Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
[
Yo, bimbo,
Gay marraige affects orphanges, adoption, children's civil rights and a state's right to define marriage to create incentives for an environment of "father/mother" for children in order that they might thrive best.
"If your marriage is threatened by gay marriage, then one of your family is a child" . Children's rights dominate "gay rights". Cults don't have rights.
Indeed, the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is founded upon the greatest of all evils: The desire to legalize the sexual pursuit of children.
What bigoted BS
What you call 'normalize Sexual abnormality'- the Supreme Court calls invasion of privacy
Lawrence v Texas the court said:
The Court held that homosexuals had a protected liberty interest to engage in private, sexual activity; that homosexuals' moral and sexual choices were entitled to constitutional protection; and that moral disapproval did not provide a legitimate justification for Texas's law criminalizing sodomy.[36]
Holding that "the Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual", the court struck down the anti-sodomy law as unconstitutional. Kennedy underscored the decision's focus on consensual adult sexual conduct in a private setting:
The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter
The court was wrong; their reasoning was vacuous, their ruling specious and as is always the case in such decisions, the ramifications of such are going to be catastrophic.
Homosexuality is a deviant, abnormal sexuality. Meaning that the homosexual suffers from and in many cases nurtures and promotes a perversion of human sexuality.
The promotion of sexual abnormality represents a threat to the culture at large, wherein it undermines the cultures viability, perverting the standards which sustains the culture or societies viability. This injures those whose interests rests within the means of the society to remain viable.
There is no right to injure others... there is no 'right' where the exercise of such will injure another's means to exercise their own rights.
From this we can know that The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a lie, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant, designed toward no other purpose than to undermine the viability of the United States itself. And of course will be stopped. Either by adults who understand the catastrophic potential in tolerating evil or by nature itself, which seems determined to destroy it, on any number of levels.
Indeed, the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is founded upon the greatest of all evils: The desire to legalize the sexual pursuit of children.
It is exceedingly difficult to disagree with you given the LGBT cult icon Harvey Milk and his sodomizing his adopted minor ward and many other "young waifs with substance abuse problems"...0% of any LGBT person denouncing that. And the same with lewd acts performed on purpose in gay pride parades where children invited to watch and attend.
Anyone supporting/not denouncing either of those two revealing governing LGBT tenets belongs on a sex-offenders' registry.
Indeed, the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is founded upon the greatest of all evils: The desire to legalize the sexual pursuit of children.
It is exceedingly difficult to disagree with you given the LGBT cult icon Harvey Milk and his sodomizing his adopted minor ward and many other "young waifs with substance abuse problems"...0% of any LGBT person denouncing that. And the same with lewd acts performed on purpose in gay pride parades where children invited to watch and attend.
Anyone supporting/not denouncing either of those two revealing governing LGBT tenets belongs on a sex-offenders' registry.
Indeed... Homosexuality is spread best by the imprinting of homosexual activity upon children. !
[
Yo, bimbo,
Gay marraige affects orphanges, adoption, children's civil rights and a state's right to define marriage to create incentives for an environment of "father/mother" for children in order that they might thrive best.
"If your marriage is threatened by gay marriage, then one of your family is a child" . Children's rights dominate "gay rights". Cults don't have rights.
Indeed, the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is founded upon the greatest of all evils: The desire to legalize the sexual pursuit of children.
What bigoted BS
What you call 'normalize Sexual abnormality'- the Supreme Court calls invasion of privacy
Lawrence v Texas the court said:
The Court held that homosexuals had a protected liberty interest to engage in private, sexual activity; that homosexuals' moral and sexual choices were entitled to constitutional protection; and that moral disapproval did not provide a legitimate justification for Texas's law criminalizing sodomy.[36]
Holding that "the Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual", the court struck down the anti-sodomy law as unconstitutional. Kennedy underscored the decision's focus on consensual adult sexual conduct in a private setting:
The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter
The court was wrong; their reasoning was vacuous, their ruling specious and as is always the case in such decisions, the ramifications of such are going to be catastrophic..
[
Yo, bimbo,
Gay marraige affects orphanges, adoption, children's civil rights and a state's right to define marriage to create incentives for an environment of "father/mother" for children in order that they might thrive best.
"If your marriage is threatened by gay marriage, then one of your family is a child" . Children's rights dominate "gay rights". Cults don't have rights.
Indeed, the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is founded upon the greatest of all evils: The desire to legalize the sexual pursuit of children.
