Homosexual Agenda Is Greatest Threat To Liberty

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

That's a good point, and one I've voiced before. There really is no such thing as "gay marriage".

Sure there is. Just go to the 36 of 50 States where they are performed every day.

They can go through the motions and they can play make believe, but true marriage is a spiritual union that can only occur between a man and a woman.

And you are more than welcome to whatever subjective interpretation of marriage you wish. No one really cares. What gays and lesbians are interested in is legal recognition for their marriage.

And in the majority of the nation, they have it.

Congratulations!

Oh wait, you didn't actually win the people over to the idea, you had hack Leftist judges find rights that don't exist in the Constitution to overturn popularly passed state laws. Kind of a hollow victory. It's almost like when the communists violently took over in Russia and China and then claimed they had the popular support of the people. You couldn't win by convincing people, so you used force.

That's not quite the American way, but whatever it takes for you to have gay butt sex, right?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No, they don't. You've been lied to, as usual. Want to find out, use Google images and search for "scat sexual fetish", but not from work. The shit-eaters are straight, and seriously fucked-up.

IT's known as corophillia, and like like Homosexuality, beastiality, necrophilia and other sexual perversions - it's the activity of a diseased mind.

That's what they used to think about straights going down on each other, but no longer since it's normal. Ask your dad what he prefers, mommy's mouth is probably top of the list.

So what you're saying is that corophillia should be promoted amongst children like homosexuality is and while they're at it perhaps a few lessons - good idea go eat shit and let us know how it works out

What I saying is when you scream the fags are bad, you'll soon discover the straights are worse and what was Sexual Perversion changes over time, just like rug-munching and blowjobs are now considered NORMAL, since they are.

Yes ... Men munch rugs Women give Blow Jobs that is normal - when you reverse the roles it is perversion. Got it ?..... good... glad I could clarify that for you Penis breath.

Normal now but it wasn't not long ago, and penis-breath is your mommy little man.

 

[Syriusly]

Immorality attaches itself to any sexual activity outside of the Divine design to create a family, whether children are possible or not. In Pope John Paul II's "Theology of the Body" the case is made that sin enters when the pleasure of sex is made into an exclusive objective for sex. That's the driving fault behind contraceptives, homosexuality, and other forms of deviant sexual behavior. It's not to say that even when the right framework is sought, the marrying and attempt to create a family, children are guaranteed. But sex with the intent of creating a family is always considered sacrosanct and the model and purpose for which sex was created.

Old people having sex have often already produced children who grew to adulthood.

Homosexual unions by design cannot possibly lead to the creation of a family under any circumstances. It's the creation of such a union with the centerpiece of sexual pleasure rather than creating a family that is sinful.

So then we should stop all individuals who have ever had sex without intending to produce children from being able to marry. Well, that's a large part of the adult population then.

Nearly all marriages are predicated on the desire to have children eventually, so much so as to render negligible those few marriages forged in an agreement to forgo children.

Say who?

Look right at the marriage license- nothing about that there. Certainly wasn't in my wife and my wedding vows- certainly we are glad to have had children, and certainly I would want our child to have married parents- but we could have had children without marriage and we could have been married without children.

We allow 80 year old couples to marry- we even require some couples to prove that they can't reproduce before we allow them to marry.

You just don't apply the same standards to homosexuals that you do to heterosexuals.

Do you allow Pigs and Dogs to marry - They're harmless swine and canine . I grudgingly admit that homosexuals are are degenerate members of the Human Race that should be held to higher standards than the pig that wallows in shit - It does me or anyone else little harm for Pigs to have mock marriages - and it also does no harm to allow perverts to have faux marriages as well - just get out of sane peoples faces if that's how you insist on living your twisted little lives.

That's a good point, and one I've voiced before. There really is no such thing as "gay marriage". They can go through the motions and they can play make believe, but true marriage is a spiritual union that can only occur between a man and a woman. The materialist Left disregards the spiritual aspect or that marriage involves a 3rd party, that is God. They go for surface appearances and think they've achieved parity with the real thing.

