Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Stops Gay Marriage In Utah

[Silhouette]

Oh, a help book, like homeopathy for the uneducated, so the latter can be in charge of their own diagnoses.

Kind of like the American Psychological Association being taken over by a gay cabal in the 1970s to present. Where the gays in control decades ago merely dispensed with the ruling scientific principle, the "Leona Tyler' principle that mandated scientific data back up any stance the APA takes publicly on anything. They did so without even a board meeting or an up or down vote. The Principle just vanished from the books and can't even be found now in APA archives. The gays there "disappeared" it.

Now the gay-ruled/influenced APA unilaterally and unquestioningly states that anything gay is perfectly normal. Even transgender children are given the stamp of approval to prepare for amputationg healthy organs and body parts to play-act the opposite gender. Yep. No problems there at all.

Oh the Homosexual affiliation with the would-be discipline of human sexuality began 50 years prior to the 70s.

Alfred Kinsey, (Kinsey Institute) was a leading Eugenicist, and a homosexual, who 'studied' human sexuality. He focused his 'studies' on the sexuality of children.

The Kinsey Institute is largely responsible for the SCIENCE! which is leading the APA toward the understanding that some children may actually benefit from adult/child sexual relations.

It's Evil on an unimaginable scale.

Wow. I did not know that. Thanks for sharing. It's nice to know where things start and where they're heading. Especially when those things are becoming a matter of law...

 

[beagle9]

15 years ago I could have modeled for the avatar...5 babies later, not so much



Congrats yourself. The time flies doesn't it?

Thank goodness there was someone around to provide the sperm for those 5 babies. I guess men are good for something after all. Did they insert something into you, did you use a turkey baster, or just a friend? I'm not being grotesque or irreverent. I'm curious actually. I hear of lesbians having babies and I really wonder how most of them do it. Not all of them have the money to go to fertility clinics.

Well...let's see...first two at home with a syringe using sperm from the same gay male donor, a close friend. The last two pregnancies, resulting in three babies, was a surrogacy with donated eggs. A gay male couple fathered the children. I bore twins that had two different fathers. Cool, huh? Science and technology is amazing.

Soon, we may not need the sperm.

Ova-Fusion and the Elimination of the Male

As to how many? 1/4th of couples according to the census.

Same-Sex Couples Census Data Trickles Out: One-Quarter Are Raising Children - ABC News

This post is unbelievable for many I think really, otherwise their thinking your kidding me right ? That is the most twisted up bunch of mess I think I have ever heard of.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

To an absolute certainty, most of those children will be sexually abused, as it is the nature of the sexually abnormal to eschew cultural taboos against such and even in this very thread, we have seen one of our in-house advocate, herself a professed surrogate, providing children to the sexually abnormal, promote other abnormalities, wherein She stated in no uncertain terms, that where she felt that a child, or chicken were capable of consenting and had so consented to sexual a relationship with an adult, she would readily accept such.

You lying sack of nasty shit. I said no such thing. I said if cognizant function is found in ADULT chickens and pigs giving them the ability to consent, YOU could fuck them. I did not apply your silly what if to children, you did.

So this wasn't you?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...tops-gay-marriage-in-utah-51.html#post8514965

Sure looks like you... Cinemax Carpet Munchers canoodling in the avatar.

Would you care to rescind and revise your position?

The query posed the looming certainty that "SCIENCE!" (The deceitful politicized farce which FRAUDULENTLY establishes itself as a scientific authority as a means to influence the Ignorant, NEVER to be confused with 'science') has already asserted that 'adult/child sexual relationships can actually benefit some children' in a white paper it published some years ago, but was forced to retract, when the 'study' was refuted by sexually normal, objective psychologists around the world. The APA is further pushing to establish Pedophilia is a sexual orientation, as a means of decriminalizing the deviancy, as it did for homosexuality.

What's more the powers that be in the Education profession are now 'teaching' 8 year olds about every facet of sexual behavior. This as a means to 'educate' minor children in matters sexual, so that these children can be aware of the processes common to the behavior and the consequences stemming from such.