What bigoted BS
What you call 'normalize Sexual abnormality'- the Supreme Court calls invasion of privacy
Lawrence v Texas the court said:
The Court held that homosexuals had a protected liberty interest to engage in private, sexual activity; that homosexuals' moral and sexual choices were entitled to constitutional protection; and that moral disapproval did not provide a legitimate justification for Texas's law criminalizing sodomy.[36]
Holding that "the Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual", the court struck down the anti-sodomy law as unconstitutional. Kennedy underscored the decision's focus on consensual adult sexual conduct in a private setting:
The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter
The court was wrong; their reasoning was vacuous, their ruling specious and as is always the case in such decisions, the ramifications of such are going to be catastrophic.
Homosexuality is a deviant, abnormal sexuality. Meaning that the homosexual suffers from and in many cases nurtures and promotes a perversion of human sexuality.
The promotion of sexual abnormality represents a threat to the culture at large, wherein it undermines the cultures viability, perverting the standards which sustains the culture or societies viability. This injures those whose interests rests within the means of the society to remain viable.
There is no right to injure others... there is no 'right' where the exercise of such will injure another's means to exercise their own rights.
From this we can know that The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a lie, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant, designed toward no other purpose than to undermine the viability of the United States itself. And of course will be stopped. Either by adults who understand the catastrophic potential in tolerating evil or by nature itself, which seems determined to destroy it, on any number of levels.
Ironic given that holier-than-thou-keys seeks to injure those he deems unworthy of equal rights. We can thank the Founding Fathers for having the foresight to isolate rabid religious fundamentalists like him from imposing their malign will on the government of the people with a legal wall of separation.
[QUOTE="Syriusly, post: 10. Cutting you down where you stand... without apology or hesitation. Recognizing that you represent nothing short of manifest evil and as such, that your very presence was an irredeemable threat to them, personally as well as to their families, neighbors and to the viability of their means to pursue the fulfillment of their lives.
Well thanks for sharing how you think homosexuals should be dealt with in the United States.
Or anyone who disagrees with you.
Clearly you don't speak for the Founders of our country- you speak only your own desires.
Gay marraige affects orphanges, adoption, children's civil rights and a state's right to define marriage to create incentives for an environment of "father/mother" for children in order that they might thrive best.
"If your marriage is threatened by gay marriage, then one of your family is a child" . Children's rights dominate "gay rights". Cults don't have rights.
Indeed, the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is founded upon the greatest of all evils: The desire to legalize the sexual pursuit of children.
What bigoted BS
What you call 'normalize Sexual abnormality'- the Supreme Court calls invasion of privacy
Lawrence v Texas the court said:
The Court held that homosexuals had a protected liberty interest to engage in private, sexual activity; that homosexuals' moral and sexual choices were entitled to constitutional protection; and that moral disapproval did not provide a legitimate justification for Texas's law criminalizing sodomy.[36]
Holding that "the Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual", the court struck down the anti-sodomy law as unconstitutional. Kennedy underscored the decision's focus on consensual adult sexual conduct in a private setting:
The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter
The court was wrong; their reasoning was vacuous, their ruling specious and as is always the case in such decisions, the ramifications of such are going to be catastrophic.
Homosexuality is a deviant, abnormal sexuality. Meaning that the homosexual suffers from and in many cases nurtures and promotes a perversion of human sexuality.
The promotion of sexual abnormality represents a threat to the culture at large, wherein it undermines the cultures viability, perverting the standards which sustains the culture or societies viability. This injures those whose interests rests within the means of the society to remain viable.
There is no right to injure others... there is no 'right' where the exercise of such will injure another's means to exercise their own rights.
From this we can know that The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a lie, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant, designed toward no other purpose than to undermine the viability of the United States itself. And of course will be stopped. Either by adults who understand the catastrophic potential in tolerating evil or by nature itself, which seems determined to destroy it, on any number of levels.
Ironic given that holier-than-thou-keys seeks to injure those he deems unworthy of equal rights. We can thank the Founding Fathers for having the foresight to isolate rabid religious fundamentalists like him from imposing their malign will on the government of the people with a legal wall of separation.
For starters, the Founding Fathers could not have imagined anything even remotely approaching you and the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality. But, if it were possible to simply set a group of you into the world of the Founders, they would, after having listened to your story, set about slaughtering you, by the gross. Cutting you down where you stand... without apology or hesitation. Recognizing that you represent nothing short of manifest evil and as such, that your very presence was an irredeemable threat to them, personally as well as to their families, neighbors and to the viability of their means to pursue the fulfillment of their lives.
