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.
Here are the facts kids...in order to keep gays and lesbians from legal, civil marriage you must be able to identify a societal harm in allowing us to legally marry each other. We don't have to prove our worth to society, you have to prove that gays and lesbians marrying is a detriment. You can't which is why Federal Court after Federal Court is striking down these anti gay laws.
Easy:
1. Federal and state laws protecting children that mandate a person must err on the side of caution when that person even just suspects harm coming to a child or children. And those laws having a punitive clause where failure to do so can result in prosecution.
2. Gays and lesbians [same sex couples] lining up in unison to elevate Harvey Milk's sexual-political "achievements" as a matter of law, and now a new US Postage stamp as "the embodiment of the LGBT movement across the nation and the world".
3. That Harvey Milk's "sexual-political achievements" were to bugger orphaned street teens on drugs, vulnerable and incapable of consent. And his officiating to at least one of those boys as "a father figure"; a boy who later killed himself on Milk's birthday.
4. The fact that once married, LGBTers will elevate, legally, to the top-tier of screened people to adopt orphaned children.
5. The fact that even when gays are reminded of Harvey Milk's sex crimes against orphaned teens, the church of LGBT line up to defend and not denounce him.
6. The law in California passed on the urgings/beliefs of a gay politician there, as this church expands its flock, that requires young children in public schools to celebrate Harvey Milk for his sexuality. [see #3 & #5].
7. The law in California on the urgings/beliefs of a gay politician there, as this church expands its flock, that prohibit teens and other minors under 18 from seeking therapy on their own even to help change their sexual orientation from gay to straight, even if that child knows or suspects it was imprinted on them from molestation from a same-sexed perp. While other laws, statutes and customs there not only don't prohibit the reverse in children [urging "coming out" gay or being "bi curious"] and dozens of entities that exist to "help children transition" from straight to gay. [not a church? yeah, right]/
8. First amendment rights particularly in Utah where the christian faith teaches that an entire culture [Sodom] and its inhabitants were wiped off the map because of homosexual behavior taking over an entire region as a culture. [See Jude 1 & Romans 1, also the Koran for muslims Poets 26.] And that not just the homosexuals but also their enablers or apologists being sent to the Pit of Fire forever.
As long as the church of LGBT requires children to celebrate Harvey Milk's sexual-political "achievements" those adults must not be allowed access anywhere near adoptable orphans.
You DO realize what will happen the moment they get the legal toe in the door of marriage, right? If any adoption agency DARES to screen them at that point as not savory to adopt, that adoption agency will be sued into next year and the US Supreme Court will be faced once again with a decision to examine the LGBT CULTure more closely, this time, and make that final determination to shelve children's protection in favor of an ideology that worships the Harvey Milk sexual ideal, which is, sex with orphaned teens who are preferably, according to Milk's bio, addled on drugs and incapable of mentally resisting his sexual advances.
I'll leave you, Seawytch, to contemplate once again the quote from Harvey Milk's bio by his gay friend/journalist Randy Shilts,
"Harvey Milk always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems". [page 180 The Mayor of Castro Street; The Life and Times of Harvey Milk]
Hate? And we were discussing gay marriage, not outlawing gay behavior. Simmer down.And Where_'s natural law theory falls on its own inconsistency. The hatred above expressed by him exposes that the end game is coming shortly for his hate group.
What is morally abnormal is the refusal by some Americans to allow others to live their private lives as they wish.
Yup, so the far right needs to remove the hate speech because all adults have the civil right to marry the partner they wish.
Hate? And we were discussing gay marriage, not outlawing gay behavior. Simmer down.
Yup, so the far right needs to remove the hate speech because all adults have the civil right to marry the partner they wish.
people on the left also do not support gay marriage. stop being such a partisan leftwinger.
Hysterical!
Speak and children and fools and look who shows up.
I'm quite new to the forum, but the first couple of posts I read them, I learned that Truth does not matter to them and JakeStarkey is a collectivist posing, poorly, as something else, meaning that truth doesn't matter to them either. CLICK! GONE!
i support gay's right to marry just like heterosexuals. i've repeatedly stated this jakey. stop being a dumbass.
Incorrect. Gay marriage exists in some states now. Marriage is redefined in those states to incluse (only) two same sex people, although I have no idea why it's limited to two and can't get an answer. Also the equal protection clause is about individual rights, not hetero, gay, threesome, group relationships.Incorrect.
There is no such thing as gay marriage, and there is no movement.