It become clear that the push is to provide children with the means to make informed decisions in matters of sexuality.

And while the original query initially focused upon bestiality, which you agreed you'd endorse where "SCIENCE!" provided assurances that sub-species could consent to such, leaving the reader to conclude that if you endorse the flogging of animals, there would be no basis for you to reject the same for humans at an early stage of development; given the facts, the question simply asks:

IF (when) "SCIENCE!" declares that children are capable of consenting to sexual relationships with adults, will you advocate to change the laws to accommodate the sexually abnormal who will, as a result, use the change in the law to pursue minor children for the purpose of sexual graitification?​

If not, why not?

If so, why so?

.

.

.

.

The SILENCE, is DEAFENING!​

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Now for those who want to get an idea of how bad it is, please take a read at this:

http://theshepherdofpsychology.com/Content/Spring Creek/Fall 2010/Hum Sex/Articles/pedophila.pdf

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So could we have our in-house homos please respond to the standing query?

It'd really help move the conversation along.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Wow... Just listen to those crickets. They are SOME KINDA LOUD tonight!

Now we can't say that the silence from the homo-lobby is Conclusive PROOF that they're advocating for the means to pursue children for sexual gratification, but we can say conclusively that their silence is their only means of AVOIDING CONCLUSIVE PROOF.

And it all works out the same, now doesn't it?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Just to keep the pressure on. I am reposting this for the third time:

To an absolute certainty, most of those children will be sexually abused, as it is the nature of the sexually abnormal to eschew cultural taboos against such and even in this very thread, we have seen one of our in-house advocate, herself a professed surrogate, providing children to the sexually abnormal, promote other abnormalities, wherein She stated in no uncertain terms, that where she felt that a child, or chicken were capable of consenting and had so consented to sexual a relationship with an adult, she would readily accept such.

You lying sack of nasty shit. I said no such thing. I said if cognizant function is found in ADULT chickens and pigs giving them the ability to consent, YOU could fuck them. I did not apply your silly what if to children, you did.

Nasty Shit? Is there a non-nasty variant of feces, with which I am unaware?

Huh... So this wasn't you?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...tops-gay-marriage-in-utah-51.html#post8514965

Sure looks like you... Cinemax Carpet Munchers canoodling in the avatar, just like your exquisite little divers.

Would you care to rescind and revise your position?

The query posed the looming certainty that "SCIENCE!" (The deceitful politicized farce which FRAUDULENTLY establishes itself as a scientific authority as a means to influence the Ignorant, NEVER to be confused with 'science') has already asserted that 'adult/child sexual relationships can actually benefit some children' in a white paper published by the APA some years ago, but was forced to retract, when the 'study' came under a PHALANX of public criticism, congress censured it and the research was soundly discredited by sexually normal, objective psychologists around the world.

But that didn't stop them, as the APA and the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is STILL pushing hard to establish Pedophilia is a 'sexual orientation', as a means of decriminalizing the deviancy, as it did for homosexuality, again all toward making it "LEGAL".

Part and parcel of the effort is found in the Education profession wherein they are now 'teaching' 8 year olds about every facet of sexual behavior. This as a means to 'educate' minor children in matters sexual, so that these children can be aware of the processes common to the behavior and the consequences stemming from such.

It becomes clear that 'the push' is international, wicked and designed to provide children with the means to make 'informed decisions' in matters of sexuality, so that such will be rationalized as children being 'cognizant' of the processes and consequences of sexuality, thus making them capable of making 'informed consent for sexual relationships with adults', AGAIN so as to provide the means to MAKE ADULT/CHILD SEX: "LEGAL".

And while the original query initially focused upon bestiality, which you agreed you'd endorse where "SCIENCE!" provided assurances that sub-species could consent to such, leaving the reader to conclude that if you endorse the flogging of animals, there would be no basis for you to reject the same for humans at an early stage of development; given the facts, the question simply asks:

IF (when) "SCIENCE!" declares that children are capable of consenting to sexual relationships with adults, will you advocate to change the laws to accommodate the sexually abnormal who will, as a result, use the change in the law to pursue minor children for the purpose of sexual graitification?​

If not, why not?