Secondly, no one is taking away from any homosexual the means to exercise ANY POTENTIAL RIGHT.
You're invited to state IN SPECIFIC TERMS THE "RIGHT(S)" which you feel are being usurped... you will produce no legitimate examples of such usurpations... I can 'know' this due to my deep understanding of what rights are, from where they come and the responsibilities that sustain such.
Third, the Founders set no conditions which precluded any individual(s) from setting law and standards rooted in the observed and otherwise irrefutable natural principles common to their understanding of the universe about them.
See how easy that is?
You're invited to state IN SPECIFIC TERMS THE "RIGHT(S)" which you feel are being usurped... you will produce no legitimate examples of such usurpations... I can 'know' this due to my deep understanding of what rights are, from where they come and the responsibilities that sustain such.
Indeed, the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is founded upon the greatest of all evils: The desire to legalize the sexual pursuit of children.
It is exceedingly difficult to disagree with you given the LGBT cult icon Harvey Milk and his sodomizing his adopted minor ward and many other "young waifs with substance abuse problems"...0% of any LGBT person denouncing that. And the same with lewd acts performed on purpose in gay pride parades where children invited to watch and attend.
Anyone supporting/not denouncing either of those two revealing governing LGBT tenets belongs on a sex-offenders' registry.
Indeed... Homosexuality is spread best by the imprinting of homosexual activity upon children. !
Of course there is no evidence that is actually happening. If it were true- where did the first homosexual come from? Do you believe that God created some homosexual Adam to start imprinting homosexuality on children?
In reality scientific authorities are not certain how someone ends being attracted to the same gender.
One of the most intriguing and newest theories has to do with Epigenetics:
For an evolutionary biologist, homosexuality is something of a puzzle. It’s a common trait, found inup to 10% of the population. It appears to be run in families, suggesting that it is hereditary, at least in part. And yet it defies the very reason why traits are passed on from generation to generation. How could something that hinders childbearing be passed down so frequently from parents to children?
Researchers at the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS) think they may have an answer. It’s not in written in our DNA sequence itself, they suggest, which explains why scientists have failed so far to find “gay genes,” despite intensive investigations. Instead, it’s written in how our genes are expressed: that is, in certain modifications to how and when DNA is activated. These changes can have environmental roots, so are not normally permanent enough to be passed from parent to child. But occasionally, they are.
“It’s not genetics. It’s not DNA. It’s not pieces of DNA. It’s epigenetics,” says Sergey Gavrilets, a NIMBioS researcher and an author on the paper that outlines the new theory of homosexuality, published in The Quarterly Review of Biology. “The hypothesis we put forward is based on epigenetic marks,” he says.
To be specific, the new theory suggests that homosexuality is caused by epigenetic marks, or “epi-marks,” related to sensitivity to hormones in the womb. These are compounds that sit on DNA and regulate how active, or inactive certain genes are, and also control when during development these genes are most prolific.
But I am sure you won't let science get in the way of arguing that homosexuals should be discriminated against.
You're invited to state IN SPECIFIC TERMS THE "RIGHT(S)" which you feel are being usurped... you will produce no legitimate examples of such usurpations... I can 'know' this due to my deep understanding of what rights are, from where they come and the responsibilities that sustain such.
You haven't demonstrated any 'deep understanding' so far.
Marriage is a right in the United States- that is well established.
Loving v Virginia
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
In Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:
"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions
So does the well established right to marriage extend to homosexuals?
Multiple courts have found that yes it does- such as the Court in Wisconsin
It is DECLARED that art. XIII, § 13 of the Wisconsin Constitution violates
plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry and their right to equal protection of laws under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Any Wisconsin statutory
provisions, including those in Wisconsin Statutes chapter 765, that limit marriages to a
“husband” and a “wife,” are unconstitutional as applied to same-sex couples.
Indeed, the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is founded upon the greatest of all evils: The desire to legalize the sexual pursuit of children.
It is exceedingly difficult to disagree with you given the LGBT cult icon Harvey Milk and his sodomizing his adopted minor ward and many other "young waifs with substance abuse problems"...0% of any LGBT person denouncing that. And the same with lewd acts performed on purpose in gay pride parades where children invited to watch and attend.
Anyone supporting/not denouncing either of those two revealing governing LGBT tenets belongs on a sex-offenders' registry.
