Gay statists strike again...you will submit!!!!

[WorldWatcher]

>


You guys understand that this is not a Federal issue as to whether the Federal government can regulate commerce within a state...


........................ This is an application of State law regulating commerce within the State?


.........................................Right?



>>>>

You've heard of
1. Hobby Lobby and

2. Legal precedent

Right?

1. HL? Yes it was a FEDERAL case.

2. Precedent? Sure, do you have a SCOTUS case that has invalidated State Public Accommodation laws not being a valid regulation of internal State commerce? As a mater of fact just last term the SCOTUS rejected an appeal of State Public Accommodation law in the case of Elane Photography after the law was upheld by the New Mexico Supreme Court.

So instead of trying to mix apples an oranges (by trying to insert the HL case which was a Federal case) how about showing some SCOTUS precedent where they have said State PA laws are unconstitutional.



>>>>

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

LOL! This is why you guys will never understand anything about the rights of others except at the business end of a loaded gun. Eventually, you're boot will have to be forcibly removed from the premises of others' rights, tough guy, as far too many of you can't even grasp the fact that your boot is on the rights of others. Because you're morally bankrupt, you're stupid beyond repair, but for the grace of God. This is the essence of the reprobate mind. Relativism. You understand nothing.

I don't claim any such thing, Seawytch. All American citizens are entitled to have their rights protected by the state, equally and universally. What are you talking about when you say that the rights of homosexuals are only protected in "some places"? Aside from the "marital rights" you think they're entitled to under the current system of state-regulated marriage, as opposed to it being a private affair, what rights of the homosexual are not being upheld in some places? And why do you believe the rights of Christians are protected everywhere?
Humor me. Explain it to me as if you were talking to a child.

You seem to be confusing issues. I never said Public Accommodation was a right. It is however a fact. Public Accommodation laws exist and in some states and cities these laws that protect people from discrimination regardless of race, religion, country of origin, etc. also protect gays and lesbians.

Federal Public Accommodation laws protect religion, but not sexual orientation. A Christian can refuse to serve me, but I can't refuse to serve them.

Is that simple enough for your child-like brain?

Cute.

It's annoying when you strike your previous post above my response and then claim that I'm confusing the issues. No. You didn't expressly say that "Public Accommodation was a a right", and I never said that you did. You claimed that the homosexual's (undefined) rights, incoherently related to Pennsylvania Public Accommodation, are not universally upheld and insinuated that I oppose homosexual's rights being universally upheld, which is false.

There are at least two objectively verifiable problems here: (1) your AWOL post and (2) your ongoing confusion regarding the distinction between positive rights and negative rights.

Federal Public Accommodation laws protect religion, but not sexual orientation. A Christian can refuse to serve me, but I can't refuse to serve them.

Is that simple enough for your child-like brain?

Now, come on. I just got through telling you in another post that Public Accommodation based on religious affiliation can be problematical, as it, unlike sensibly defined protections based on the benign physiological traits of nature, is subject to abusive interpretations.

Nevertheless, my "child-like brain" is telling me a number things right now. But let's zero in on the fact that you just shifted from Pennsylvania Public Accommodation to federal Public Accommodation. See. That's the problem with striking your post above my response. You're confusing the issues.

Notwithstanding, fate, ironically elicited by you, has reared its . . . lovely head on the behalf of truth.

Biblical Christians can and will continue to refuse the impositions of homofascism regardless of what any federal or state law asserts, and federal Public Accommodation does not protect religion as such, any more than public accommodation codes in any of the several states protect religion as such. They allegedly protect persons affiliated with religion, whatever that's supposed to mean in the real world.

It's all mumbo jumbo piled on top of and obscuring the foundational principle of natural and constitutional law, namely, the principle of INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS.

No. The fact of the matter is that homosexuals do have INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS that are recognized, though not exhaustively, in the Bill of Rights, just like everyone else, and even the redundantly repugnant aspects of federal Public Accommodation do in fact protect homosexuals, though, no doubt, that blows your mind.

Do you care to know the reason why that's true? Clayton Jones knows why that's true, I’m sure.