There is only marriage, where both opposite- and same-sex couples are eligible to enter into those marriage contracts.
Given the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to access marriage law exactly as it exists now unaltered and unchanged to deny them that access is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
This is neither opinion nor speculation, but it is indeed a fact of Constitutional law, as appropriately determined by the Federal courts.
i support gay's right to marry just like heterosexuals. i've repeatedly stated this jakey. stop being a dumbass.
So, for once, you are on the side of right and good.
I am glad for you.
i support gay's right to marry just like heterosexuals. i've repeatedly stated this jakey. stop being a dumbass.
So, for once, you are on the side of right and good.
I am glad for you.
for once...lmao. you're such a sissy tattletale...go run to the mods and report this crybaby.
Incorrect.
There is no such thing as Same-sex Marriage. Just as there is no such thing as 'black-white', 'down-up', 'Happy-Sad' and 'Leftist Americans'.
You see friend, nature precludes that something can be at two places at one moment. Therefore it is impossible for one to simultaneously adhere to both the Thesis and the Antithesis.
What you're speaking to is the illusion of reason. Wherein terms are merely redefined, without regard to the standing concept which the term formerly represented.
This is a chronic ploy of collectivism. For instance some months ago, we learned that our old insurance policies were "sub-standard". Now what was this based upon? Nothing. Absolutely NOTHING. They just snatched it out of the ether, demanding that they were now in charge and THEY DECIDE WHAT THE STANDARD IS!. Which in the case of Obamacare, it means for the moment that you must buy a bunch of crap that YOU DO NOT NEED AND WILL NEVER USE!
Never forget:
Deceit <=> FRAUD<=> Ignorance
>>> >> S O C I A L I S M << <<<
Thank you for providing me this opportunity to teach and, I hope that helps.
You just said "incorrect" and then agreed with him. There is no "same sex marriage" there is just marriage.
"While it was assumed until recently that a person could only share an intimate emotional bond and develop a family with a person of the opposite sex, the realization that this assumption is false does not change the underlying right. It merely changes the result when the court applies that right to the facts before it. Applying that right to these Plaintiffs, the court finds that the Constitution protects their right to marry a person of the same sex to the same degree that the Constitution protects the right of heterosexual individuals to marry a person of the opposite sex." ~ Judge Robert Shelby Utah marriage case
I would ask that if you are going to participate in an adult discussion, that you try to comport yourself within the scope of what is expected from an adult.
That is to be of sober mind and to impart sound reasoning, to the extent that is possible.
If you truly are incapable of such, as the above response would indicate, please refrain from expressing yourself.
Marriage is the joining of one male human being and one female human being. The institution is designed to a human analogue to the natural biological design, wherein, two individuals of the distinct genders dedicate their respective lives to one another, becoming one entity, through the joining of coitus, which promotes the biological imperative to procreate in sound, stable, fulfilling families.
This is not possible for homosexuals, except where homosexuals turn from their abnormal desires, rising above their malady and join with another of the distinct gender.
Meaning that where two homosexuals go to a courthouse and fill out an application and are accepted to play house, that is all they are doing, they are no more participating in Marriage, than they are falling toward Mars. What they are doing is deluding themselves and, in the process, undermining the viability of their culture.
Did this answer your question Seawytch? That question being essentially, "how can anyone have a legitimate objection to gay marriage, legally speaking". Not only does society as a whole have an implied objection, they have a mandated objection. See the details on the messiah Harvey Milk for why that legal obligation to object to gay marriage exists.
Here are the facts kids...in order to keep gays and lesbians from legal, civil marriage you must be able to identify a societal harm in allowing us to legally marry each other. We don't have to prove our worth to society, you have to prove that gays and lesbians marrying is a detriment. You can't which is why Federal Court after Federal Court is striking down these anti gay laws.
Easy:
1. Federal and state laws protecting children that mandate a person must err on the side of caution when that person even just suspects harm coming to a child or children. And those laws having a punitive clause where failure to do so can result in prosecution.
2. Gays and lesbians [same sex couples] lining up in unison to elevate Harvey Milk's sexual-political "achievements" as a matter of law, and now a new US Postage stamp as "the embodiment of the LGBT movement across the nation and the world".
3. That Harvey Milk's "sexual-political achievements" were to bugger orphaned street teens on drugs, vulnerable and incapable of consent. And his officiating to at least one of those boys as "a father figure"; a boy who later killed himself on Milk's birthday.
