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

[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?

Yes...

Is it possible for your to expound upon your answer?
I've always thought natural consequences happened as a result of behavior that was not planned or controlled

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Tell that to the lesbians and gay men in the world. The pleasure is a function. If it were not, human females would only be sexually receptive near or during ovulation,

as are cats, dogs, and most other mammals.

 

[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?

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

Reproduction catches a free ride on sex. That's why the vast majority of sex is for bonding and fun. Nature at work.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Catholics are supposed to believe that coitus interruptus is forbidden.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Reproduction catches a free ride on sex. That's why the vast majority of sex is for bonding and fun. Nature at work.

Of course. I estimate that 99% of all human sex acts are for a purpose other than producing a child. By that measure, Keys is labeling 99% of human sex deviant.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

There is a 'right' to promote deception?

LOL! Seriously?

Let me break it down for you... there is no 'Right' to promote deception and homosexuality is deception, in that it rejects the reality that sexual behavior serves one purpose and one purpose only... and that is procreation.

That such can be secondarily used for entertainment... is irrelevant.

You want to claim that Sex is purposed for entertainment and can be used secondarily for procreation.

What you can't avoid however is the responsibilities intrinsic to sex... which for sound, normal sex is related chiefly to conception, but also, can and DOES... result in the transmission of very serious disease.

And while the sexually deviant do not risk conception, the diseases they routinely transmit tend to be DEADLY.

See how that works?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Catholics are supposed to believe that coitus interruptus is forbidden.

Well it certainly worked out poorly for Onan.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Reproduction catches a free ride on sex. That's why the vast majority of sex is for bonding and fun. Nature at work.

Of course. I estimate that 99% of all human sex acts are for a purpose other than producing a child. By that measure, Keys is labeling 99% of human sex deviant.

He rejects normalcy the same way he does nature and reality. It wasn't so long ago that blowjobs were "unnatural", until we discovered they were anything but.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Hammers are not solely used for pounding inanimate objects... that doesn't make such use sound, or morally justified, dumbass.

 

[Faun]

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?

Show where the U.S. government has limited such free speech...

Repeating this with the hope that where_is_my_brain will respond this time ...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Hammers are not solely used for pounding inanimate objects... that doesn't make such use sound, or morally justified, dumbass.

And the penis isn't solely for making babies, dumbass.

 

[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.

Tell that to the lesbians and gay men in the world. The pleasure is a function. If it were not, human females would only be sexually receptive near or during ovulation,

as are cats, dogs, and most other mammals.

OH! I see...

So you're saying that because a lot of people 'do it' then it's OK.

So, in what serves as your 'mind', popularity determines validity... and this despite the fact that popularity has no potential correlation with validity.

ROFLMNAO!

Gilligan, no matter HOW MANY TIMES you trot that irrational drivel out, it remains HYSTERICAL!

 

[Lilah]

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.

There is a 'right' to promote deception?

LOL! Seriously?

Let me break it down for you... there is no 'Right' to promote deception and homosexuality is deception, in that it rejects the reality that sexual behavior serves one purpose and one purpose only... and that is procreation.

That such can be secondarily used for entertainment... is irrelevant.

You want to claim that Sex is purposed for entertainment and can be used secondarily for procreation.

What you can't avoid however is the responsibilities intrinsic to sex... which for sound, normal sex is related chiefly to conception, but also, can and DOES... result in the transmission of very serious disease.

And while the sexually deviant do not risk conception, the diseases they routinely transmit tend to be DEADLY.

See how that works?

Dr. Ruth says sex is good for you. Do you dispute her claim?

 

[Faun]

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.

And where would we be without your moral judgment? Thank you for your service.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Dr. Ruth says sex is good for you. Do you dispute her claim?

She's correct. And men jerking off is good for the prostate, and Internet porn site traffic.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Hammers are not solely used for pounding inanimate objects... that doesn't make such use sound, or morally justified, dumbass.

Oh, I see. Now you want to throw your longtime pal Nature under the bus and shift to man's concoctions of morality as the arbiter of right and wrong.

lol, good one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
And while the sexually deviant do not risk conception, the diseases they routinely transmit tend to be DEADLY.

See how that works?

More heterosexuals have died of syphilis than gays have died of AIDs.

 

[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?

Show where the U.S. government has limited such free speech...

Repeating this with the hope that where_is_my_brain will respond this time ...

Should we break out the ... oh my... How can I say this without being accused of Racism? You know... ( the 'N-Word') ?

Maybe we should take a gander at the only Democrat whose expressed her intention to run for Peasantpimp, regarding "The 13 words you can’t write about Hillary Clinton anymore..."

Do we need to discuss what can and cannot be asked when interviewing individuals for jobs?

Or what Bakers and Photographers can't say when they're taking orders for their services?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Show where the U.S. government has limited such free speech...

Repeating this with the hope that where_is_my_brain will respond this time ...

Should we break out the ... oh my... How can I say this without being accused of Racism? You know... ( the 'N-Word') ?

Maybe we should take a gander at the only Democrat whose expressed her intention to run for Peasantpimp, regarding "The 13 words you can’t write about Hillary Clinton anymore..."

Do we need to discuss what can and cannot be asked when interviewing individuals for jobs?

Or what Bakers and Photographers can't say when they're taking orders for their services?

What government statute has criminalized the use of 13 words about Hillary Clinton?

 

[Faun]

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?

Show where the U.S. government has limited such free speech...

Repeating this with the hope that where_is_my_brain will respond this time ...

Should we break out the ... oh my... How can I say this without being accused of Racism? You know... ( the 'N-Word') ?

Maybe we should take a gander at the only Democrat whose expressed her intention to run for Peasantpimp, regarding "The 13 words you can’t write about Hillary Clinton anymore..."

Do we need to discuss what can and cannot be asked when interviewing individuals for jobs?

Or what Bakers and Photographers can't say when they're taking orders for their services?

Those are cases brought about by individuals. I asked for how the government is limiting free speech....