for marriage; love, and making a life-long commitment to the one you love are the primary reason for getting married, which is why marriage is not just a right, but a fundamental right towards the pursuit of happiness.


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



1. No it's not

Iowa defines incestous marriage and no same sex couples appear on that list except that 1st cousins cannot (odd but true)

As many of seven states define incest as "vaginal penetration" between excluded relatives. How's that work for same sex couples???

Here's how, gays now have greater access to marriage than straights. 

^^^you can't make this shit up^^^

2. Marriage is simply a contract between two consenting adults that grants them legal protections and financial benefits. Neither love, sex, commitment is included. Each couple is allowed to define there own.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



So change the law? 

I find your angst to be rather hilarious- since for the last 200 years straights had far, far more access to marriage than homosexuals. 

Want to make it equal- Iowa can change its overly convoluted restrictions to Wisconsin's

_*No marriage shall be contracted while either of the parties has a husband or wife living, nor between persons who are nearer of kin than 2nd cousins* except that marriage may be contracted between first cousins where the female has attained the age of 55 years or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit signed by a physician stating that either party is permanently sterile. Relationship under this section shall be computed by the rule of the civil law, whether the parties to the marriage are of the half or of the whole blood. A marriage may not be contracted if either party has such want of understanding as renders him or her incapable of assenting to marriage._

States have been changing marriage law to make them more gender neutral for a couple decades now-  if you object to a State's marriage bans- then change them.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



According to the Supreme Court marriage is far more than that- and speaking as a married husband- marriage is far more than that. 


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."_

I like the 'bilateral loyalty' in particular

You can believe any definition you want- but the rest of us don't believe your definition. _

_


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You keep saying that. 

But as I have pointed out- the State's do not care whether siblings can procreate or not- they still don't allow siblings to marry.

Procreation is one reason- but clearly not the only reason- otherwise States that allow Sterile First Cousins to marry- would allow Sterile Siblings to marry.

Just you repeating the same failed argument, again and again and again.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



According entirely to you. 

As I have pointed out- one Judge has specifically disagreed with you. 

Essentially this is just a continuation of your meltdown because of same gender marriage now being legal in all 50 states.

It has been legal in Mass for 11 years- yet incestuous marriage has not become legal- nor has polygamy.

You have no evidence, you have no consistent argument, and you have argument that stands up to scrutiny. 

Just your meltdown because you oppose same gender marriage.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 13, 2015)

XploreR said:


> I guess you have to decide whether America represents a place where the words of the Declaration of Independence offering the right of every individual in their own "pursuit of happiness," is an empty concept or an actuality. If another person's gay marriage bothers you, then you don't really support the concept of America as a place guaranteeing individual rights. No one's "pursuit of happiness" in their own personal life, especially one as personal and private as marriage to a lover, should ever be a concern for anyone outside that relationship. I believe in the Declaration of Independence's descriptor of an American, and try hard to live up to its ideals personally. Yes, marriage is a religious institution, but it is also a legal one, and as a legal one, affects the human rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Since I believe every person has a natural right to pursue his or her own inner joy, I support gay marriage equally with hetero-marriage. Whatever actions spread personal freedoms in this country or elsewhere is always a good idea.



Yes... Because the Charter of American Principles licenses Degeneracy.

ROFLMNAO!

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.  This established by the design of human physiology, wherein Nature provides for two distinct but complementing genders; each respectively designed to join with the other, forming from two distinct bodies, one sustainable body.  

It's not even a remotely debatable point.

The pretense that two males are in ANY WAY qualified for marriage is so absurd as to be symptomatic of DELUSION.  

There is no potential for a RIGHT to perpetual delusion, contributor... and there's absolutely NOTHING in the Declaration of Independence that so much as SUGGESTS SUCH.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You are literally ignoring the judiciary that contradicts you....while insisting that the judiciary agrees with you and will implement your every prediction. Contradiction isn't agreement. No matter how hard you pretend otherwise.

This despite the fact that in the 10 years or so that same sex marriage has been legal somewhere in this country, absolutely nothing you've predicted has ever come to pass. 

So contradiction by the judiciary....and perfect failure of your every prediction.

Why am I supposed to give a shit about your pseudo-legal gibberish again?


----------



## Skylar (Jul 13, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Yes... Because the Charter of American Principles licenses Degeneracy.