4. The fact that once married, LGBTers will elevate, legally, to the top-tier of screened people to adopt orphaned children.
5. The fact that even when gays are reminded of Harvey Milk's sex crimes against orphaned teens, the church of LGBT line up to defend and not denounce him.
6. The law in California passed on the urgings/beliefs of a gay politician there, as this church expands its flock, that requires young children in public schools to celebrate Harvey Milk for his sexuality. [see #3 & #5].
7. The law in California on the urgings/beliefs of a gay politician there, as this church expands its flock, that prohibit teens and other minors under 18 from seeking therapy on their own even to help change their sexual orientation from gay to straight, even if that child knows or suspects it was imprinted on them from molestation from a same-sexed perp. While other laws, statutes and customs there not only don't prohibit the reverse in children [urging "coming out" gay or being "bi curious"] and dozens of entities that exist to "help children transition" from straight to gay. [not a church? yeah, right]/
8. First amendment rights particularly in Utah where the christian faith teaches that an entire culture [Sodom] and its inhabitants were wiped off the map because of homosexual behavior taking over an entire region as a culture. [See Jude 1 & Romans 1, also the Koran for muslims Poets 26.] And that not just the homosexuals but also their enablers or apologists being sent to the Pit of Fire forever.
As long as the church of LGBT requires children to celebrate Harvey Milk's sexual-political "achievements" those adults must not be allowed access anywhere near adoptable orphans.
You DO realize what will happen the moment they get the legal toe in the door of marriage, right? If any adoption agency DARES to screen them at that point as not savory to adopt, that adoption agency will be sued into next year and the US Supreme Court will be faced once again with a decision to examine the LGBT CULTure more closely, this time, and make that final determination to shelve children's protection in favor of an ideology that worships the Harvey Milk sexual ideal, which is, sex with orphaned teens who are preferably, according to Milk's bio, addled on drugs and incapable of mentally resisting his sexual advances.
I'll leave you, Seawytch, to contemplate once again the quote from Harvey Milk's bio by his gay friend/journalist Randy Shilts,
"Harvey Milk always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems". [page 180 The Mayor of Castro Street; The Life and Times of Harvey Milk]
C_Clayton_Jones said:And unfortunately there are those who use the term ‘gay marriage’ in the context of partisan demagoguery, propagating the lie that allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law will ‘change’ marriage, when in fact nothing could be further from t he truth.
Did this answer your question Seawytch? That question being essentially, "how can anyone have a legitimate objection to gay marriage, legally speaking". Not only does society as a whole have an implied objection, they have a mandated objection. See the details on the messiah Harvey Milk for why that legal obligation to object to gay marriage exists.
Easy:
1. Federal and state laws protecting children that mandate a person must err on the side of caution when that person even just suspects harm coming to a child or children. And those laws having a punitive clause where failure to do so can result in prosecution.
2. Gays and lesbians [same sex couples] lining up in unison to elevate Harvey Milk's sexual-political "achievements" as a matter of law, and now a new US Postage stamp as "the embodiment of the LGBT movement across the nation and the world".
3. That Harvey Milk's "sexual-political achievements" were to bugger orphaned street teens on drugs, vulnerable and incapable of consent. And his officiating to at least one of those boys as "a father figure"; a boy who later killed himself on Milk's birthday.
4. The fact that once married, LGBTers will elevate, legally, to the top-tier of screened people to adopt orphaned children.
5. The fact that even when gays are reminded of Harvey Milk's sex crimes against orphaned teens, the church of LGBT line up to defend and not denounce him.
6. The law in California passed on the urgings/beliefs of a gay politician there, as this church expands its flock, that requires young children in public schools to celebrate Harvey Milk for his sexuality. [see #3 & #5].
7. The law in California on the urgings/beliefs of a gay politician there, as this church expands its flock, that prohibit teens and other minors under 18 from seeking therapy on their own even to help change their sexual orientation from gay to straight, even if that child knows or suspects it was imprinted on them from molestation from a same-sexed perp. While other laws, statutes and customs there not only don't prohibit the reverse in children [urging "coming out" gay or being "bi curious"] and dozens of entities that exist to "help children transition" from straight to gay. [not a church? yeah, right]/
8. First amendment rights particularly in Utah where the christian faith teaches that an entire culture [Sodom] and its inhabitants were wiped off the map because of homosexual behavior taking over an entire region as a culture. [See Jude 1 & Romans 1, also the Koran for muslims Poets 26.] And that not just the homosexuals but also their enablers or apologists being sent to the Pit of Fire forever.
