A Warning from Canada: Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights

[Where_r_my_Keys]

This is just dreamed up rightwing propaganda by frauds like Franklin Graham:

Franklin Graham Same-Sex Marriage Cost Canada Its Freedoms Expect the Same in the US

Fraud?

Really?

Now, in terms of promoting open and honest discourse, does the irrational use of language promote such, or discourage it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Canada already had limits on hate speech.

This is just dreamed up rightwing propaganda by frauds like Franklin Graham:

Franklin Graham Same-Sex Marriage Cost Canada Its Freedoms Expect the Same in the US

Fraud?

Really?

Now, in terms of promoting open and honest discourse, does the irrational use of language promote such, or discourage it?

Does your calling liberals 'subhuman' and then later denying you did so promote open and honest discourse?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

This is just dreamed up rightwing propaganda by frauds like Franklin Graham:

Franklin Graham Same-Sex Marriage Cost Canada Its Freedoms Expect the Same in the US

Fraud?

Really?

Now, in terms of promoting open and honest discourse, does the irrational use of language promote such, or discourage it?

Irrational? Like baby killers you mean? Or fudge packers? Sand *******? Do tell.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is just dreamed up rightwing propaganda by frauds like Franklin Graham:

Franklin Graham Same-Sex Marriage Cost Canada Its Freedoms Expect the Same in the US

Fraud?

Really?

Now, in terms of promoting open and honest discourse, does the irrational use of language promote such, or discourage it?

Fraudulent use of Samaritan's Purse money:

Samaritan s Purse spent 150K on NC constitutional amendment BlueNC

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Canada's free speech rights were limited in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms long before gay marriage was made legal.

The US and Canadian legal treatments of speech are not comparable.

So what? Have those rights and freedoms expanded or retracted as a result of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality?

Which simply asks: Can one speak more freely because Homosexuals are finding power Gilligan, or has the things a person can say more limited?

In which US states where same sex marriage is legal can you be prosecuted or held civilly liable when you repeat your mantra

'marriage is between a man and a woman'?

LOL!

Poor Gilligan.. it needs to reframe the argument.

In which of the states that passed through the legitimate processed of republican governance, law which defends the natural standards of marriage, is there now respect for those laws?

In the states which passed through the legitimate processes of republican governance, prohibiting homosexual behavior... are those laws respected?

In which of the Military Branches is homosexual sex still forbidden??

In which state, just 5 years ago, would anyone be subject to ruinous civil penalties for simply refusing to bake a cake for people who were gathering to celebrate sodomy?

Now, in every state, not too many years ago, every single one of those laws were in full force and effect...

Marriage was recognized instinctively and without exception as the Joining of One Man and One Woman, Homosexual Sex was forbidden and Homosexuals were recognized as being unfit for Military service.

And just because NONE of that remains the case, Gilligan can't find the means to not be OUTRAGED over the very idea that public contests of homosexuality will become FORBIDDEN... .

ROFLMNAO!

You truly can NOT make this crap up.

Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance... the unholy Trinity at the hollow core of socialism.

 

[Dragonlady]

I read the excerpt written by this woman and she opposes any form of child rearing wherein the biological parents - both of them, are not involved. That includes divorce, adoption, and being raised in a gay family. She feels this cheats a child of knowing parents who are part of them. She is positively loony on the subject.

I'm an adopted child who knows her biological mother from afar. I was raised in a loving home. My mother could not have loved me more and she gave me a wonderful upbringing. My father died when I was 11 which made things tough for my Mom, but she did wonders with little money and a lot of work, including growing fresh vegetables and canning and preserving every summer.

I also know some of my biological siblings who were raised by their biological mother. They're a mess. Their mother neither loved not wanted them. My sister was abused as a child and felt unloved. Her stepfather assaulted her. She still suffers effects from her childhood. My brother has abused drugs and alcohol all his life.

I feel so lucky that she gave me up for adoption. The whole notion that children must be raised by biological parents is a complete fallacy. Children should be raised by people who love and value them. Period.

The book writer also wrote of the effects of her father's secrets on her life. But she was born in a time when gay men were arrested and prosecuted just for being gay. All secrecy and its effects are eliminated when being gay isn't considered a crime, or shameful.