Neither the Windsor nor the Obergefell quoted your 'Charter of American Principles'. But instead, the US constitution and caselaw.

You may want to eventually read the rulings. They're quite instructive.



> Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.  This established by the design of human physiology, wherein Nature provides for two distinct but complementing genders; each respectively designed to join with the other, forming from two distinct bodies, one sustainable body.



Nope. What you're describing is fucking, not marriage. Marriage can involve procreation. But it doesn't have to. And its this lack of exclusivity that renders your entire argument moot. As there is obviously a perfectly valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.



> It's not even a remotely debatable point.



Obviously nonsense. As all the debate going on demonstrates. And with all the legally sanctioned same sex marriage occuring in every state. Including yours.

Remember, just because you close your eyes doesn't mean that the world disappears.


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 13, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You are aware of Iowa statute 595.19, that lists those individuals not allowed to marry due to the incesturous nature of their relationship?

It only excluded male/female, blood related marriage, with the odd exception of first cousins. Same sex blood reletives are nowhere to be found, thus, unwittingly, I appear correct in the prediction that incest would be legal. 

Did you also know that in several states, the statute requires "vaginal penetration" to be considered incestuous?

How's that work with same sex siblings?


----------



## Skylar (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Your prediction is that incestuous marriage would be legal. 

Its been 10 years. Where is it? 

And with the judiciary explicitly contradicting you.......why is it that you conclude that the judiciary must agree with you? 10 years of perfect failure of your predictions and explicit contradiction by the judiciary both stand as powerful indications that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Which brings me back to my question: Why should I care about your pseudo-legal babble?


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 13, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Link please, I believe the last time I checked the Iowa law still stands making incestous marriage legal. 

It's your choice to care or not, I can't stop you hitting the submit button.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



It is also legal in Iowa for a Great grandfather to marry his great granddaughter.

Iowa's incest laws need revamping- they could look at California's for a great example of a gender neutral law that would include fathers and sons- and greatgrandfathers and great grand daughters.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Says you. The Iowa law says differently:



> *VOID MARRIAGES.*
> 1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by
> blood are void:
> _a._ Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister,
> ...



So you say Iowa allows incestuous marriage. And Iowa says those marriages are void.

Why would I ignore Iowa and instead believe you?


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 13, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



You did note that the law makes a marriage void if, for example, a father married his daughter, but is silent if he married his SON. 

You do realize what an incestuous marriage is, right?


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



....... Or great great great great grandfather. 

God you must be boring in real life.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



It explicitly voids marriages based on incestuous relationships. You said such bans are against the law. And that incestuous marriage must be legalized. 

*Obviously Iowa disagrees with you.*

How do you reconcile this explicit contradiction by State law with your assumptions of what the States must do? No state, no court, no judge has ever found incestuous marriage to be a constitutional right. Or found a law banning incestuous marriage to be a violation of the constitution, the due process clause, or any constitutional guarantee. 

Its almost like you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 13, 2015)

Oh, and you're also running into a small problem in terms of cause and effect. See, in our universe, cause precedes effect. You've said that its same sex marriage that caused incestuous marriage to be legal. 

And to support that claim, *you cite a law that was passed in 1962. *

So by the logic of your argument, a ruling in 2015 caused a law to be passed in 1962?

Can you see any reason why that might not be the strongest argument for causation?


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Odd isn't it- your faux outrage about how Iowa allows same gender siblings to marry each other- but you don't care that Iowa allows a Great-grandfather to marry his great granddaughter?

Even odder is that you won't deal with the fact that states like California have simple language which forbids all of those marriages- and Iowa doesn't seem to want comprehensive bans on incestuous marriages.


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 13, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



You posted the law moron. A Father marrying a Son is incesturous.

Good god.

You do understand what the ":" is, right?

The list of who this relates to are as follows.

Ya think they just kinda left out all same sex couplings, cuz....

They ran out of ink?

It is 

1.

a. 

b. 

c. 

"A" "B" and "C" explains "1"

Now "c", for some odd reason excluded ALL INCEST BETWEEN ALL SEXES. 

If "a" and "b" had the same intent, it would simply state it in those same terms.


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Both are deflections from the points brought up. 

