![]()
This guy doesn't even know what The Onion is.
>>>>>
i was going to post that earlier in the thread. A classic Onion bit.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
![]()
This guy doesn't even know what The Onion is.
>>>>>
[/QUOTE]1. No, they don't. Pedophiles do.Oh. you thought you could come right in here and refute me , huh ?
1. OF COURSE THEY DO, and everyone knows it. Stop talking stupid.
2. Your statement calling it absurd is what is absurd. When I was in the military, if the guys would have suspected anyone in the barracks was queer, that "guy" would have been on his way back home in 5 minutes. Same thing today.
3. For you to call this absurd is beyond absurd. it's BIZARRE. You are deranged.
4. I'll think about anything I choose to think about. Imposing queer sex upon the public's eyes is unacceptable, and should be illegal. In many places it is.
5. Harm is harm whether to queers or heteros. And what harms the queer, harms his family members also.
6. Same as 5.
7. OF COURSE they are (you're making this too easy for me)
8. It could only be related to homosexual behavior. There could be no other explanation. (Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=feature.showFeature&FeatureID=319&E:\ColdFusion9\verity\Data\dummy.txt)
9. Um..yes. (Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41–59." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
2. Absurd statement. The military allowed gays in, you showered with some.
3. Speculation at best.
4. Just stop thinking about it. So you're against "land of the free"? Not free for gays?
5. Gays only spread aids to other gays, so no harm to heterosexuals. heteros get it as well.
6. That website also had an article titled: Eminent Psychiatrist Says Homosexuality is a Disorder that Can be Cured.
7. No, only homophobes are affected.
8. Not relevant to sexual behaviour. Unless you're talking about the plastic in a plastic cock leeching into their bodies.
9. Gays beat each other up more than straight guys get into fights? Um... No. Heteros beat their women up way more, that's why they have all the women's shelters and no/not many gay ones.
1. In 2011, internet journalist Daniel Villarreal advocated queer acceptance by writing: "I and a lot of other people want to indoctrinate, recruit, teach, and expose children to queer sexuality AND THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT." (^ Villarreal, Daniel (May 12, 2011). "Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids?". Queerty. Archived from the original on June 26, 2013. Retrieved June 26, 2013.)
Gay activist admits gays really do want to recruit children :: Northern Colorado Gazette
There was a pro-homosexual teacher/teen 'Teach Out' held at Tufts University in Boston in March 2004, that outraged concerned citizens. During the Teach Out, state HIV instructors taught teenagers how to engage in queer, deviant, sex acts, and they also taught teachers how to indoctrinate children into accepting homosexuality as normal. ( "Let's End Taxpayer Supported Homosexual Recruitment Programs In Public Schools". Traditional Values Coalition. Archived from the original on 1 November 2005.)
In her WorldNetDaily piece, "GLSEN and the Hitler Youth", Judith Reisman also expressed concern that groups such as GLSEN are cover for recruitment of children, saying "Under color of a 'Safe Schools Movement' battling alleged 'bullying' of so-called 'gay' children (K-12), some see GLSEN as a modern version of the Hitler Youth and as preparing the ground for a larger, sweeping, schoolroom Youth Brigade."
Robert Oscar Lopez: Gay Activists Are Violent, “Recruit Children Into Homosexuality” | Equality Matters
PFOX - Recruited
LiveLeak.com - Homosexuals Admit they Recruit Children!
http://culturecampaign.blogspot.com/...amas-czar.html
http://www.theonion.com/articles/98-...ring-goal,536/
2. I showered with one for 10 seconds. We found out he was queer, and sent him back to Teaneck, NJ, tarred & feathered. Yeah those pillowxases had a lot of good feathers. Bwa ha ha h aha ha.
3. Not hardly.
4. I'll think about anything I choose to think about. Imposing queer sex upon the public's eyes is unacceptable, and should be illegal. In many places it is.