If so, why so?

.

.

.

.

The SILENCE, is DEAFENING!​

 

[MaryL]

Just when I thought I knew what an oxymoron was, they came up with "GAY MARRIAGE". Go figure it would be an issue debated by the supreme court, no less. This seems like a parody nobody would take seriously years ago. But here we are now. This isn't a victory for human the spirit, it's a sad joke.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kind of like the American Psychological Association being taken over by a gay cabal in the 1970s to present. Where the gays in control decades ago merely dispensed with the ruling scientific principle, the "Leona Tyler' principle that mandated scientific data back up any stance the APA takes publicly on anything. They did so without even a board meeting or an up or down vote. The Principle just vanished from the books and can't even be found now in APA archives. The gays there "disappeared" it.

Now the gay-ruled/influenced APA unilaterally and unquestioningly states that anything gay is perfectly normal. Even transgender children are given the stamp of approval to prepare for amputationg healthy organs and body parts to play-act the opposite gender. Yep. No problems there at all.

Oh the Homosexual affiliation with the would-be discipline of human sexuality began 50 years prior to the 70s.

Alfred Kinsey, (Kinsey Institute) was a leading Eugenicist, and a homosexual, who 'studied' human sexuality. He focused his 'studies' on the sexuality of children.

The Kinsey Institute is largely responsible for the SCIENCE! which is leading the APA toward the understanding that some children may actually benefit from adult/child sexual relations.

It's Evil on an unimaginable scale.

Wow. I did not know that. Thanks for sharing. It's nice to know where things start and where they're heading. Especially when those things are becoming a matter of law...

And the lies of the losers on the psychotic far right continue.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Just when I thought I knew what an oxymoron was, they came up with "GAY MARRIAGE". Go figure it would be an issue debated by the supreme court, no less. This seems like a parody nobody would take seriously years ago. But here we are now. This isn't a victory for human the spirit, it's a sad joke.

Just very well said! Thank you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The sad joke is the sociopathic mentality of Where_.

Since you know your side is going to lose, you are going to be as vicious as you can. That's OK, viciousness up to a limit is allowed in the Rules. I bet you will cross the line, though.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Amazing, isn't it?

Let me just set this out there: And each reader can answer for themselves, to themselves. But didn't ya get the impression that the opposition was trying REALLY HARD to convey that she was VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO ADULTS PURSUING CHILDREN FOR SEX, but for some reason, just never got around to saying it outright?

What kind of person would so much as hesitate to set that straight out on the table, and do so unapologetically, without the slightest sense of doubt? Wouldn't that require one twisted sister?

I mean, she's professed to providing children to people who are known to be prone toward sexual deviancy. And not just a little prone, these are people who self-identify as 'homosexuals'. And have taken overt steps to openly practice abnormal sexual behavior.

Yet, she's clearly incapable of stating in specific terms her rejection of sexual abnormality, as it pertains to the pursuit of children for sexual purposes. And you can rest assured that she's read the thread and the relevant query.

So we're left to ask: "What kind of person would produce children so that they could be subjected to, well, you know: EVIL!

Now, to be fair, she knows that she can't answer, because in doing so she will undermine her own rationalizations that justify her own behavior.

Which on the surface, might explain her hesitation, rendering such at least understandable, but, ask yourself, if you or anyone you know, would forfeit the safety of a child's innocence to help you feel better about your particular kink(s), let alone 5 of 'em. That is some WICKED MESS right there.

And for that individual who just had a flash of 'yes I would' there and, it didn't make you sick to your stomach in a rush of pitiful self awareness, leaving you bounding to your knees to instinctively beg forgiveness and for the strength to overcome and otherwise turn from your dark and pathetic, malfunctioning instinct. You're one sick fuck and are decidedly: THE PROBLEM.