As long as the church of LGBT requires children to celebrate Harvey Milk's sexual-political "achievements" those adults must not be allowed access anywhere near adoptable orphans.
You DO realize what will happen the moment they get the legal toe in the door of marriage, right? If any adoption agency DARES to screen them at that point as not savory to adopt, that adoption agency will be sued into next year and the US Supreme Court will be faced once again with a decision to examine the LGBT CULTure more closely, this time, and make that final determination to shelve children's protection in favor of an ideology that worships the Harvey Milk sexual ideal, which is, sex with orphaned teens who are preferably, according to Milk's bio, addled on drugs and incapable of mentally resisting his sexual advances.
I'll leave you, Seawytch, to contemplate once again the quote from Harvey Milk's bio by his gay friend/journalist Randy Shilts,
Your fantasies won't hold up in court.
Did this answer your question Seawytch? That question being essentially, "how can anyone have a legitimate objection to gay marriage, legally speaking". Not only does society as a whole have an implied objection, they have a mandated objection. See the details on the messiah Harvey Milk for why that legal obligation to object to gay marriage exists.
Easy:
1. Federal and state laws protecting children that mandate a person must err on the side of caution when that person even just suspects harm coming to a child or children. And those laws having a punitive clause where failure to do so can result in prosecution.
2. Gays and lesbians [same sex couples] lining up in unison to elevate Harvey Milk's sexual-political "achievements" as a matter of law, and now a new US Postage stamp as "the embodiment of the LGBT movement across the nation and the world".
3. That Harvey Milk's "sexual-political achievements" were to bugger orphaned street teens on drugs, vulnerable and incapable of consent. And his officiating to at least one of those boys as "a father figure"; a boy who later killed himself on Milk's birthday.
4. The fact that once married, LGBTers will elevate, legally, to the top-tier of screened people to adopt orphaned children.
5. The fact that even when gays are reminded of Harvey Milk's sex crimes against orphaned teens, the church of LGBT line up to defend and not denounce him.
6. The law in California passed on the urgings/beliefs of a gay politician there, as this church expands its flock, that requires young children in public schools to celebrate Harvey Milk for his sexuality. [see #3 & #5].
7. The law in California on the urgings/beliefs of a gay politician there, as this church expands its flock, that prohibit teens and other minors under 18 from seeking therapy on their own even to help change their sexual orientation from gay to straight, even if that child knows or suspects it was imprinted on them from molestation from a same-sexed perp. While other laws, statutes and customs there not only don't prohibit the reverse in children [urging "coming out" gay or being "bi curious"] and dozens of entities that exist to "help children transition" from straight to gay. [not a church? yeah, right]/
8. First amendment rights particularly in Utah where the christian faith teaches that an entire culture [Sodom] and its inhabitants were wiped off the map because of homosexual behavior taking over an entire region as a culture. [See Jude 1 & Romans 1, also the Koran for muslims Poets 26.] And that not just the homosexuals but also their enablers or apologists being sent to the Pit of Fire forever.
As long as the church of LGBT requires children to celebrate Harvey Milk's sexual-political "achievements" those adults must not be allowed access anywhere near adoptable orphans.
You DO realize what will happen the moment they get the legal toe in the door of marriage, right? If any adoption agency DARES to screen them at that point as not savory to adopt, that adoption agency will be sued into next year and the US Supreme Court will be faced once again with a decision to examine the LGBT CULTure more closely, this time, and make that final determination to shelve children's protection in favor of an ideology that worships the Harvey Milk sexual ideal, which is, sex with orphaned teens who are preferably, according to Milk's bio, addled on drugs and incapable of mentally resisting his sexual advances.
I'll leave you, Seawytch, to contemplate once again the quote from Harvey Milk's bio by his gay friend/journalist Randy Shilts,
Your fantasies won't hold up in court.
You just said "incorrect" and then agreed with him. There is no "same sex marriage" there is just marriage.
"While it was assumed until recently that a person could only share an intimate emotional bond and develop a family with a person of the opposite sex, the realization that this assumption is false does not change the underlying right. It merely changes the result when the court applies that right to the facts before it. Applying that right to these Plaintiffs, the court finds that the Constitution protects their right to marry a person of the same sex to the same degree that the Constitution protects the right of heterosexual individuals to marry a person of the opposite sex." ~ Judge Robert Shelby Utah marriage case
I would ask that if you are going to participate in an adult discussion, that you try to comport yourself within the scope of what is expected from an adult.