5. Harm is harm whether to queers or heteros. And what harms the queer, harms his family members also.
6. So what ?
7. No such thing as "homophobe". That's already been explained . Try to keep up.
8. (Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=feature.showFeature&FeatureID=319&E:\ColdFusion9\verity\Data\dummy.txt)
9. (Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41–59." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
Aren't you the one that claimed that, since you don't live in Arizona, nothing that happens there makes a difference to you?
That's right, I didn't travel to Arizona to protest it....however, that doesn't mean I can't comment on how stupid that law was and that I'm glad it was struck down.
Weren't you the one that claimed to love the Constitution? Why are you okay with a law that would go against it?
So, you lied?
Aren't you the one that claimed that, since you don't live in Arizona, nothing that happens there makes a difference to you?
Careful...she'll lie about you, then call you names, then start sending you private messages until you put her on ignore and then she'll threaten to report you for harassing HER. She'll NEVER make an honest argument...at least that was my experience before I put her on ignore
Sounds like fun.
Why do you not apply the SAME standards and critique to those that claim their "religious freedom" was denied?
That is the subject. That was the law that was passed in AZ.
Respectfully, nothing at all to do with what you are talking about.
Because, as several of us here have observed, the AZ law wasn't attempting to address any specific harm, religious or otherwise - it was a political challenge against the precedents set by standing civil rights legislation. I agree that the law submitted to make that challenge was flawed, because it too narrowly focused on religious freedom instead of the broader issue (probably because the backers believed that gave them a better chance of success, I dunno). But I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of the challenge. Public accommodations laws and protected classes are a perversion of the concept of 'rights' and need to be addressed as such.
It was not.
It was actually an attempt to bring Arizona law into line with federal law.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I trust you on all of that. How would you deal with the "queer" problem?1. Queers actively try to recruit children to adopt their sick, perverted lifestyle > HARM.
2. No heterosexual wants to share a shower with a queer. > HARM.
3. No heterosexual football player wants to be grabbed and tackled by any queer > HARM.
4. Few heterosexuals are not disgusted by the sight to 2 guys kissing each on the lips (or worse) > HARM.
5. Queers have spread AIDS. Only 2% of US population is queer, yet they account for 61% of AIDS > HARM. ("Men who have sex with men remain the group most heavily affected by new HIV infections." Center for Disease Control)
6. "A new study in the United Kingdom has revealed that homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population, reports Health24.com....the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle...the lifespan of a homosexual is on average 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual.
7. Relatives of homosexuals are hurt emotionally by the loved ones being queer. > HARM
8. Breast cancer is higher among lesbians and bisexual women than heterosexual women. > HARM
9. The incidence of domestic violence is almost twice as high among queer "men" as it is among heterosexual men. > HARM
This is a significant but still only partial list.
For starters, they be banned from all teaching positions, all coaching, all clergy, all public official jobs, and anything dealing with kids.
Secondly, SSM would be banned in all 50 states. All employment, housing, public accomodations, adoption, and hate crimes laws protecting queers would be repealed.
Open displays of homosexuality would be banned.
Queers would be banned from the military, all contact sports (tennis might be OK).
All media communication supporting homosexuality would be banned as violations of US Code 2384 (Seditious Conspiracy)
Sodomy would be banned.
All homosexual activity private or public would be banned.
Ah the changes we've seen eh General? And now the gays are just like everyone else, but better dressed. Life is just full of surprises eh?Actually I won't care. Methinks thou doth protest too much.
What you really think is I don't protest enough. Bwa ha ha ha ha http://oi44.tinypic.com/29apboi.jpg
![]()
This guy doesn't even know what The Onion is.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I trust you on all of that. How would you deal with the "queer" problem?
For starters, they be banned from all teaching positions, all coaching, all clergy, all public official jobs, and anything dealing with kids.
Secondly, SSM would be banned in all 50 states. All employment, housing, public accomodations, adoption, and hate crimes laws protecting queers would be repealed.
Open displays of homosexuality would be banned.
Queers would be banned from the military, all contact sports (tennis might be OK).