At some point its up to you who you are. Stop being such a loser and decide to be a whole human being and, JUST DO THE RIGHT THING, for a change.

The rest of you, well you got it already. Congrats. And good luck on keeping your shit together, in this basswackwards and up fucked world.

 

[Seawytch]

Thank you for your concern, but all parties involved were and remain HIV negative.



I was a surrogate for a gay male couple. Donated eggs, their sperm, my womb three kids for them.



The surrogate fathers are not the father of my children.

OK. Hope you still get checked regularly for HIV just in case. At least more than six months past your last exposure to gay sperm or fetuses from it.



If people could just butt out for a moment I'd still like to ask about your boys. Are they gay or straight? And I ask knowing they are anonymous and you are anonymous and that you will stay that way.

I have no need to be tested. The last babies, the twins were born in 2006, and we're all fine, thanks.

My son just turned 14 and is currently only interested in video games, skateboards and guns...but I'm sure the girls are just around the corner. My daughter is 12 and has a crush on the star of the Hunger Games and two boys in her class. Our kids (as in the children of gays) are no different than yours and are at no disadvantage to yours.

 

[Seawytch]

To an absolute certainty, most of those children will be sexually abused, as it is the nature of the sexually abnormal to eschew cultural taboos against such and even in this very thread, we have seen one of our in-house advocate, herself a professed surrogate, providing children to the sexually abnormal, promote other abnormalities, wherein She stated in no uncertain terms, that where she felt that a child, or chicken were capable of consenting and had so consented to sexual a relationship with an adult, she would readily accept such.

You lying sack of nasty shit. I said no such thing. I said if cognizant function is found in ADULT chickens and pigs giving them the ability to consent, YOU could fuck them. I did not apply your silly what if to children, you did.

So this wasn't you?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...tops-gay-marriage-in-utah-51.html#post8514965

Sure looks like you... Cinemax Carpet Munchers canoodling in the avatar.

Would you care to rescind and revise your position?

The query posed the looming certainty that "SCIENCE!" (The deceitful politicized farce which FRAUDULENTLY establishes itself as a scientific authority as a means to influence the Ignorant, NEVER to be confused with 'science') has already asserted that 'adult/child sexual relationships can actually benefit some children' in a white paper it published some years ago, but was forced to retract, when the 'study' was refuted by sexually normal, objective psychologists around the world. The APA is further pushing to establish Pedophilia is a sexual orientation, as a means of decriminalizing the deviancy, as it did for homosexuality.

What's more the powers that be in the Education profession are now 'teaching' 8 year olds about every facet of sexual behavior. This as a means to 'educate' minor children in matters sexual, so that these children can be aware of the processes common to the behavior and the consequences stemming from such.

It become clear that the push is to provide children with the means to make informed decisions in matters of sexuality.

And while the original query initially focused upon bestiality, which you agreed you'd endorse where "SCIENCE!" provided assurances that sub-species could consent to such, leaving the reader to conclude that if you endorse the flogging of animals, there would be no basis for you to reject the same for humans at an early stage of development; given the facts, the question simply asks:

IF (when) "SCIENCE!" declares that children are capable of consenting to sexual relationships with adults, will you advocate to change the laws to accommodate the sexually abnormal who will, as a result, use the change in the law to pursue minor children for the purpose of sexual graitification?​

If not, why not?

If so, why so?

.

.

.

.

The SILENCE, is DEAFENING!​

I was speaking only of adult chickens and pigs, not children. Knock off the bullshit if you wish to continue to engage.

 

[Seawytch]

Just when I thought I knew what an oxymoron was, they came up with "GAY MARRIAGE". Go figure it would be an issue debated by the supreme court, no less. This seems like a parody nobody would take seriously years ago. But here we are now. This isn't a victory for human the spirit, it's a sad joke.

This relationship "is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results ... [Their children turn out] generally effeminate ... [their relationship is] productive of evil."