That is something that openness and inclusion completely eliminates. If being gay was accepted, this woman wouldn't be suffering from the effects of the secrecy around his sexuality.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

WHERE_R_MY_KEYS SAID:

“You cannot make factual statements about homosexuality.”

One can make factual statements about the law, however.

It is a fact of Constitutional law that gay Americans enjoy the protected liberty of choice, the right to due process of law, and to equal protection of the law – including the right to access marriage law they're eligible to participate in.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

No matter how many times you repeat that, it is STILL WRONG!

LOL!

NOOooo sweetheart...

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Always has been, always will be.

Because that's the way Nature designed humanity.

All you are is an expression of evil, in a temporal rising of evil. History is clear on this... Evil rises and God SLAPS it down.

That is YOUR definition. Times have changed.

LOL! Adorable..

No Scamp... I am just conveying it to you. I got it from nature, who designed the human species, with two distinct, but complimenting Genders. Each, respectively designed to join with the other, physically and emotionally... forming one sustainable body, from two.

Nothing about that changes, with time or anything else.

You see, Natural Law is not subject to antiquity... it does not change at the whimsy of popular opinion.

For instance, if every single person on earth, believed to the core of their very being that if they flapped their arms hard enough that such would establish sufficient lift to allow them to fly... that devotion to that delusion would not lift so much as a single individual.

See how that works?

 

[Syriusly]

And yet, you still don't realize we're in the U.S.. Go figure. What happens in other countries has little to no bearing on what happens here. figure.

Ok, we just passed from silly to stupid --- where the hell did you get any idea like that?

Does Canada have the same Constitutional protections we have here? If not, then WTF difference does it make what happens there? The article points out an erosion in Canada due, in part, to their restrictions of free speech. She even points out how the debate on the subject here isn't legally possible there.

We are not Canada. The OP clearly doesn't get that.

Are you speaking of the same constitution wherein the leftt.

Where the Left champions the protections of the First Amendment?

yes- that same Constitution which protects all of our rights.

Yes let's review the Lefts recent championing of the right to speak freely...
.

Well let's review the Rights championing of individual rights?

The Supreme Court overturned anti-gay sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas- but the State of Louisiana recently voted to keep their anti-gay sodomy law telling Americans how they can have sex in private.

The anti-gay Conservative Million Mom's has sought to deprive employment for hundreds of actors, writers and other people by calling for boycotts of Disney shows, for calling for boycotts of Graham Crackers- all because of course- they objected to the 'free speech' of Disney and Graham Crackers- free speech deemed to 'gay friendly'

And of course- we had anti-gay Conservative ministers going to Africa to promote laws outlawing homosexuality.

Leading to among other things- the death penalty for homosexuals.

Just what Keys and his fellow travellers would really prefer.

Thats what they consider to be Right.

 

[Syriusly]

I read the excerpt written by this woman and she opposes any form of child rearing wherein the biological parents - both of them, are not involved. That includes divorce, adoption, and being raised in a gay family. She feels this cheats a child of knowing parents who are part of them. She is positively loony on the subject.

I'm an adopted child who knows her biological mother from afar. I was raised in a living home. My mother could not have loved me more and she gave me a wonderful upbringing. My father died when I was 11 which made things tough for my Mom, but she did wonders with little money and a lot of work, including growing fresh vegetables and canning and preserving every summer.

I also know some of my biological siblings who were raised by their biological mother. They're a mess. Their mother neither loved not wanted them. My sister was abused as a child and felt unloved. Her stepfather assaulted her. She still suffers effects from her childhood. My brother has abused drugs and alcohol all his life.

I feel so lucky that she gave me up for adoption. The whole notion that children must be raised by biological parents is a complete fallacy. Children should be raised by people who love and value them. Period.

Thanks for sharing your personal experiences- I think what you show is the danger of looking at any one child's experience growing up and presuming that experience is universal.

But yes- Children should be raised by people who love and value them.

 

[Syriusly]

[QU
You truly can NOT make this crap up.

Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance...

The core concepts of all of your posts.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I read the excerpt written by this woman and she opposes any form of child rearing wherein the biological parents - both of them, are not involved. That includes divorce, adoption, and being raised in a gay family. She feels this cheats a child of knowing parents who are part of them. She is positively loony on the subject.