Indeed... Homosexuality is spread best by the imprinting of homosexual activity upon children. !
Of course there is no evidence that is actually happening. If it were true- where did the first homosexual come from? Do you believe that God created some homosexual Adam to start imprinting homosexuality on children?
In reality scientific authorities are not certain how someone ends being attracted to the same gender.
One of the most intriguing and newest theories has to do with Epigenetics:
For an evolutionary biologist, homosexuality is something of a puzzle. It’s a common trait, found inup to 10% of the population. It appears to be run in families, suggesting that it is hereditary, at least in part. And yet it defies the very reason why traits are passed on from generation to generation. How could something that hinders childbearing be passed down so frequently from parents to children?
Researchers at the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS) think they may have an answer. It’s not in written in our DNA sequence itself, they suggest, which explains why scientists have failed so far to find “gay genes,” despite intensive investigations. Instead, it’s written in how our genes are expressed: that is, in certain modifications to how and when DNA is activated. These changes can have environmental roots, so are not normally permanent enough to be passed from parent to child. But occasionally, they are.
“It’s not genetics. It’s not DNA. It’s not pieces of DNA. It’s epigenetics,” says Sergey Gavrilets, a NIMBioS researcher and an author on the paper that outlines the new theory of homosexuality, published in The Quarterly Review of Biology. “The hypothesis we put forward is based on epigenetic marks,” he says.
To be specific, the new theory suggests that homosexuality is caused by epigenetic marks, or “epi-marks,” related to sensitivity to hormones in the womb. These are compounds that sit on DNA and regulate how active, or inactive certain genes are, and also control when during development these genes are most prolific.
But I am sure you won't let science get in the way of arguing that homosexuals should be discriminated against.
Therefore, it becomes obvious to all but the most pathetically addled that to NORMALIZE THE HARBINGER IS TANTAMOUNT TO CULTURAL SUICIDE!)
Indeed, the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is founded upon the greatest of all evils: The desire to legalize the sexual pursuit of children.
It is exceedingly difficult to disagree with you given the LGBT cult icon Harvey Milk and his sodomizing his adopted minor ward and many other "young waifs with substance abuse problems"...0% of any LGBT person denouncing that. And the same with lewd acts performed on purpose in gay pride parades where children invited to watch and attend.
Anyone supporting/not denouncing either of those two revealing governing LGBT tenets belongs on a sex-offenders' registry.
Indeed... Homosexuality is spread best by the imprinting of homosexual activity upon children. !
Of course there is no evidence that is actually happening. If it were true- where did the first homosexual come from? Do you believe that God created some homosexual Adam to start imprinting homosexuality on children?
In reality scientific authorities are not certain how someone ends being attracted to the same gender.
One of the most intriguing and newest theories has to do with Epigenetics:
For an evolutionary biologist, homosexuality is something of a puzzle. It’s a common trait, found inup to 10% of the population. It appears to be run in families, suggesting that it is hereditary, at least in part. And yet it defies the very reason why traits are passed on from generation to generation. How could something that hinders childbearing be passed down so frequently from parents to children?
Researchers at the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS) think they may have an answer. It’s not in written in our DNA sequence itself, they suggest, which explains why scientists have failed so far to find “gay genes,” despite intensive investigations. Instead, it’s written in how our genes are expressed: that is, in certain modifications to how and when DNA is activated. These changes can have environmental roots, so are not normally permanent enough to be passed from parent to child. But occasionally, they are.
“It’s not genetics. It’s not DNA. It’s not pieces of DNA. It’s epigenetics,” says Sergey Gavrilets, a NIMBioS researcher and an author on the paper that outlines the new theory of homosexuality, published in The Quarterly Review of Biology. “The hypothesis we put forward is based on epigenetic marks,” he says.
To be specific, the new theory suggests that homosexuality is caused by epigenetic marks, or “epi-marks,” related to sensitivity to hormones in the womb. These are compounds that sit on DNA and regulate how active, or inactive certain genes are, and also control when during development these genes are most prolific.
But I am sure you won't let science get in the way of arguing that homosexuals should be discriminated against.
Therefore, it becomes obvious to all but the most pathetically addled that to NORMALIZE THE HARBINGER IS TANTAMOUNT TO CULTURAL SUICIDE!)