1. I am outraged by any forms of incest, I don't care how close, the sex of any, or how utterly preposterous they are. 

2. California laws have no bearing on Iowa laws. 

Demonstrate just how easy it would be to change Iowas law. It's been this way since 2009


----------



## Skylar (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



A law that explicitly forbids incestuous relationships. If your premise that gay marriage makes incestuous relationships legal.....*then how could this law exist? *

And if its same sex marriage that makes incestuous relationships legal....then why is the law you're citing from 1962. You do realize that cause PRECEDES effect. It doesn't follow it by half a century.

And this law hasn't been changed from the 60s. So how, pray tell, could it be a consequence of same sex marriage?


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Apparently not in Iowa.

As you pointed out they don't have to be having sex- they could do it just to screw tax payers. 

And apparently the citizens of Iowa are okay with that.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Clearly you are not as outraged by all forms of incest- since you started a thread about how Iowa law now apparently makes the possibility of incestuous same gender marriage possible- but you mentioned nothing about how Iowa has always allowed a great grandfather to marry his great granddaughter.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



California laws are both stricter and more inclusive than Iowas- and were long before Iowa legalized same gender marriage. Iowa could copy and paste California's law if Iowa wanted a 'strict' anti-incest law.

Why hasn't Iowa done that in 6 years Pop?

And why hasn't there been a single incestuous marriage reported in Iowa during this time?


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Thanks for pointing that relationship out for the third time, and for the second time may I point out that it is outrageous as well. 

Now, is there anything else I can do for you, cuz your customers want extra salt on their fries b


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Copy and paste away individuals rights. Progressives crack me up!


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Are you sure there haven't been?

(Note the question mark)

Do you often report on laws that were not broken?

Today Syriously did not Rob a bank, and in other news Pop did not litter.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Why?




> 2. California laws have no bearing on Iowa laws.
> 
> Demonstrate just how easy it would be to change Iowas law. It's been this way since 2009



And Iowa's laws have nothing to do with same sex marriage. As they never mention same sex marriage....nor were passed in an era were same sex marriage was legal in Iowa.

But instead, passed in 1962. Thus, what relevance do they have to your claims.


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 13, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



They exist. 

Your turn.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Section 595.19 goes back to at least 1962: 

https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/shelves/code/ocr/1962 Iowa Code Index.pdf

You'll need to establish that;

1) it has been changed to allow for incestuous relationships;
2) that the change came after gay marriage was legalized;
3) that the change was caused by gay marriage;
4) That Iowa has recognized an actual incestuous marriage as legally valid. 

All four would have to be valid for your premise to be valid. 

And given that in Iowa incest is still a felony, and Iowa laws don't recognize marriages prohibited by law, you're gonna have a very difficult time proving that incest marriage is legal in Iowa for any reason.

Please do so now.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You have yet to establish that incestuous marriages recognized by Iowa's laws do exist. As Iowa explicitly forbids incest and recognizes it as a felony. And doesn't recognize any marriage prohibited by law. 

Nor can you cite a single instance of Iowa recognizing incest marriage as legally valid. Not one.
*
You assume it all. *

Worse, your argument is that gay marriage caused incestuous marriage to be legal. But this law dates back to at least 1962. Rendering your argument physically impossible without a blue police box or a flux capacitor. 

Because cause, you know....precedes effect. It doesn't follow it by half a century.

Explain how that works. With evidence, please.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 13, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Yes... Because the Charter of American Principles licenses Degeneracy.
> ...



Of course not.  There is no way to license Degeneracy by citing self evident truth.

What's more, there is no kinship with the U.S. Constitution and the licensing of Degeneracy.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 13, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Alas, your subjective opinion doesn't establish 'self evident truth'. And you citing you is the only source you have.

While the USSC cited the constitution and existing caselaw. 



> What's more, there is no kinship with the U.S. Constitution and the licensing of Degeneracy.]



Says you. Which is obviously hopelessly subjective. And legally irrelevant.


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 13, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



I must do so now?

Why, your just an interweb bully wannabe, not a true bully

I think I'll wait a bit and watch you whine.


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 13, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Skylar is so very dynamic. The arguments start so often with

"says you"

You can't make this shit up folks


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



"And why hasn't there been a single incestuous marriage reported in Iowa during this time?"

Feel free to prove me wrong. In 2009 one of your fellow travellers in Iowa got just as pissy about Iowa law and gay marriage as you are- and since then- he hasn't published a single example.