I'm an adopted child who knows her biological mother from afar. I was raised in a living home. My mother could not have loved me more and she gave me a wonderful upbringing. My father died when I was 11 which made things tough for my Mom, but she did wonders with little money and a lot of work, including growing fresh vegetables and canning and preserving every summer.

I also know some of my biological siblings who were raised by their biological mother. They're a mess. Their mother neither loved not wanted them. My sister was abused as a child and felt unloved. Her stepfather assaulted her. She still suffers effects from her childhood. My brother has abused drugs and alcohol all his life.

I feel so lucky that she gave me up for adoption. The whole notion that children must be raised by biological parents is a complete fallacy. Children should be raised by people who love and value them. Period.

Oh... what utter nonsense.

You've completely misrepresented this woman's position.

She believes, as do all reasonable people, that the parents should raise their children.

Which is to say that people should not BREED until they are committed to raising their children in a committed family, with two parents who are directly bound to the child. And that is THE reasonable position on the issue... with no close second.

THAT is what Marriage IS.

And it is the Ideological Left that has worked diligently to rinse the recognition of, respect for, and adherence to this natural law, from Western Culture.

Now the question is simple; Since the Left has gone to work undermining cultural adherence to the laws of nature... in this case, to the natural laws regarding marriage... has the Western Culture 'improved' or 'decayed'?

You just answered the question for yourself... and that is all I was going for. (The correct answer was the first one... not the one that many of you then went to work reshaping through deep seated rationalizations)

.

.

.

Now with regard to adoption... and the pitiful romanticizing of such, in the above cited drivel...

My wife and I adopted a child from Foster Care when our youngest biological Child went to college. And yes, we loved her... but any suggestion that our bond with her was even remotely the same as the bond we have with our biological children, is absurd on its face.

And I don't give a red rat's ass what anyone says, there is no potential comparison. And anyone with biological children, who have adopted children, know this to be true, whether or not they care to admit it, even to themselves.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Thpi

So you found one person who is unhappy having had gay parents, and you think that proves a point?

It has nothing to do with one being 'happy' Gilligan, although it's understandable why you deceitfully need to make it about that.
.

.

.


I found one person, who was raised by homosexuals, in a homosexual marriage... who literally 'wrote the book' on the issue... .

She is, as a direct result of a lifetime of experience with regard to the issues of familial homosexuality... therefore an expert, whose experiences rise above others, save the very few people on earth who can make the same claim. This person, is a person who is well known in her field. She has a sound reputation and who has come out against the cult, from within the cult. And she has done so bearing warnings of the cult's nefarious intent, which you and your local cult within our own little micro-community, demonstrate here... every single day.

What's more... this person is speaking from UP-STREAM of where the United States is... and she is telling us that the signs we see here everyday and which we've seen for some time now; wherein the Militant Homo-Lobby targeted innocent people, which they wanted to either show 'accepting deviant behavior', in which case they were used to prove that 'most people approve of sexual deviancy', or to ruin their lives through abusing the legal system, so as to injure them, so that others could see what happens when you do not accept sexual deviancy.

It's not even a debatable point Gilligan.

All the author of the article is doing is simply saying, "Yes... what you witnessed in that behavior, gets WORSE and it gets MUCH WORSE and here, specifically, IS HOW, IT GETS WORSE."

I posted the OP purely as a means to demonstrate that what I and, so many other capable contributors, have said would be the inevitable consequences of this mess... over the last few years, here and else where FOR DECADES.

Typical idiocy from you. She wrote about her exeriences of being raised by a piss-poor parent. She may have attributed his bad parenting to him being gay, but that doesn't translate into gays make bad parents. That's where she fails. Some gays are horrible parents. Some are great parents. Same as with straight parents. Too bad she grew up with a shitty dad, but it happens to many kids no matter what the sexual orientation of their parents are.

Yes... her homosexual parents were bad parents... such is the nature of Relativism. One cannot be a 'good parent' and be incapable of objectivity.

One cannot be a homosexual and not be a Relativist.