That is to be of sober mind and to impart sound reasoning, to the extent that is possible.
If you truly are incapable of such, as the above response would indicate, please refrain from expressing yourself.
Marriage is the joining of one male human being and one female human being. The institution is designed to a human analogue to the natural biological design, wherein, two individuals of the distinct genders dedicate their respective lives to one another, becoming one entity, through the joining of coitus, which promotes the biological imperative to procreate in sound, stable, fulfilling families.
This is not possible for homosexuals, except where homosexuals turn from their abnormal desires, rising above their malady and join with another of the distinct gender.
Meaning that where two homosexuals go to a courthouse and fill out an application and are accepted to play house, that is all they are doing, they are no more participating in Marriage, than they are falling toward Mars. What they are doing is deluding themselves and, in the process, undermining the viability of their culture.
That's your opinion or religious view. I happen to be legally married and we just filed our first joint Federal tax return. WOW, what a difference!
WOO HOO!! NATURE WINS ANOTHER ONE!
Incorrect. Gay marriage exists in some states now. Marriage is redefined in those states to incluse (only) two same sex people, although I have no idea why it's limited to two and can't get an answer. Also the equal protection clause is about individual rights, not hetero, gay, threesome, group relationships.Incorrect.
There is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ and there is no ‘movement.’
There is only marriage, where both opposite- and same-sex couples are eligible to enter into those marriage contracts.
Given the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to access marriage law exactly as it exists now – unaltered and unchanged – to deny them that access is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
This is neither opinion nor speculation, but it is indeed a fact of Constitutional law, as appropriately determined by the Federal courts.
I would ask that if you are going to participate in an adult discussion, that you try to comport yourself within the scope of what is expected from an adult.
That is to be of sober mind and to impart sound reasoning, to the extent that is possible.
If you truly are incapable of such, as the above response would indicate, please refrain from expressing yourself.
Marriage is the joining of one male human being and one female human being. The institution is designed to a human analogue to the natural biological design, wherein, two individuals of the distinct genders dedicate their respective lives to one another, becoming one entity, through the joining of coitus, which promotes the biological imperative to procreate in sound, stable, fulfilling families.
This is not possible for homosexuals, except where homosexuals turn from their abnormal desires, rising above their malady and join with another of the distinct gender.
Meaning that where two homosexuals go to a courthouse and fill out an application and are accepted to play house, that is all they are doing, they are no more participating in Marriage, than they are falling toward Mars. What they are doing is deluding themselves and, in the process, undermining the viability of their culture.
That's your opinion or religious view. I happen to be legally married and we just filed our first joint Federal tax return. WOW, what a difference!
Huh. Look at that, the Relativist offers up the LEGAL qualifier, noting, NOT the LIFELONG BOND of two individuals who have FULLY COMMITTED TO ONE ANOTHER, but the TAX FILING, as representing her primary concerns for her would-be "marriage", and, in so doing establishing "That", as a fact of the incontrovertible variety.
And in a delightfully sweet, ironic twist, one which is FURTHER validated through her inability to contest such being limited to the attempt to distract from such, through feckless and fallacious appeals.
For all intents and purposes, she and her most special friend are bound through simple incorporation, basically a modification of an LLC. But instead of actually using the path of incorporation, the Homo-lobby advocating the normalization of sexual abnormality, DESPERATELY needed to take the pretense of "Marriage" path. The thing is that HAD they opted to incorporate, instead of demanding Marriage, they could load up the car and drive, or fly or sail, anywhere in the world, where their 'union' would be recognized. Because a corporation is a legally binding contract. As it stands now, the moment our contributor and her 'significant other' cross their state line, they're right back to being little more than roomies.
So, we should WHY would the Homo-movement reject a secular and throughly binding, perfectly suited instrument, over something for which they are THOROUGHLY UNQUALIFIED FOR?
They DESPERATELY NEED the legitimacy inherent in "Marriage" which is unobtainable as a practicing homosexual. The proof of which is demonstrated in the desperation itself.
Much as many homosexuals are obsessed with the accumulation of wealth, they need Marriage to secure legitimacy. But, being illegitimate, nothing they DO will ever produce legitimacy, until they turn from the illegitimacy, that defines them, which is their deviant BEHAVIOR.
You can't fight Mother Nature