Finally, Public Accommodation based on sexual orientation is what "protects," in effect, religion as such, and that is an unambiguously outrageous assault on religious liberty. Oh, the irony.

People like theDoctorsIn, Clayton Jones and a few of the other leftists on this thread know why that's true too. They just will not speak its name, as it were, as to do so is to concede the fact of their depraved indifference to the INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS of others.

Note: While it is my wont to call these people something else in this instance, as I still believe we should keep it real, I'll tone my rhetoric down a bit in deference to the general consensus. But make no mistake about it, there are posts on this thread written by leftists who are not merely confused. They know damn well they are lying.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>


You guys understand that this is not a Federal issue as to whether the Federal government can regulate commerce within a state...


........................ This is an application of State law regulating commerce within the State?


.........................................Right?



>>>>

Yeah. And by the way, you're also right about the fact that, especially under what I have come to affectionately call the World Watcher Solution, the historically religious distinction between the terms marriage and civil union is, for all practical purposes, irrelevant.

But what's happening here is that we are trying to hammer out, or at least I am, the basis by which we may know what does or does not constitute the legitimately defensible governmental concerns regarding the current reality of Public Accommodation.

Currently there are vast differences between Civil Unions and Civil Marriages.

1. There is no federal recognition of any Civil Union as being establishing a spousal relationship between unrelated individuals.

2. Some states provide Civil Unions with all the same state rights, responsibilities, and benefits of Civil Marriage. Some don't, in those states Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships provide only a subset of rights, responsibilities, and benefits under the law. Some states ban Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships entirely.

3. Civil Marriage is recognized across state lines, Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships are not.


Those are few off the top of my head.

>>>>

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

>


You guys understand that this is not a Federal issue as to whether the Federal government can regulate commerce within a state...


........................ This is an application of State law regulating commerce within the State?


.........................................Right?



>>>>

You've heard of
1. Hobby Lobby and

2. Legal precedent

Right?

1. HL? Yes it was a FEDERAL case.

2. Precedent? Sure, do you have a SCOTUS case that has invalidated State Public Accommodation laws not being a valid regulation of internal State commerce? As a mater of fact just last term the SCOTUS rejected an appeal of State Public Accommodation law in the case of Elane Photography after the law was upheld by the New Mexico Supreme Court.

So instead of trying to mix apples an oranges (by trying to insert the HL case which was a Federal case) how about showing some SCOTUS precedent where they have said State PA laws are unconstitutional.



>>>>

Indeed, the Supreme Court failed to do its duty and rectify New Mexico's obnoxious violation of inalienable human rights. The Supreme Court has made quite a habit of doing that in the last several decades.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

>


You guys understand that this is not a Federal issue as to whether the Federal government can regulate commerce within a state...


........................ This is an application of State law regulating commerce within the State?


.........................................Right?



>>>>

Yeah. And by the way, you're also right about the fact that, especially under what I have come to affectionately call the World Watcher Solution, the historically religious distinction between the terms marriage and civil union is, for all practical purposes, irrelevant.

But what's happening here is that we are trying to hammer out, or at least I am, the basis by which we may know what does or does not constitute the legitimately defensible governmental concerns regarding the current reality of Public Accommodation.

Currently there are vast differences between Civil Unions and Civil Marriages.

1. There is no federal recognition of any Civil Union as being establishing a spousal relationship between unrelated individuals.

2. Some states provide Civil Unions with all the same state rights, responsibilities, and benefits of Civil Marriage. Some don't, in those states Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships provide only a subset of rights, responsibilities, and benefits under the law. Some states ban Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships entirely.

3. Civil Marriage is recognized across state lines, Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships are not.


Those are few off the top of my head.

>>>>

Which just further illustrates how stupid people on BOTH sides of this issue are being.

You anti gay fools. Let them get married if they want, how the hell does it affect you?
You pro gay fools, Go find somewhere else to buy your flowers if someone doesn't want to sell them to you, how fucking hard is that?

I truly hate people

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Care to offer some proof that Christians used the Bible to justify slavery?