Homosexuals, by definition are people who have professed themselves to be prone toward making horrible decisions with regard to their personal lives. These are people who willfully engage in entertainment which was LIKELY to result in everything from wicked UTIs to STDs... to LITERALLY: their being infected with a deadly virus, for Pete's sake.

Add to THAT, their history of disregarding social taboos regarding their sexual cravings and the potential that they will molest their children is OFF THE CHART.

There's nothing about that equation that says: Good Parent Material.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

[QU
You truly can NOT make this crap up.

Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance...

The core concepts of all of your posts.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Does your calling liberals 'subhuman' and then later denying you did so promote open and honest discourse?

Does demonstrating the substandard nature of 'liberals' in terms of humanity, really equate to 'calling' ?

And to get ahead of your next grope for a point: Yes... demonstrating the substandard nature of 'liberals' in terms of humanity, does promote open and honest discourse.

 

[NYcarbineer]

WHERE_R_MY_KEYS SAID:

“You cannot make factual statements about homosexuality.”

One can make factual statements about the law, however.

It is a fact of Constitutional law that gay Americans enjoy the protected liberty of choice, the right to due process of law, and to equal protection of the law – including the right to access marriage law they're eligible to participate in.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

No matter how many times you repeat that, it is STILL WRONG!

LOL!

NOOooo sweetheart...

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Always has been, always will be.

Because that's the way Nature designed humanity.

All you are is an expression of evil, in a temporal rising of evil. History is clear on this... Evil rises and God SLAPS it down.

That is YOUR definition. Times have changed.

LOL! Adorable..

No Scamp... I am just conveying it to you. I got it from nature, who designed the human species, with two distinct, but complimenting Genders. Each, respectively designed to join with the other, physically and emotionally... forming one sustainable body, from two.

Nothing about that changes, with time or anything else.

You see, Natural Law is not subject to antiquity... it does not change at the whimsy of popular opinion.

For instance, if every single person on earth, believed to the core of their very being that if they flapped their arms hard enough that such would establish sufficient lift to allow them to fly... that devotion to that delusion would not lift so much as a single individual.

See how that works?

Actually nature designed humans so that either sex could enjoy either sex sexually, if they so chose.

 

[Lilah]

So you found one person who is unhappy having had gay parents, and you think that proves a point?

It has nothing to do with one being 'happy' Gilligan, although it's understandable why you deceitfully need to make it about that.
.

.

.


I found one person, who was raised by homosexuals, in a homosexual marriage... who literally 'wrote the book' on the issue... .

She is, as a direct result of a lifetime of experience with regard to the issues of familial homosexuality... therefore an expert, whose experiences rise above others, save the very few people on earth who can make the same claim. This person, is a person who is well known in her field. She has a sound reputation and who has come out against the cult, from within the cult. And she has done so bearing warnings of the cult's nefarious intent, which you and your local cult within our own little micro-community, demonstrate here... every single day.

What's more... this person is speaking from UP-STREAM of where the United States is... and she is telling us that the signs we see here everyday and which we've seen for some time now; wherein the Militant Homo-Lobby targeted innocent people, which they wanted to either show 'accepting deviant behavior', in which case they were used to prove that 'most people approve of sexual deviancy', or to ruin their lives through abusing the legal system, so as to injure them, so that others could see what happens when you do not accept sexual deviancy.

It's not even a debatable point Gilligan.

All the author of the article is doing is simply saying, "Yes... what you witnessed in that behavior, gets WORSE and it gets MUCH WORSE and here, specifically, IS HOW, IT GETS WORSE."

I posted the OP purely as a means to demonstrate that what I and, so many other capable contributors, have said would be the inevitable consequences of this mess... over the last few years, here and else where FOR DECADES.

What are your thoughts on the children of drug addicts such as Toronto's crack cocaine mayor?

I think that they're the natural, unavoidable consequence of Left-think. And it's never pretty, it never ends well... it always ends tragically.

Natural?
Have you read Zack Wahls book, My Two Moms?
I've heard the KKK is seeking a keynote speaker, are you interested?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Actually nature designed humans so that either sex could enjoy either sex sexually, if they so chose.

No Gilligan, it actually did not.

You simply feel that because the sensation of pleasure can be produced, that pleasure is the function.