Ah so good to be lectured by a self rightious prig.

Which God is that involves itself in marriage? Or maybe you think Buddhists aren't really married either? Or are you just a generalized Deist that thinks as long as any God is involved- its a real marriage?

My wife and I have been married for over 20 years- during that time another self rightious Christian prig named Newt Gingrich has been married twice- for a total now of 3 marriages.

Spare me the lecture of how or what you think marriage is- I know what marriage is- I know what a committed, loving partnership marriage is.

IF you say you have a successful marriage- then good for you. And if two people who happen to be of the same gender, say they intend to commit to a deep, loving and lasting partnership in a marriage- then I believe them too.

And to hell with anyone who thinks that they tell me that my marriage isn't real.

Just because I don't believe in their fairy tales.

 

[Syriusly]

That's a good point, and one I've voiced before. There really is no such thing as "gay marriage".

Sure there is. Just go to the 36 of 50 States where they are performed every day.

They can go through the motions and they can play make believe, but true marriage is a spiritual union that can only occur between a man and a woman.

And you are more than welcome to whatever subjective interpretation of marriage you wish. No one really cares. What gays and lesbians are interested in is legal recognition for their marriage.

And in the majority of the nation, they have it.

Congratulations!

Oh wait, you didn't actually win the people over to the idea, you had hack Leftist judges find rights that don't exist in the Constitution to overturn popularly passed state laws. Kind of a hollow victory. It's almost like when the communists violently took over in Russia and China and then claimed they had the popular support of the people. You couldn't win by convincing people, so you used force.

That's not quite the American way, but whatever it takes for you to have gay butt sex, right?

Wow- wrong on so many levels- whether you are intentionally lying or just ignorant- who knows?

a) 'hack leftist judges'- a fair portion of the judges who have ruled were appointed by Reagan or Bush 1- you just call any judge which you disagree with a 'hack leftist' judge- because you apparently think you know more about the law then they do.

b) People sue to overturn laws that they believe are unconstitutional- that is how our Constitutional system works. People sue to overturn gun laws, people sue to overturn voting laws- and people sued to overturn mixed race marriage bans.

c) If you think using the courts to pursue Constitutional rights is like 'communists violently took over in Russia and China" then you best tell that to the NRA.

d) Lastly but not least- the last 3 states that voted on 'same gender marriage' voted for marriage equality. Polls now show most Americans are in favor of marriage equality.

Just like Loving v. Virginia, the courts just moved before the population was ready for the change- after Loving v. Virginia it took about 30 years for most Americans to accept mixed race marriage- it has taken less than 10 years for most Americans to accept marriage equality for homosexuals.

And that is the American way.

The communists in Russia and China? They imprisoned homosexuals or killed them.

 

[Syriusly]

No, they don't. You've been lied to, as usual. Want to find out, use Google images and search for "scat sexual fetish", but not from work. The shit-eaters are straight, and seriously fucked-up.

IT's known as corophillia, and like like Homosexuality, beastiality, necrophilia and other sexual perversions - it's the activity of a diseased mind.

That's what they used to think about straights going down on each other, but no longer since it's normal. Ask your dad what he prefers, mommy's mouth is probably top of the list.

So what you're saying is that corophillia should be promoted amongst children like homosexuality is and while they're at it perhaps a few lessons - good idea go eat shit and let us know how it works out

What I saying is when you scream the fags are bad, you'll soon discover the straights are worse and what was Sexual Perversion changes over time, just like rug-munching and blowjobs are now considered NORMAL, since they are.

Yes ... Men munch rugs Women give Blow Jobs that is normal - when you reverse the roles it is perversion. Got it ?..... good... glad I could clarify that for you Penis breath.

Yet just a few years ago those acts were illegal in many states. What you oddly call normal now was considered as deviant as you consider homosexual sex by many people- and probably still are.

You are obsessed with fecal matter and homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

It's not "their" Child - there's a sperm donor involved

Wow- that must be a huge shock to all of those heterosexuals who have used sperm donors to get pregnant.