Defenders of slavery noted that in the Bible, Abraham had slaves. They point to the Ten Commandments, noting that "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, ... nor his manservant, nor his maidservant." In the New Testament, Paul returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master, and, although slavery was widespread throughout the Roman world, Jesus never spoke out against it.
​

The Southern Argument for Slavery

Bible passages used to justify slavery:

Psalm 123:2 (New International Version (NIV)): As the eyes of slaves look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid look to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the LORD our God, till he shows us his mercy.

Ephesians 6:4-6: Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.

Ephesians 6:5:Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Ephesians 6:9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Colossians 3:22:Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Colossians 4:1:Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

Titus 2:9 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,

1 Peter 2:18:Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.​

You can't rewrite history because it's inconvenient. Christians were on both sides of the slavery and anti miscegenation issue and the bible was used to justify the pro slavery and pro segregation argument.

While is it true that Christians were on both sides of the issue of slavery in America, and many Southern slave owners used scripture to defend it; it is also true that Christians led the Charge in England and in America against slavery when relatively few others of other ideological persuasions cared, initially.

Also, the reason for this, in spite of what you might assume about the biblical pronouncements touching on chattel slavery, Judeo-Christianity does not condone it.

To understand why that's true, one would have to have a significantly more comprehensive background in biblical theology than I suspect you have. No slight intended. Just saying.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Care to offer some proof that Christians used the Bible to justify slavery?

Defenders of slavery noted that in the Bible, Abraham had slaves. They point to the Ten Commandments, noting that "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, ... nor his manservant, nor his maidservant." In the New Testament, Paul returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master, and, although slavery was widespread throughout the Roman world, Jesus never spoke out against it.
​

The Southern Argument for Slavery

Bible passages used to justify slavery:

Psalm 123:2 (New International Version (NIV)): As the eyes of slaves look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid look to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the LORD our God, till he shows us his mercy.

Ephesians 6:4-6: Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.

Ephesians 6:5:Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Ephesians 6:9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Colossians 3:22:Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Colossians 4:1:Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

Titus 2:9 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,

1 Peter 2:18:Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.​

You can't rewrite history because it's inconvenient. Christians were on both sides of the slavery and anti miscegenation issue and the bible was used to justify the pro slavery and pro segregation argument.

While is it true that Christians were on both sides of the issue of slavery in America, and many Southern slave owners used scripture to defend it; it is also true that Christians led the Charge in England and in America against slavery when relatively few others of other ideological persuasions cared, initially.

Also, the reason for this, in spite of what you might assume about the biblical pronouncements touching on chattel slavery, Judeo-Christianity does not condone it.

To understand why that's true, one would have to have a significantly more comprehensive background in biblical theology than I suspect you have. No slight intended. Just saying.

Bodecea has still not offered one bit of evidence that shows someone from that era using the Bible to justify slavery

 

[Silhouette]

You've heard of
1. Hobby Lobby and

2. Legal precedent

Right?

1. HL? Yes it was a FEDERAL case.

2. Precedent? Sure, do you have a SCOTUS case that has invalidated State Public Accommodation laws not being a valid regulation of internal State commerce? As a mater of fact just last term the SCOTUS rejected an appeal of State Public Accommodation law in the case of Elane Photography after the law was upheld by the New Mexico Supreme Court.

So instead of trying to mix apples an oranges (by trying to insert the HL case which was a Federal case) how about showing some SCOTUS precedent where they have said State PA laws are unconstitutional.



>>>>

I'm saying that a good attorney and plaintiff could use the precedent to allow that other people who object to promoting homosexual lifestyles can opt out. But you already knew that.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

...and here you have it folks, the GOP platform, from the grass roots. Want to marginalize a significant portion of the population by blocking their civil right to same sex marriage. Vote R! Want to take away health insurance from millions of people? Vote R! Close down the government? Deny women their reproductive rights? Legislate morality and Christian dogma? Encourage every law abiding citizen to carry an AR-15 to McDonalds? Allow ranchers to steal the use of land from the government? Abandon Hispanics the constitutional right to a trial? End Medicare and Social Security? End food stamps for kids of unemployed single mothers? End minimum wage? Open national parks to All Terrain Vehicles? End regulation of banks and financial institutions? End separation of church and state? We are the GOP, and we will give you this, plus anything else that the tea party can come up with, including Palin for VP!