But in your defense, you 'feel' such, because you're an imbecile, wholly lacking any potential to reason soundly.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So you found one person who is unhappy having had gay parents, and you think that proves a point?

It has nothing to do with one being 'happy' Gilligan, although it's understandable why you deceitfully need to make it about that.
.

.

.


I found one person, who was raised by homosexuals, in a homosexual marriage... who literally 'wrote the book' on the issue... .

She is, as a direct result of a lifetime of experience with regard to the issues of familial homosexuality... therefore an expert, whose experiences rise above others, save the very few people on earth who can make the same claim. This person, is a person who is well known in her field. She has a sound reputation and who has come out against the cult, from within the cult. And she has done so bearing warnings of the cult's nefarious intent, which you and your local cult within our own little micro-community, demonstrate here... every single day.

What's more... this person is speaking from UP-STREAM of where the United States is... and she is telling us that the signs we see here everyday and which we've seen for some time now; wherein the Militant Homo-Lobby targeted innocent people, which they wanted to either show 'accepting deviant behavior', in which case they were used to prove that 'most people approve of sexual deviancy', or to ruin their lives through abusing the legal system, so as to injure them, so that others could see what happens when you do not accept sexual deviancy.

It's not even a debatable point Gilligan.

All the author of the article is doing is simply saying, "Yes... what you witnessed in that behavior, gets WORSE and it gets MUCH WORSE and here, specifically, IS HOW, IT GETS WORSE."

I posted the OP purely as a means to demonstrate that what I and, so many other capable contributors, have said would be the inevitable consequences of this mess... over the last few years, here and else where FOR DECADES.

What are your thoughts on the children of drug addicts such as Toronto's crack cocaine mayor?

I think that they're the natural, unavoidable consequence of Left-think. And it's never pretty, it never ends well... it always ends tragically.

Natural?

Yes...

 

[NYcarbineer]

WHERE_R_MY_KEYS SAID:

“You cannot make factual statements about homosexuality.”

One can make factual statements about the law, however.

It is a fact of Constitutional law that gay Americans enjoy the protected liberty of choice, the right to due process of law, and to equal protection of the law – including the right to access marriage law they're eligible to participate in.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

No matter how many times you repeat that, it is STILL WRONG!

LOL!

NOOooo sweetheart...

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Always has been, always will be.

Because that's the way Nature designed humanity.

All you are is an expression of evil, in a temporal rising of evil. History is clear on this... Evil rises and God SLAPS it down.

That is YOUR definition. Times have changed.

LOL! Adorable..

No Scamp... I am just conveying it to you. I got it from nature, who designed the human species, with two distinct, but complimenting Genders. Each, respectively designed to join with the other, physically and emotionally... forming one sustainable body, from two.

Nothing about that changes, with time or anything else.

You see, Natural Law is not subject to antiquity... it does not change at the whimsy of popular opinion.

For instance, if every single person on earth, believed to the core of their very being that if they flapped their arms hard enough that such would establish sufficient lift to allow them to fly... that devotion to that delusion would not lift so much as a single individual.

See how that works?

That's not how it works. Sex is not solely a reproductive function in humans. It is unnatural to believe it is.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

No matter how many times you repeat that, it is STILL WRONG!

LOL!

NOOooo sweetheart...

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Always has been, always will be.

Because that's the way Nature designed humanity.

All you are is an expression of evil, in a temporal rising of evil. History is clear on this... Evil rises and God SLAPS it down.

That is YOUR definition. Times have changed.

LOL! Adorable..

No Scamp... I am just conveying it to you. I got it from nature, who designed the human species, with two distinct, but complimenting Genders. Each, respectively designed to join with the other, physically and emotionally... forming one sustainable body, from two.

Nothing about that changes, with time or anything else.

You see, Natural Law is not subject to antiquity... it does not change at the whimsy of popular opinion.

For instance, if every single person on earth, believed to the core of their very being that if they flapped their arms hard enough that such would establish sufficient lift to allow them to fly... that devotion to that delusion would not lift so much as a single individual.

See how that works?

Actually nature designed humans so that either sex could enjoy either sex sexually, if they so chose.

Not to mention enjoying sex alone eh? Nice design. You can jerk off but you can't tickle yourself. Nature can be curious, like women who can orgasm without physical contact.