That child that they thought was theirs is not really theirs.

Whose child is it then?

 

[Syriusly]

It works perfectly well if you apply the 'productive sex equals morality' standard consistently. If unproductive sex is evil, then it would follow that productive sex would be good.

You say it 'doesn't work'. Why?

And if you're just going to arbitrarily ignore any non-productive sex that doesn't fit your model or ignore the 'productive sex equals morality' model whenever it breaks.....then your standards are hopelessly subjective and superb examples of cherry picking.

Either the 'productive sex equals morality' standard works. Or it doesn't. Its one or the other. It isn't valid when you think it works and then suddenly becomes invalid when its inconvenient to your argument.

Immorality attaches itself to any sexual activity outside of the Divine design to create a family, whether children are possible or not. In Pope John Paul II's "Theology of the Body" the case is made that sin enters when the pleasure of sex is made into an exclusive objective for sex. That's the driving fault behind contraceptives, homosexuality, and other forms of deviant sexual behavior. It's not to say that even when the right framework is sought, the marrying and attempt to create a family, children are guaranteed. But sex with the intent of creating a family is always considered sacrosanct and the model and purpose for which sex was created.

Old people having sex have often already produced children who grew to adulthood.

Homosexual unions by design cannot possibly lead to the creation of a family under any circumstances. It's the creation of such a union with the centerpiece of sexual pleasure rather than creating a family that is sinful.

So then we should stop all individuals who have ever had sex without intending to produce children from being able to marry. Well, that's a large part of the adult population then.

Nearly all marriages are predicated on the desire to have children eventually, so much so as to render negligible those few marriages forged in an agreement to forgo children.

Say who?

Look right at the marriage license- nothing about that there. Certainly wasn't in my wife and my wedding vows- certainly we are glad to have had children, and certainly I would want our child to have married parents- but we could have had children without marriage and we could have been married without children.

We allow 80 year old couples to marry- we even require some couples to prove that they can't reproduce before we allow them to marry.

You just don't apply the same standards to homosexuals that you do to heterosexuals.

Do you allow Pigs and Dogs to marry .

Wow- once again a homophobe who can't tell the difference between humans and animals- who can't tell the difference between consent- and no consent.

As I said.

Look right at the marriage license- nothing about children there. Certainly wasn't in my wife and my wedding vows- certainly we are glad to have had children, and certainly I would want our child to have married parents- but we could have had children without marriage and we could have been married without children.

We allow 80 year old couples to marry- we even require some couples to prove that they can't reproduce before we allow them to marry.

You don't give a damn about children- or about 'disease'- you just hate homosexuals.

You are no different than the slobbering racists who made similar claims about African Americans wanting to rape white women to stir up hatred towards blacks.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It's not "their" Child - there's a sperm donor involved

Wow- that must be a huge shock to all of those heterosexuals who have used sperm donors to get pregnant.

That child that they thought was theirs is not really theirs.

Whose child is it then?

The same must be true for those who adopt, who have twice as many donors.

 

[Syriusly]

Let's call them what they are:

Fecal Faggot Fiends.

Death and Decay, they worship it, even in their sexual rituals.

Another homophobe obsessed with anal sex.

Is it because they fear being anally raped?

Or fear that they will never have anal sex?

Why would I fear not engaging in a process that involves getting feces and dangerous bacteria on my life-generating organ?

Oh I don't think you fear getting feces on your life generating organ- more the other way around.

 

[Syriusly]

It's not "their" Child - there's a sperm donor involved

Wow- that must be a huge shock to all of those heterosexuals who have used sperm donors to get pregnant.

That child that they thought was theirs is not really theirs.

Whose child is it then?

The same must be true for those who adopt, who have twice as many donors.

You mean those who adopt children abandoned by their fine heterosexual parents? You know the only ones really qualified to raise children in the minds of homophobes?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It's not "their" Child - there's a sperm donor involved

Wow- that must be a huge shock to all of those heterosexuals who have used sperm donors to get pregnant.