Vote Republican! We see the future! Onward to the 20th century!

What civil right is that? Again, be specific.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Provide under the law that for Same-sex Civil Marriage recognized by government entities.


This is moot, as it's currently in place.


There is no such thing as 'civil marriage,' there is only one marriage contract law written by the state legislatures and administered by state courts; marriage law is identical for both same- and opposite-sex couples, whether married by a member of the clergy or by a judge.


Moreover, because 14th Amendment jurisprudence is applicable only to state and local governments, not private entities such as churches, there's no need to use the term 'civil marriage' in an effort to distinguish it from 'religious marriage.'


Repeal Public Accommodation laws and provide that business owners have rights of property and free association, they are able to refuse service to anyone they want - for any reason.


Disagree.


Public accommodations laws are predicated on Commerce Clause jurisprudence; they are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures intended to ensure local markets remain stable and viable, where to allow business owners to discriminate based on race, religion, or sexual orientation would indeed be disruptive to local markets and in turn disruptive to markets overall, as all markets are interrelated (see: Wickard v. Filburn (1942)). Public accommodations laws are appropriate, desirable, and are no more burdensome than any other regulatory measure businesses are subject to.


Last, state and local communities are at liberty to enact public accommodations laws to reflect their values, values such as ensuring that no member of the community be subject to discrimination and humiliation by being publicly disallowed to enter a business establishment solely as a consequence of who they are – this should be repugnant to all Americans, because we as a people are better than this.

And that is precisely how they do it, folks, i.e., how guys like Clayton Jones evade the preeminent concerns, not of the Commerce Clause, but of the Bill of Rights as they assert the shoe shine of Public Accommodation based on sexual orientation sans the necessary caveats regarding the inalienable rights of ideological free-association and private property. Jones knows damn well, as I have drawn him out on other threads, that the Christian's objections have absolutely nothing to do with "ensuring that no member of the community be subject to discrimination and humiliation by being publicly disallowed to enter a business establishment solely as a consequence of who they are." Rather, Christians refuse to be entangled with the rituals of the homofascist's religion or the worship of the homofascist's god, which in most instances is the narcissistic worship of himself.

Make no mistake about it, biblical Christians can and will continue to refuse such "service" to homofascists regardless of what the federal or state governments say. The fact that they must be fined or jailed for refusing to comply is the proof of the homofascist's big lie.

But of course anyone should and does have the inalienable right to tell the homofascist to shove off.

This is why this controversy is not going away, in spite of the homofascist's delusion that it's a done deal, and this is why many Americans, not just Christians, are fed up with homofascism and will eventually demand an end to this tyranny.

 

[Vandalshandle]

...and here you have it folks, the GOP platform, from the grass roots. Want to marginalize a significant portion of the population by blocking their civil right to same sex marriage. Vote R! Want to take away health insurance from millions of people? Vote R! Close down the government? Deny women their reproductive rights? Legislate morality and Christian dogma? Encourage every law abiding citizen to carry an AR-15 to McDonalds? Allow ranchers to steal the use of land from the government? Abandon Hispanics the constitutional right to a trial? End Medicare and Social Security? End food stamps for kids of unemployed single mothers? End minimum wage? Open national parks to All Terrain Vehicles? End regulation of banks and financial institutions? End separation of church and state? We are the GOP, and we will give you this, plus anything else that the tea party can come up with, including Palin for VP!

Vote Republican! We see the future! Onward to the 20th century!

OMG! Does this mean that we will lose Iowa, Kansas and Oklahoma?

 

[Vandalshandle]

What civil right is that? Again, be specific.

Well, Keys, reread the first sentence of my post 831, and with careful analysis, the answer will be rendered to you.

The Supreme Court has held time, and time again that the states do not have the constitutional authority to deny same sex marriage contracts.That makes it a civil right.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

What civil right is that? Again, be specific.

Well, Keys, reread the first sentence of my post 831, and with careful analysis, the answer will be rendered to you.