"If any single thing should remain untouched by the hand of the reformer, it was the sacred institution of marriage [which] was about to be destroyed in one thoughtless blow that might produce change in all phases of domestic life."

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You lying sack of nasty shit. I said no such thing. I said if cognizant function is found in ADULT chickens and pigs giving them the ability to consent, YOU could fuck them. I did not apply your silly what if to children, you did.

Nasty Shit? Is there a non-nasty variant?

Huh... So this wasn't you?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...tops-gay-marriage-in-utah-51.html#post8514965

Sure looks like you... Cinemax Carpet Munchers canoodling in the avatar, just like your exquisite little divers.

Would you care to rescind and revise your position?

The query posed the looming certainty that "SCIENCE!" (The deceitful politicized farce which FRAUDULENTLY establishes itself as a scientific authority as a means to influence the Ignorant, NEVER to be confused with 'science') has already asserted that 'adult/child sexual relationships can actually benefit some children' in a white paper published by the APA some years ago, but was forced to retract, when the 'study' came under a PHALANX of public criticism, congress censured it and the research was soundly discredited by sexually normal, objective psychologists around the world.

But that didn't stop them, as the APA and the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is STILL pushing hard to establish Pedophilia is a 'sexual orientation', as a means of decriminalizing the deviancy, as it did for homosexuality, again all toward making it "LEGAL".

Part and parcel of the effort is found in the Education profession wherein they are now 'teaching' 8 year olds about every facet of sexual behavior. This as a means to 'educate' minor children in matters sexual, so that these children can be aware of the processes common to the behavior and the consequences stemming from such.

It becomes clear that 'the push' is international, wicked and designed to provide children with the means to make 'informed decisions' in matters of sexuality, so that such will be rationalized as children being 'cognizant' of the processes and consequences of sexuality, thus making them capable of making 'informed consent for sexual relationships with adults', AGAIN so as to provide the means to MAKE ADULT/CHILD SEX: "LEGAL".

And while the original query initially focused upon bestiality, which you agreed you'd endorse where "SCIENCE!" provided assurances that sub-species could consent to such, leaving the reader to conclude that if you endorse the flogging of animals, there would be no basis for you to reject the same for humans at an early stage of development; given the facts, the question simply asks:

IF (when) "SCIENCE!" declares that children are capable of consenting to sexual relationships with adults, will you advocate to change the laws to accommodate the sexually abnormal who will, as a result, use the change in the law to pursue minor children for the purpose of sexual graitification?​

If not, why not?

If so, why so?

.

.

.

.

The SILENCE, is DEAFENING!​

I was speaking only of adult chickens and pigs, not children. Knock off the bullshit if you wish to continue to engage.

WOW!

I guess that is all any objective observer needs to know about where about where the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality stands. Their intention is to "LEGALIZE" the sexual pursuit of children.

Does anyone need anything else?

 

[Barb]

So no hetero men were used for the donations. Just curious as to why that was? ie: with the prevalence of HIV in the gay male population, were'n't you worried about choosing a man to father your child who was least likely to carry that virus?



Are any of your children boys?

Yes, all gay. The only thing straight were the surrogate eggs. Nope, wasn't worried. We were all tested prior to all procedures for all STDs. Standard practice.

Yes, I have one boy and they have one boy.

Now Barb, just to help you through this, I am going to offer this soundly reasoned hypothesis:

Nature established the biological >Standard< in the innate design of the species.

This, reason suggests, is a function of providing for the biological imperative to propagate, thus to provide for the survival of the species through sustainable procreation.

Meaning that Skins pursue Shirts and, Outies merge with Innies.

Now, given that standard, we can be sure that where an example deviates from that standard, that the deviancy will either exceed the performance of the standard, or fail to rise to the performance of the standard.

So we've two choices here, as I see it and you're welcome to disagree, but the question now comes: Does homosexuality exceed the biological standard, or does it fail to rise to this natural qualifying threshold?