That child that they thought was theirs is not really theirs.

Whose child is it then?

The same must be true for those who adopt, who have twice as many donors.

You mean those who adopt children abandoned by their fine heterosexual parents? You know the only ones really qualified to raise children in the minds of homophobes?

Those are the ones. The war is so over and yet they fight on. It just goes to show how their ideology lacks common sense and they don't have any either. If they did they'd move on and find something else to obsess over, like the evil of women wearing pants or working outside the home.

 

[Syriusly]

It's not "their" Child - there's a sperm donor involved

Wow- that must be a huge shock to all of those heterosexuals who have used sperm donors to get pregnant.

That child that they thought was theirs is not really theirs.

Whose child is it then?

The same must be true for those who adopt, who have twice as many donors.

You mean those who adopt children abandoned by their fine heterosexual parents? You know the only ones really qualified to raise children in the minds of homophobes?

Those are the ones. The war is so over and yet they fight on. It just goes to show how their ideology lacks common sense and they don't have any either. If they did they'd move on and find something else to obsess over, like the evil of women wearing pants or working outside the home.

Or maybe if those who decry the horrors of gay marriage- to 'protect the children'- would actually do something to protect the children.

Like maybe not get divorced. Or abandon their kids. Or kick them out of the house for being gay.

Or maybe just do anything actually for kids- rather than trying to prevent the children of gay parents from having married parents.

 

[hipeter924]

It's not "their" Child - there's a sperm donor involved

Wow- that must be a huge shock to all of those heterosexuals who have used sperm donors to get pregnant.

That child that they thought was theirs is not really theirs.

Whose child is it then?

The same must be true for those who adopt, who have twice as many donors.

You mean those who adopt children abandoned by their fine heterosexual parents? You know the only ones really qualified to raise children in the minds of homophobes?

Those are the ones. The war is so over and yet they fight on. It just goes to show how their ideology lacks common sense and they don't have any either. If they did they'd move on and find something else to obsess over, like the evil of women wearing pants or working outside the home.

It goes on and on. Though even the Republican party is changing, and is putting less emphasis on fighting same-sex marriage. Might have something to do with the libertarian branch that puts the economy above what people do in the bedroom on their list of priorities.

The demographics are turning against homophobes, so they get more desperate to restore the 'good old days'TM and lash out more against the new status quo.

Most Americans don't care what two consenting adults do in the bedroom, let alone who they marry.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That's a good point, and one I've voiced before. There really is no such thing as "gay marriage".

Sure there is. Just go to the 36 of 50 States where they are performed every day.

They can go through the motions and they can play make believe, but true marriage is a spiritual union that can only occur between a man and a woman.

And you are more than welcome to whatever subjective interpretation of marriage you wish. No one really cares. What gays and lesbians are interested in is legal recognition for their marriage.

And in the majority of the nation, they have it.

Congratulations!

Oh wait, you didn't actually win the people over to the idea, you had hack Leftist judges find rights that don't exist in the Constitution to overturn popularly passed state laws. Kind of a hollow victory. It's almost like when the communists violently took over in Russia and China and then claimed they had the popular support of the people. You couldn't win by convincing people, so you used force.

That's not quite the American way, but whatever it takes for you to have gay butt sex, right?

Residents of the states are first and foremost citizens of the United States, and their fundamental rights as citizens are safeguarded by the Constitution, where the laws of states are subordinate to that; one does not forfeit his civil rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, nor do the states have the authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights, citizens' rights are not subject to majority rule.

Consequently, when the states enact laws repugnant to the Constitution – such as measures denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in – the courts are authorized by Articles III and VI of the Federal Constitution to invalidate those measures, as the states are solely responsible for their measures being overturned.

 

[Seawytch]

Immorality attaches itself to any sexual activity outside of the Divine design to create a family, whether children are possible or not. In Pope John Paul II's "Theology of the Body" the case is made that sin enters when the pleasure of sex is made into an exclusive objective for sex. That's the driving fault behind contraceptives, homosexuality, and other forms of deviant sexual behavior. It's not to say that even when the right framework is sought, the marrying and attempt to create a family, children are guaranteed. But sex with the intent of creating a family is always considered sacrosanct and the model and purpose for which sex was created.