All media communication supporting homosexuality would be banned as violations of US Code 2384 (Seditious Conspiracy)
Sodomy would be banned.
All homosexual activity private or public would be banned.
Obviously you've never had a bj, no wonder you are so uptight.
let's say, for the sake of argument, that i trust you on all of that. How would you deal with the "queer" problem?
for starters, they be banned from all teaching positions, all coaching, all clergy, all public official jobs, and anything dealing with kids.
Secondly, ssm would be banned in all 50 states. All employment, housing, public accomodations, adoption, and hate crimes laws protecting queers would be repealed.
Open displays of homosexuality would be banned.
Queers would be banned from the military, all contact sports (tennis might be ok).
All media communication supporting homosexuality would be banned as violations of us code 2384 (seditious conspiracy)
sodomy would be banned.
All homosexual activity private or public would be banned.
sieg protectionist!
Sieg protectionist!
![]()
This guy doesn't even know what The Onion is.
Doesn't matter what it is. All that matters is the content of the link does what I want it to do. I use links from all perspectives, as long as they make the point. You couldn't figure that out ? http://oi44.tinypic.com/29apboi.jpg
![]()
This guy doesn't even know what The Onion is.
Doesn't matter what it is. All that matters is the content of the link does what I want it to do. I use links from all perspectives, as long as they make the point. You couldn't figure that out ? http://oi44.tinypic.com/29apboi.jpg
Just so ya know...
"The Onion" isn't "another perspective". The Onion is a satire site poking fun by publishing bogus outlandish fictional stories. When someone posts a link to The Onion and they think it's real "news" - well - they make themselves look like a goober.
>>>>
1. No, they don't. Pedophiles do.
2. Absurd statement. The military allowed gays in, you showered with some.
3. Speculation at best.
4. Just stop thinking about it. So you're against "land of the free"? Not free for gays?
5. Gays only spread aids to other gays, so no harm to heterosexuals. heteros get it as well.
6. That website also had an article titled: Eminent Psychiatrist Says Homosexuality is a Disorder that Can be Cured.
7. No, only homophobes are affected.
8. Not relevant to sexual behaviour. Unless you're talking about the plastic in a plastic cock leeching into their bodies.
9. Gays beat each other up more than straight guys get into fights? Um... No. Heteros beat their women up way more, that's why they have all the women's shelters and no/not many gay ones.
1. In 2011, internet journalist Daniel Villarreal advocated queer acceptance by writing: "I and a lot of other people want to indoctrinate, recruit, teach, and expose children to queer sexuality AND THERES NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT." (^ Villarreal, Daniel (May 12, 2011). "Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids?". Queerty. Archived from the original on June 26, 2013. Retrieved June 26, 2013.)
Gay activist admits gays really do want to recruit children :: Northern Colorado Gazette
There was a pro-homosexual teacher/teen 'Teach Out' held at Tufts University in Boston in March 2004, that outraged concerned citizens. During the Teach Out, state HIV instructors taught teenagers how to engage in queer, deviant, sex acts, and they also taught teachers how to indoctrinate children into accepting homosexuality as normal. ( "Let's End Taxpayer Supported Homosexual Recruitment Programs In Public Schools". Traditional Values Coalition. Archived from the original on 1 November 2005.)
In her WorldNetDaily piece, "GLSEN and the Hitler Youth", Judith Reisman also expressed concern that groups such as GLSEN are cover for recruitment of children, saying "Under color of a 'Safe Schools Movement' battling alleged 'bullying' of so-called 'gay' children (K-12), some see GLSEN as a modern version of the Hitler Youth and as preparing the ground for a larger, sweeping, schoolroom Youth Brigade."
Robert Oscar Lopez: Gay Activists Are Violent, “Recruit Children Into Homosexuality” | Equality Matters
PFOX - Recruited
LiveLeak.com - Homosexuals Admit they Recruit Children!
http://culturecampaign.blogspot.com/...amas-czar.html
http://www.theonion.com/articles/98-...ring-goal,536/
2. I showered with one for 10 seconds. We found out he was queer, and sent him back to Teaneck, NJ, tarred & feathered. Yeah those pillowcases had a lot of good feathers. Bwa ha ha h aha ha.