Feel free to prove me wrong.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



California laws are both stricter and more inclusive than Iowas- and were long before Iowa legalized same gender marriage. Iowa could copy and paste California's law if Iowa wanted a 'strict' anti-incest law.

Why hasn't Iowa done that in 6 years Pop?


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Link


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


And for the third time I will point out that clearly you don't find all of them as outragious.

Clearly you are not as outraged by all forms of incest- since you started a thread about how Iowa law now apparently makes the possibility of incestuous same gender marriage possible- but you mentioned nothing about how Iowa has always allowed a great grandfather to marry his great granddaughter.


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Haven't a clue professor, clue me in, k?


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



I was outraged the second, third time you posted this,

Now I'm both outraged and annoyed. 

Feel better?


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Not according to Iowa-  you have posted the law moron- and nowhere does Iowa law say that a Father marrying a Son is incestuous.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Yeah I don't know either- Iowa doesn't seem to be considering this a problem that needs solving.


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



EXCELLENT POINT DUDE

So your claim then is that incest can only occur in opposite sex couples. 

Just want to make sure I have your opinion correct.


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Or the solution is more problematic than the fix?


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You think incestuous couples have the right to marry?

Well I am not surprised that you both think that they have the right to marry- and you also oppose them from marrying.

Because after all- this whole thread is just your response to same gender Americans having their rights recognized- rights you want to take away.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Yes... It's a variant on the vaunted 'Nuh huh' defense... Both of which rest in the fatally flawed blueprint of ad verecundiam.

LOL!  It does the best it can.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



So you support brothers marrying their sisters?

Just want to make sure I have your opinion correct.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Since most other states 'have the solution' there is no indication that there is any problem changing the law to be inclusive.


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



My thought on the subject does not matter nearly as much as what the law reads. 

If you have a problem with me pointing this out, it is indeed, your problem

Unbecoming as it is, it remains yours


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Link to my supportive post.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



If you want your argument to have any validity. I've already established that laws outlawing incenstuous marriage exist in Iowa. Contradicting you. I've already established that these laws go back to at least 1962. Robbing you of even hypothetical causation. And I've already established that Iowa outlaws incest while failing to recognize any marriage prohibited by law. 

Incest is prohibited by law. 

Leaving a smoldering crater where your argument was. With you unable to so much as ONE incestuous marriage legally recognized by Iowa, despite your claim that Iowa allows them.

Your argument is thus debunked. As each of the four requirements that I listed must be met for your argument to be valid. And you can't meet one of them. 



> Why, your just an interweb bully wannabe, not a true bully
> 
> I think I'll wait a bit and watch you whine.



Nah, I'm just shredding your argument with better logic, better reason and better sources. 

And I have a firmer command of cause and effect. For example, I recognize that a ruling in 2015 couldn't cause a law in 1962 to be passed.

While your argument requires it. Can you see why your claims are a little....underwhelming.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Oh just like you were doing  I was interpreting your post. with a completely specious conclusion.

Feel free to show me the quote where I said that incest can only occur in opposite sex couples.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



But you keep providing your opinion, regardless of what the law reads. 
So

You think incestuous couples have the right to marry?

Well I am not surprised that you both think that they have the right to marry- and you also oppose them from marrying.

Because after all- this whole thread is just your response to same gender Americans having their rights recognized- rights you want to take away.


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 13, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



You realize that the age of the law has no merit. The law exists, and as of yet has not been deleted not amended. 

The law of 2015 created the paradox within the law of 1962.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You do realize that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, right?


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Mutual exclusivity is your problem not mine. 

I might agree that you have the right to bare arms, yet disagree that you should use that weapon to shoot your neighbor because his dog shit in your yard.


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 13, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I realize your a moron, but youve likely heard that enough in your life, one more time shouldn't hurt you.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



So you think incestuous couples- say a Mother and son- have a right ot marry?


----------



## Skylar (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



At least I can tell that a ruling in 2015 didn't cause a law in 1962 to be passed. Which puts me head and shoulders above your pseudo-legal gibberish.


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Not at this point and time I can't see a single State that allows such a right to a Mother and a Son. 

You?


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 13, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



It sure as hell changed its intent.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Says you,citing you. And you don't know what you're talking about. Nor can you cite even ONE incestuous marriage in Iowa. 