Old people having sex have often already produced children who grew to adulthood.

Homosexual unions by design cannot possibly lead to the creation of a family under any circumstances. It's the creation of such a union with the centerpiece of sexual pleasure rather than creating a family that is sinful.

So then we should stop all individuals who have ever had sex without intending to produce children from being able to marry. Well, that's a large part of the adult population then.

Nearly all marriages are predicated on the desire to have children eventually, so much so as to render negligible those few marriages forged in an agreement to forgo children.

Say who?

Look right at the marriage license- nothing about that there. Certainly wasn't in my wife and my wedding vows- certainly we are glad to have had children, and certainly I would want our child to have married parents- but we could have had children without marriage and we could have been married without children.

We allow 80 year old couples to marry- we even require some couples to prove that they can't reproduce before we allow them to marry.

You just don't apply the same standards to homosexuals that you do to heterosexuals.

Do you allow Pigs and Dogs to marry - They're harmless swine and canine . I grudgingly admit that homosexuals are are degenerate members of the Human Race that should be held to higher standards than the pig that wallows in shit - It does me or anyone else little harm for Pigs to have mock marriages - and it also does no harm to allow perverts to have faux marriages as well - just get out of sane peoples faces if that's how you insist on living your twisted little lives.

That's a good point, and one I've voiced before. There really is no such thing as "gay marriage". They can go through the motions and they can play make believe, but true marriage is a spiritual union that can only occur between a man and a woman. The materialist Left disregards the spiritual aspect or that marriage involves a 3rd party, that is God. They go for surface appearances and think they've achieved parity with the real thing.

You're right that there is no gay marriage, but not for the reasons you believe. There is only marriage. In more than half the states, marriage means that same sex loving partners can also civilly marry. Your belief about what constitutes a "real" marriage is irrelevant. We still get issued the same exact marriage license as those you believe have a "real" marriage and we still get all the same rights, benefits and privileges that are associated with a civil marriage license.

 

[GreenBean]

So then we should stop all individuals who have ever had sex without intending to produce children from being able to marry. Well, that's a large part of the adult population then.

Nearly all marriages are predicated on the desire to have children eventually, so much so as to render negligible those few marriages forged in an agreement to forgo children.

Say who?

Look right at the marriage license- nothing about that there. Certainly wasn't in my wife and my wedding vows- certainly we are glad to have had children, and certainly I would want our child to have married parents- but we could have had children without marriage and we could have been married without children.

We allow 80 year old couples to marry- we even require some couples to prove that they can't reproduce before we allow them to marry.

You just don't apply the same standards to homosexuals that you do to heterosexuals.

Do you allow Pigs and Dogs to marry - They're harmless swine and canine . I grudgingly admit that homosexuals are are degenerate members of the Human Race that should be held to higher standards than the pig that wallows in shit - It does me or anyone else little harm for Pigs to have mock marriages - and it also does no harm to allow perverts to have faux marriages as well - just get out of sane peoples faces if that's how you insist on living your twisted little lives.

That's a good point, and one I've voiced before. There really is no such thing as "gay marriage". They can go through the motions and they can play make believe, but true marriage is a spiritual union that can only occur between a man and a woman. The materialist Left disregards the spiritual aspect or that marriage involves a 3rd party, that is God. They go for surface appearances and think they've achieved parity with the real thing.

You're right that there is no gay marriage, but not for the reasons you believe. There is only marriage. In more than half the states, marriage means that same sex loving partners can also civilly marry. Your belief about what constitutes a "real" marriage is irrelevant. We still get issued the same exact marriage license as those you believe have a "real" marriage and we still get all the same rights, benefits and privileges that are associated with a civil marriage license.

we still get all the same rights, benefits and privileges that are associated with a civil marriage license

But you'll never get the respect - sane people will always snicker behind your back - and your marriages are a joke - I liken it to two severely retarded people trying to decode quantum physics -you are basically no different , you are in effect - sexual retards

 

[GreenBean]

It's not "their" Child - there's a sperm donor involved

Wow- that must be a huge shock to all of those heterosexuals who have used sperm donors to get pregnant.