The Supreme Court has held time, and time again that the states do not have the constitutional authority to deny same sex marriage contracts.That makes it a civil right.

no it doesn't. SCOTUS doesn't give rights, and in fact neither does the COTUS. They merely protect certain rights from government violation.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You've heard of
1. Hobby Lobby and

2. Legal precedent

Right?

1. HL? Yes it was a FEDERAL case.

2. Precedent? Sure, do you have a SCOTUS case that has invalidated State Public Accommodation laws not being a valid regulation of internal State commerce? As a mater of fact just last term the SCOTUS rejected an appeal of State Public Accommodation law in the case of Elane Photography after the law was upheld by the New Mexico Supreme Court.

So instead of trying to mix apples an oranges (by trying to insert the HL case which was a Federal case) how about showing some SCOTUS precedent where they have said State PA laws are unconstitutional.



>>>>

I'm saying that a good attorney and plaintiff could use the precedent to allow that other people who object to promoting homosexual lifestyles can opt out. But you already knew that.

I see the connective tissue of your logic, but I don't think that would fly.

In the above I stated that the Court failed to do its duty. I need to clarify that statement. This should be a no-brainer. That's why the Court's refusal to hear the appeal and rectify this injustice is so frustrating, but I suspect the reason it did not hear it is that the reliably conservative members of the Court were unwilling to risk a precedent-setting decision on Kennedy, even though he did come down on the side of the majority in "the Boy Scouts of America" case, which, by the way, would be the most compellingly obvious precedent for the Court's ratio decidendi were it to ever hear the case and decide it the proper way in the future.

In other words, SCOTUS's refusal to hear Elane Photography's appeal is not at all indicative of anything having to do with the existence of Public Accommodation, as the matter pertains to the imperatives of the Bill of Rights, namely, the First Amendment. The alleged constitutionality of Public Accommodation in and of itself is settled law.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

What civil right is that? Again, be specific.

Well, Keys, reread the first sentence of my post 831, and with careful analysis, the answer will be rendered to you.

The Supreme Court has held time, and time again that the states do not have the constitutional authority to deny same sex marriage contracts.That makes it a civil right.

no it doesn't. SCOTUS doesn't give rights, and in fact neither does the COTUS. They merely protect certain rights from government violation.

That is exactly right!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Clarification on post #835

The Court did not create a new right at all in this instance. It merely extended an existing civil right, as opposed to a civil liberty, by the way, on the basis of an alleged instance of unconstitutional discrimination. In effect, the Court has in the past created new rights, but it has never done so nor can it ever do so legitimately. When that happens, the learned and the faithful know it to be an instance of tyranny.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Clarification on post #835

The Court did not create a new right at all in this instance. It merely extended an existing civil right, as opposed to a civil liberty, by the way, on the basis of an alleged instance of unconstitutional discrimination. In effect, the Court has in the past created new rights, but it has never done so nor can it ever do so legitimately. When that happens, the learned and the faithful know it to be an instance of tyranny.

The Court has never and can never create a new right. All they can create is new protections.

For instance you have the right to life. However , obviously in certain instances the government can infringe on that right. What they can NEVER do is change the fact that you have a right to live.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

@bodecea , you got proof yet that colonial era Americans used the Bible to justify slavery?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What civil right is that? Again, be specific.

Well, Keys, reread the first sentence of my post 831, and with careful analysis, the answer will be rendered to you.

The Supreme Court has held time, and time again that the states do not have the constitutional authority to deny same sex marriage contracts.That makes it a civil right.

There is simply no such thing as "Gay Marriage". Just as there is no such thing as Dog-Marriage or Horse Marriage. You can pretend otherwise and you can go rally up a popular majority which says otherwise, but in truth, marriage is the joining of one man and one woman in the same legal sense that is reflected when that one man and that one woman join physically, through coitus.

This is the law established by nature, which is the same authority that established the standard that is sexual normality, which provides that homosexuality deviates from that standard, thus is a deviant sexuality, a perversion of the behavior which nature provided to assure the viability of the species.

You people are screwing with things that you have no MEANS to understand, thus where your policy advocacies are adopted are absolutely certain to produce the chaos, calamity and catastrophe common to the aftermath realized from ALL leftist policy.