But you can dream, I suppose. If imagination were evidence, you'd be irrefutable.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I think that all Americans have the right to marriage- BUT states can and do restrict those rights when the states can provide a legitimate basis for the discrimination.

California provides a good, inclusive example- Iowa provides a poorly written, underly inclusive example.

Ultimately it is up to the states to decide whose marriage is legally incestuous marriage.


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 13, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Says you........


----------



## Skylar (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



And yet you still can't cite a single instance of legally recognized incestuous marriage in the State of Iowa. While I can quote Iowa explicitly voiding incestuous marriage and criminalizing incest. 

But don't quit chasing the legal unicorns!


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 13, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Got it, you will insist that since the Iowa law does not list Same Sex closely related individuals as being incestuous, therefor they aren't.

Word salad and lame.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




Of course it did... and that's because the valid law rests in objective reason, serving the principles on which the nation is founded and the interests of everyone.  Where the 2015 'Law' rests entirely in subjective fiction... having absolutely no kinship with the Founding Principles, the Charter of Law created to sustain recognition and respect for those principles or any other tenet of Western Jurisprudence.  

What it does however bear kinship with, is former decisions which also rejected the principles that sustain the legitimacy of the nation, the culture and the judiciary itself.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 13, 2015)

I wonder how long Pop will blame Gays for Iowa's poorly written marriage laws when it comes to related couples.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> I wonder how long Pop will blame Gays for Iowa's poorly written marriage laws when it comes to related couples.



What's poorly written about the law?

And as always... as simple as that seems, it flies beyond your stark intellectual limitations, where it requires _SPECIFICITY!  _


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> I wonder how long Pop will blame Gays for Iowa's poorly written marriage laws when it comes to related couples.



More word salad, with cheesy dressing


----------



## Skylar (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Actually, I've never insisted that. You're hallucinating again, much like you did when assuming the Obergefell or Windsor made the slightest mention of incestuous couples. Neither ever happened.

I've said that Iowa doesn't recognize incestuous marriages as valid, holds incest to be a felony, and doesn't hold valid any marriage prohibited under the law.

Which incest is.

Which might explain why you can't cite even one legally recognized incestuous marriage in Iowa. *Not one. *

And why in 10 years since same sex marriage was legalized in this country, *none of your predictions have come to pass. *There's a phrase that beautifully sums up both the accuracy of your predictions and your understanding of the legal principles involved:

"Perfect failure."


----------



## Skylar (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Nope. As the conflict exists exclusively in your imagination. The 2015 rulings never even mention incest. Or authorize it in any way. In fact, the only one citing incestuous marriage......

....is you. Citing yourself. Which, unsurprisingly, is the exact same source that cites this imaginary conflict. Every voice in your pseudo-legal melodrama.....is you. And you're nobody.

Back in reality, incestuous marriage isn't legal. No court, State nor law recognizes them. And the law you're citing as being caused by the 2015 rulings....

....was passed in 1962.

Yeah, I don't think 'caused' means what you think it means.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 13, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Nah, I'm just shredding your argument with ... better sources.



ROFLMNAO!

WELL... There's nothing particularly subjective about _*THAT!*_


----------



## Skylar (Jul 13, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Nah, I'm just shredding your argument with ... better sources.
> ...



I've quoted Iowa law. Pop quoted himself. In a matter of the law, the law wins over subjective opinion. 

Its how I wipe the floor with you all the time. I quote the actual rulings in question. You quote yourself. And in any contest of legality between you and the USSC....the USSC wins.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 13, 2015)

Skylar said:


> The 2015 rulings never even mention incest.



So what?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 13, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Oh!  Well, why didn't ya say so?

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 13, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > The 2015 rulings never even mention incest.
> ...



So, its much more difficult to argue that Windsor and Obergefell authorized something neither ever even mention. 

The difference between you and I, Keyes...is I've actually read the rulings. You never have. I cite the rulings. You cite yourself. 

Its also the reason why I was able to predict virtually every significant part of the Obergefell ruling. And you were incompetently wrong on every point.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 13, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



And.....your tell. Your white flag where you abandon the entire debate, summarily declare victory....

......and run.

That was easy.


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 13, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Why would I need to cite a single incestuous marriage when my argument has always been that the Iowa law makes incestuous marriage legal?