That child that they thought was theirs is not really theirs.

Whose child is it then?

The same must be true for those who adopt, who have twice as many donors.

You mean those who adopt children abandoned by their fine heterosexual parents? You know the only ones really qualified to raise children in the minds of homophobes?

Those are the ones. The war is so over and yet they fight on. It just goes to show how their ideology lacks common sense and they don't have any either. If they did they'd move on and find something else to obsess over, like the evil of women wearing pants or working outside the home.

It goes on and on. Though even the Republican party is changing, and is putting less emphasis on fighting same-sex marriage. Might have something to do with the libertarian branch that puts the economy above what people do in the bedroom on their list of priorities.

The demographics are turning against homophobes, so they get more desperate to restore the 'good old days'TM and lash out more against the new status quo.

Most Americans don't care what two consenting adults do in the bedroom, let alone who they marry.

Most Americans don't care what two consenting adults do in the bedroom, let alone who they marry.

This is True - so long as they keep it amongst themselves - it's nobody else business [ Other than Mental Health professionals] The problem lies in their continuous propagandizing among children and forcing the issue upon sane society through devious and underhanded methodologies.

 

[GreenBean]

It's not "their" Child - there's a sperm donor involved

Wow- that must be a huge shock to all of those heterosexuals who have used sperm donors to get pregnant.

That child that they thought was theirs is not really theirs.

Whose child is it then?

The same must be true for those who adopt, who have twice as many donors.

You mean those who adopt children abandoned by their fine heterosexual parents? You know the only ones really qualified to raise children in the minds of homophobes?

Those are the ones. The war is so over and yet they fight on. It just goes to show how their ideology lacks common sense and they don't have any either. If they did they'd move on and find something else to obsess over, like the evil of women wearing pants or working outside the home.

Or maybe if those who decry the horrors of gay marriage- to 'protect the children'- would actually do something to protect the children.

Like maybe not get divorced. Or abandon their kids. Or kick them out of the house for being gay.

Or maybe just do anything actually for kids- rather than trying to prevent the children of gay parents from having married parents.

Seriously -pretty lame - is that the best you've got ? Gay couples have a much higher rate of "divorce" and go through ridiculously larger amounts of partners in their lifetimes than do mentally healthy heterosexual couples.

 

[GreenBean]

It's not "their" Child - there's a sperm donor involved

Wow- that must be a huge shock to all of those heterosexuals who have used sperm donors to get pregnant.

That child that they thought was theirs is not really theirs.

Whose child is it then?

The same must be true for those who adopt, who have twice as many donors.

You mean those who adopt children abandoned by their fine heterosexual parents? You know the only ones really qualified to raise children in the minds of homophobes?

Those are the ones. The war is so over and yet they fight on. It just goes to show how their ideology lacks common sense and they don't have any either. If they did they'd move on and find something else to obsess over, like the evil of women wearing pants or working outside the home.

LMFAO

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Republicans ... putting less emphasis on fighting same-sex marriage. Might have something to do with the libertarian branch that puts the economy above what people do in the bedroom on their list of priorities.

Isn't it wonderful how those suffering severe intellectual limitations due to their use of a perversion of human reasoning, begin their public statement by speaking of public matters, Marriage: The joining of one man and one woman... , then merge that notion with 'what people do in their bedrooms' , which is an entirely private matter.

It has always tickled me how this deceitful species of reasoning is so thoroughly incapable of understanding that a "Right to Privacy', is sustained purely by keeping that which one feels they have a right to do in private... PRIVATE!

And this because, where that behavior is set into public policy... it becomes a PUBLIC MATTER, thus the 'right to privacy' has therefore been FORFEITED.