3. Not hardly.
4. I'll think about anything I choose to think about. Imposing queer sex upon the public's eyes is unacceptable, and should be illegal. In many places it is.
5. Harm is harm whether to queers or heteros. And what harms the queer, harms his family members also.
6. So what ?
7. No such thing as "homophobe". That's already been explained . Try to keep up.
8. (Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=feature.showFeature&FeatureID=319&E:\ColdFusion9\verity\Data\dummy.txt)
9. (Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 4159." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
Doesn't matter what it is. All that matters is the content of the link does what I want it to do. I use links from all perspectives, as long as they make the point. You couldn't figure that out ? http://oi44.tinypic.com/29apboi.jpg
Just so ya know...
"The Onion" isn't "another perspective". The Onion is a satire site poking fun by publishing bogus outlandish fictional stories. When someone posts a link to The Onion and they think it's real "news" - well - they make themselves look like a goober.
>>>>
In this case, they're making fun of YOU, protectionist - the article specifically mocks those who imagine that there's a 'gay agenda' to recruit young people to their ranks.
Because, as several of us here have observed, the AZ law wasn't attempting to address any specific harm, religious or otherwise - it was a political challenge against the precedents set by standing civil rights legislation. I agree that the law submitted to make that challenge was flawed, because it too narrowly focused on religious freedom instead of the broader issue (probably because the backers believed that gave them a better chance of success, I dunno). But I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of the challenge. Public accommodations laws and protected classes are a perversion of the concept of 'rights' and need to be addressed as such.
It was not.
It was actually an attempt to bring Arizona law into line with federal law.
It was not.
That could have easily been done.
It was not.
It was actually an attempt to bring Arizona law into line with federal law.
It was not.
That could have easily been done.
Feel free to explain, in detail, the differences between SB 1062 and the RFRA.
Can't find any?
I guess that makes me right.
That's right, I didn't travel to Arizona to protest it....however, that doesn't mean I can't comment on how stupid that law was and that I'm glad it was struck down.
Weren't you the one that claimed to love the Constitution? Why are you okay with a law that would go against it?
So, you lied?
No, you lied. You claim to love the Constitution but yet you continue to defend bills that tend to shred it.....or the politicians that try to shred it.....![]()
Because, as several of us here have observed, the AZ law wasn't attempting to address any specific harm, religious or otherwise - it was a political challenge against the precedents set by standing civil rights legislation. I agree that the law submitted to make that challenge was flawed, because it too narrowly focused on religious freedom instead of the broader issue (probably because the backers believed that gave them a better chance of success, I dunno). But I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of the challenge. Public accommodations laws and protected classes are a perversion of the concept of 'rights' and need to be addressed as such.
It was not.
It was actually an attempt to bring Arizona law into line with federal law.
You still don't get it, do you.....? It was going against the Civil Rights Act.....maybe you better go read it again.
42 U.S. Code § 2000bb?1 - Free exercise of religion protected | LII / Legal Information Institute(a) Findings The Congress finds that—
(1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution;
(2) laws “neutral” toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise;
(3) governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification;
(4) in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and
(5) the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.
(b) Purposes The purposes of this chapter are—
(1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and
(2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.
(a) In general Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Exception Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(c) Judicial relief A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.
So, you lied?
No, you lied. You claim to love the Constitution but yet you continue to defend bills that tend to shred it.....or the politicians that try to shred it.....![]()
You are the one that defending bills that give the government power to ignore people's rights. I would think that is what shreds the constitution, not the ones that defend them.
So, you lied?
No, you lied. You claim to love the Constitution but yet you continue to defend bills that tend to shred it.....or the politicians that try to shred it.....![]()
You are the one that defending bills that give the government power to ignore people's rights. I would think that is what shreds the constitution, not the ones that defend them.