It's legal for me to drive a Cadillac, but I'd be hard pressed to show evidence that I had. 

It's legal for me to test for a pilots license, but that doesn't mean I have. 

Now, prove that a same sex straight couple of sisters, is commiting incest by getting married. 

Let's look at the law in Iowa and look for the requirement for sexual intercourse. 

Not there?

Too bad, so sad


----------



## Skylar (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



To demonstrate that your 'ramifications' have some basis in reality and isn't simply meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish. If nothing you've claimed has ever happened....then your record of predictive accuracy is essentially worthless.

*So show us what you've predicted actually happening. As as a product of same sex marriage. *Both the cause and the effect.

You do know what 'ramifications' means, right? I'll give you hint: its not whatever hapless nonsense you make up. Its actual consequences.

Its been 10 years since same sex marriage was first legalized.* Show us the actual consequences.* Don't tell us.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 13, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



You... are an imbecile.

Windsor codified that Marriage and matters of sexuality with regard to such, is exclusively, the domain of the states... two years later, THAT was completely ignored in _Obergefell ... for the _Federal Licensing of DEGENERACY.

Now you're an unapologetic, enthusiastic supporter of that absurdity.

You don't get the stand up and apoplectic applause... over the disembodied popular vote of a judicial body, which divines a fundamental right, where no such right CAN EXIST... and simultaneously demand that the law must list every potential scenario to be applicable... .


"Well my name is Yasheka.... day ain't nuttin' in dat law dat sez yasheka cain't do dat shit!  GET YA HANDS OFF ME, RACIST!"


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 13, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Iowa statute 595.19


----------



## Skylar (Jul 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



A law that voids incestuous marriages. Which you insist can't be done. An explicit contradictions of your claims.

A law passed in 1962. Which you're offering to us as a consequence of a 2015 ruling. I don't think 'consequence' means what you think it means. As in our universe cause precedes efffect. It doesn't follow it by half a century.

Which might explain why you can't cite even one example of a legally recognized incestuous marriage in Iowa.

So much for your 'ramifications'. All that you're left with is pseudo-legal gibberish.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 13, 2015)

Skylar said:


> A law passed in 1962. Which you're offering to us as a consequence of a 2015 ruling.



You're basing that, upon what?

I ask because ... it didn't happen.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 13, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > A law passed in 1962. Which you're offering to us as a consequence of a 2015 ruling.
> ...



I've asked him for the consequences he insists are the product of same sex marriage.

He offered Iowa Statute 595.19. A law passed in 1962. 

I'm quite familiar with how confusing you find causation. But for the rational folks among us, how can a 2015 ruling cause a 1962 law? 

And of course, the law voids incestuous marriages. Which Pops insists it can't do. So Pops is having his ass handed to him by both basic causation and the laws of Iowa. Both of which contradict him. 

Can either of you show us even ONE legally recognized incestuous marriage in Iowa? 

Just one. I mean, if these 'ramifications' are inevitable as you claim, then you should have dozens and dozens to chose from. Hundreds even.

I'm just asking for one.


----------



## Faun (Jul 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


And incest is illegal, even in Iowa.


----------



## Politico (Jul 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Please don't. Get gay married and move on.


----------



## Faun (Jul 14, 2015)

Politico said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...


Why would I get _gay married? _ I already said I'm not gay. As far as moving on, sure ... I've already proven most people are in favor of it being legal and you failed miserably to prove otherwise.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 14, 2015)

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 14, 2015)

Same gender couples have been getting married in Iowa for 5 years now- ever since the Iowa Supreme Court found that Iowa law violated the Iowa Constitution. 

Same gender couples getting married were in the news:
Iowa Marriage Equality Celebrating Four Years of Equality in the Heartland Donna Red Wing
Since the ruling roughly 6,000 same-sex couples have wed in Iowa.

No record of, no mention of incestuous couples getting married in the last 5 years. 

Matter of fact- the marriage license application says

http://www.co.hardin.ia.us/files/Marriage_License_Application.pdf

Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract
between two persons who
are(1) 18 years of age or older; (2)
not alreadymarried to each other or still legally married to
someone else; 
*(3) not closely related by blood or first cousins; *
and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 14, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.



Not according to the law.


----------



## G.T. (Jul 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
> ...


Keyes is top 3 biggest meltdowns in usmb history.