We, the Americans, have a responsibility to defend our right to NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE CATASTROPHIC EFFECTS BORN OF YOUR FOOLISHNESS.

As I've said many times, you're sowing the seeds of your own destruction. And anyone with the slightest familiarity with human history, will tell you the same thing. All you're doing is forcing the Western Culture to RE-LEARN the same thing that those before us learned, after THEY tolerated the mouthy minority who demanded that "SEX IS PLEASURABLE AND AN END TO ITSELF...".

Keep pushin'... just understand, once you cross that unknowable line. You will no longer have the choice to STFU and keep it to yourselves. As you will no longer be the aggressors.

And before ya wet your collective pant and claim that I'm threatening you, please understand, this is not a threat, as I have no idea what or where the line you'll cross is. I have no means to know and neither do you.
This is a warning, offered in the course of trying to keep the peace. The greatest danger to you people is the mouthy idiots who HAVE TO HAVE IT ALL. And they're ALL over there in YOUR camp. Get ahold of them or you people are SCREWED.

Don't believe ME... go find ANY example ANYWHERE throughout human history where homosexuality was accepted and show yourself where that culture is today. The land that the culture was living on... it's still there. Its likely that the towns are still there... maybe even some monuments telling posterity of what was... are still there. But those culture's that accepted it, are GONE! There's a reason for that... and that reason is the basis for the taboos that you have just recently removed.


See how that works?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

What civil right is that? Again, be specific.

Well, Keys, reread the first sentence of my post 831, and with careful analysis, the answer will be rendered to you.

The Supreme Court has held time, and time again that the states do not have the constitutional authority to deny same sex marriage contracts.That makes it a civil right.

There is simply no such thing as "Gay Marriage". Just as there is no such thing as Dog-Marriage or Horse Marriage. You can pretend otherwise and you can go rally up a popular majority which says otherwise, but in truth, marriage is the joining of one man and one woman in the same legal sense that is reflected when that one man and that one woman join physically, through coitus.

This is the law established by nature, which is the same authority that established the standard that is sexual normality, which provides that homosexuality deviates from that standard, thus is a deviant sexuality, a perversion of the behavior which nature provided to assure the viability of the species.

You people are screwing with things that you have no MEANS to understand, thus where your policy advocacies are adopted are absolutely certain to produce the chaos, calamity and catastrophe common to the aftermath realized from ALL leftist policy.

We, the Americans, have a responsibility to defend our right to NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE CATASTROPHIC EFFECTS BORN OF YOUR FOOLISHNESS.

As I've said many times, you're sowing the seeds of your own destruction. And anyone with the slightest familiarity with human history, will tell you the same thing. All you're doing is forcing the Western Culture to RE-LEARN the same thing that those before us learned, after THEY tolerated the mouthy minority who demanded that "SEX IS PLEASURABLE AND AN END TO ITSELF...".

Keep pushin'... just understand, once you cross that unknowable line. You will no longer have the choice to STFU and keep it to yourselves. As you will no longer be the aggressors.

And before ya wet your collective pant and claim that I'm threatening you, please understand, this is not a threat, as I have no idea what or where the line you'll cross is. I have no means to know and neither do you.
This is a warning, offered in the course of trying to keep the peace. The greatest danger to you people is the mouthy idiots who HAVE TO HAVE IT ALL. And they're ALL over there in YOUR camp. Get ahold of them or you people are SCREWED.

Don't believe ME... go find ANY example ANYWHERE throughout human history where homosexuality was accepted and show yourself where that culture is today. The land that the culture was living on... it's still there. Its likely that the towns are still there... maybe even some monuments telling posterity of what was... are still there. But those culture's that accepted it, are GONE! There's a reason for that... and that reason is the basis for the taboos that you have just recently removed.


See how that works?

That's quite the stretch to say that gay is the reason past cultures have failed. You can't possibly prove that.

As for marriage, it's a RELIGIOUS term, the government doesn't define baptism, why would you let them define marriage?

See the point. Why are you opting to give government MORE power? Let the gays have marriage.