What say you, Barb?​

The world's procreation passed "sustainable" levels before I was born.
There is plenty of evidence in nature to suggest that your idea of an ideal "standard" is subjective, at best.
Your question within those "choices," framed by at least one faulty premise, are therefore illegitimate.

 

[Seawytch]

Nasty Shit? Is there a non-nasty variant?

Huh... So this wasn't you?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...tops-gay-marriage-in-utah-51.html#post8514965

Sure looks like you... Cinemax Carpet Munchers canoodling in the avatar, just like your exquisite little divers.

Would you care to rescind and revise your position?

The query posed the looming certainty that "SCIENCE!" (The deceitful politicized farce which FRAUDULENTLY establishes itself as a scientific authority as a means to influence the Ignorant, NEVER to be confused with 'science') has already asserted that 'adult/child sexual relationships can actually benefit some children' in a white paper published by the APA some years ago, but was forced to retract, when the 'study' came under a PHALANX of public criticism, congress censured it and the research was soundly discredited by sexually normal, objective psychologists around the world.

But that didn't stop them, as the APA and the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is STILL pushing hard to establish Pedophilia is a 'sexual orientation', as a means of decriminalizing the deviancy, as it did for homosexuality, again all toward making it "LEGAL".

Part and parcel of the effort is found in the Education profession wherein they are now 'teaching' 8 year olds about every facet of sexual behavior. This as a means to 'educate' minor children in matters sexual, so that these children can be aware of the processes common to the behavior and the consequences stemming from such.

It becomes clear that 'the push' is international, wicked and designed to provide children with the means to make 'informed decisions' in matters of sexuality, so that such will be rationalized as children being 'cognizant' of the processes and consequences of sexuality, thus making them capable of making 'informed consent for sexual relationships with adults', AGAIN so as to provide the means to MAKE ADULT/CHILD SEX: "LEGAL".

And while the original query initially focused upon bestiality, which you agreed you'd endorse where "SCIENCE!" provided assurances that sub-species could consent to such, leaving the reader to conclude that if you endorse the flogging of animals, there would be no basis for you to reject the same for humans at an early stage of development; given the facts, the question simply asks:

IF (when) "SCIENCE!" declares that children are capable of consenting to sexual relationships with adults, will you advocate to change the laws to accommodate the sexually abnormal who will, as a result, use the change in the law to pursue minor children for the purpose of sexual graitification?​

If not, why not?

If so, why so?

.

.

.

.

The SILENCE, is DEAFENING!​

I was speaking only of adult chickens and pigs, not children. Knock off the bullshit if you wish to continue to engage.

WOW!

I guess that is all any objective observer needs to know about where about where the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality stands. Their intention is to "LEGALIZE" the sexual pursuit of children.

Does anyone need anything else?

Fuck off, shit for brains. Ignore on.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I was speaking only of adult chickens and pigs, not children. Knock off the bullshit if you wish to continue to engage.

WOW!

I guess that is all any objective observer needs to know about where about where the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality stands. Their intention is to "LEGALIZE" the sexual pursuit of children.

Does anyone need anything else?

Fuck off, shit for brains. Ignore on.

Well, I guess that settles that.

FTR: It should be noted that I stated at the outset that the sexually abnormal are a danger to children. And right here in our OWN little 'i-Community' we have a professed homosexual, who can't bring herself to DENOUNCE THE SEXUAL MOLESTATION OF CHILDREN!

Folks, you can NOT make this crap up!

 

[Barb]

WOW!

I guess that is all any objective observer needs to know about where about where the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality stands. Their intention is to "LEGALIZE" the sexual pursuit of children.

Does anyone need anything else?

Fuck off, shit for brains. Ignore on.

Well, I guess that settles that.

FTR: It should be noted that I stated at the outset that the sexually abnormal are a danger to children. And right here in our OWN little 'i-Community' we have a professed homosexual, who can't bring herself to DENOUNCE THE SEXUAL MOLESTATION OF CHILDREN!

Folks, you can NOT make this crap up!

And yet, you did just "make this shit up."