Dude is still going like he has tourettes!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Same gender couples have been getting married...



Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Not according to the law.



Yet... Marriage remains the Joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 14, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


ROFLMNAO ... _Adorable_


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 14, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Not according to the law.
> ...



Yet the law says that marriage is more than that.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 14, 2015)

Should we do a poll on how we think how Gay Marriage hurts Keys personally?

I think that legal gay marriage hurts Keys because now he must bang his head against the wall all day long.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> Why would I get _gay married? _



Oh that would be the consequence of your feminized nature... born from molestation as a child by a person of your own gender which caused a premature rush of hormones to imprint upon you the association of sex as playtime, acceptance and the for companionship with those of your own gender.


----------



## konradv (Jul 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Should we do a poll on how we think how Gay Marriage hurts Keys personally?  I think that legal gay marriage hurts Keys because now he must bang his head against the wall all day long.


He has become a one-trick pony.  Isn't something akin to Alzheimer's that makes one post "marriage is the union of one man and one woman" over and over again",  as if it were the first time we've heard it?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 14, 2015)

konradv said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Should we do a poll on how we think how Gay Marriage hurts Keys personally?  I think that legal gay marriage hurts Keys because now he must bang his head against the wall all day long.
> ...




ROFLMNAO...

Now isn't that precious?

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
.
.
.

Reader... If you stay at it long enough, eventually you too will become the eternal issue, without regard to the subject.

And that is because, like me... You will present the light of truth, with which the demon is incapable of competing. As it can only exist in the darkness of deceit.

So work hard... And you too will one day be the one who recognizes the concessions of your would-be opposition.


----------



## G.T. (Jul 14, 2015)

Keyes still needs his binky over gay marriage


----------



## Faun (Jul 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Rightards like him still think marriage is between a white man and a white woman .


----------



## Politico (Jul 15, 2015)

Faun said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


I never tried to prove otherwise you Millennial loser. I said stop talking about it and move on.


----------



## Faun (Jul 15, 2015)

Politico said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...


Of course, you simply threw out empty denials which you can't prove. No worries, I know it.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jul 15, 2015)

konradv said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Should we do a poll on how we think how Gay Marriage hurts Keys personally?  I think that legal gay marriage hurts Keys because now he must bang his head against the wall all day long.
> ...



He's a human spambot.


----------



## Politico (Jul 16, 2015)

Faun said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...





Faun said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Denial of what Millennial?


----------



## Faun (Jul 16, 2015)

Politico said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...


It's not my job to explain your words to you.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 16, 2015)

Faun said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Well now that is a BEAUTIFUL means to express your concession.
_
Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 16, 2015)

Politico said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...



It's a twisted rationalization which has no kinship with reason.  They're immersed in shame, deny the shame while projecting degeneracy upon their opposition as a means to project shame... which then returns to the denial of shame. 

There's no way to explain it, because any attempt to do so demonstrates the shame.

Such is simply the nature of evil.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


a week later and still the no reason and logic town nut job  still rambles on about a non existent sky faire and it's fictional involvement with marriage.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 16, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...



Keyes simultaneously bases his argument on his conception of god while ignoring the huge, enormous, truck sized flaws in his conception of god. 

Utlimately Keyes' only source is himself. Which is why his perspective is so gloriously subjective.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 16, 2015)

Skylar said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


put another way, Keyes is a legend in his own mind.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 16, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



He believes god speaks to him. Thus, anything he believes must be universal truth.

In his own mind anyway.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 16, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...



ROFLMNAO...

Reader you've just been treated to the 'Nuh huh!' Defense.

It's ain't much, having never succeeded... But that's all its got.

The coolest thing about the 'NuhUh!' Defense is that it's usually a sign of the 'Says YOU!' Defense...so keep an eye out for that.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 16, 2015)

Skylar said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


 Reader THAT IS: Straw Reasoning and what makes it cool, is that it makes the 'Nuh UH!' Defense look like pure genius!


----------



## daws101 (Jul 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


more inane drooling babble from Keyes. the nun nuh defense is yours and yours alone, you've show no evidence of any kind to back up your bullshit.
the imaginary objective reader you keep referring to is just that.
actual cognitive and sentient  humans  can see mental illness from miles away...


----------



## AceRothstein (Jul 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------