Like I said- I am sure you won't let science get in the way of your own anti-homosexual rants
One of the most intriguing and newest theories has to do with Epigenetics:
For an evolutionary biologist, homosexuality is something of a puzzle. It’s a common trait, found inup to 10% of the population. It appears to be run in families, suggesting that it is hereditary, at least in part. And yet it defies the very reason why traits are passed on from generation to generation. How could something that hinders childbearing be passed down so frequently from parents to children?
Researchers at the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS) think they may have an answer. It’s not in written in our DNA sequence itself, they suggest, which explains why scientists have failed so far to find “gay genes,” despite intensive investigations. Instead, it’s written in how our genes are expressed: that is, in certain modifications to how and when DNA is activated. These changes can have environmental roots, so are not normally permanent enough to be passed from parent to child. But occasionally, they are.
“It’s not genetics. It’s not DNA. It’s not pieces of DNA. It’s epigenetics,” says Sergey Gavrilets, a NIMBioS researcher and an author on the paper that outlines the new theory of homosexuality, published in The Quarterly Review of Biology. “The hypothesis we put forward is based on epigenetic marks,” he says.
To be specific, the new theory suggests that homosexuality is caused by epigenetic marks, or “epi-marks,” related to sensitivity to hormones in the womb. These are compounds that sit on DNA and regulate how active, or inactive certain genes are, and also control when during development these genes are most prolific.
But I am sure you won't let science get in the way of arguing that homosexuals should be discriminated against.
You're invited to state IN SPECIFIC TERMS THE "RIGHT(S)" which you feel are being usurped... you will produce no legitimate examples of such usurpations... I can 'know' this due to my deep understanding of what rights are, from where they come and the responsibilities that sustain such.
You haven't demonstrated any 'deep understanding' so far.
Marriage is a right in the United States- that is well established.
Loving v Virginia
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
In Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:
"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions
So does the well established right to marriage extend to homosexuals?
Multiple courts have found that yes it does- such as the Court in Wisconsin
It is DECLARED that art. XIII, § 13 of the Wisconsin Constitution violates
plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry and their right to equal protection of laws under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Any Wisconsin statutory
provisions, including those in Wisconsin Statutes chapter 765, that limit marriages to a
“husband” and a “wife,” are unconstitutional as applied to same-sex couples.
Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... that is all anyone needs to understand.
Some are simply poorly equipped for such complex equations... understand?
You're invited to state IN SPECIFIC TERMS THE "RIGHT(S)" which you feel are being usurped... you will produce no legitimate examples of such usurpations... I can 'know' this due to my deep understanding of what rights are, from where they come and the responsibilities that sustain such.
You haven't demonstrated any 'deep understanding' so far.
Marriage is a right in the United States- that is well established.
Loving v Virginia
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
In Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:
"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions
So does the well established right to marriage extend to homosexuals?
Multiple courts have found that yes it does- such as the Court in Wisconsin
It is DECLARED that art. XIII, § 13 of the Wisconsin Constitution violates
plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry and their right to equal protection of laws under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Any Wisconsin statutory
provisions, including those in Wisconsin Statutes chapter 765, that limit marriages to a
“husband” and a “wife,” are unconstitutional as applied to same-sex couples.
Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... that is all anyone needs to understand.
Some are simply poorly equipped for such complex equations... understand?
Like I said- and you keep pointing out- you have displayed no 'deep understanding'
Marriage is a right in the United States- that is well established.
Loving v Virginia
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
In Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:
"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions
So does the well established right to marriage extend to homosexuals?
Multiple courts have found that yes it does- such as the Court in Wisconsin
It is DECLARED that art. XIII, § 13 of the Wisconsin Constitution violates
plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry and their right to equal protection of laws under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Any Wisconsin statutory
provisions, including those in Wisconsin Statutes chapter 765, that limit marriages to a
“husband” and a “wife,” are unconstitutional as applied to same-sex couples.
Very straightforward.
Marriage is the joining together of two people- and in most states and many countries- that includes two persons of the same gender.
You're invited to state IN SPECIFIC TERMS THE "RIGHT(S)" which you feel are being usurped... you will produce no legitimate examples of such usurpations... I can 'know' this due to my deep understanding of what rights are, from where they come and the responsibilities that sustain such.
You haven't demonstrated any 'deep understanding' so far.
Marriage is a right in the United States- that is well established.
Loving v Virginia
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
In Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:
"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions
So does the well established right to marriage extend to homosexuals?
Multiple courts have found that yes it does- such as the Court in Wisconsin
It is DECLARED that art. XIII, § 13 of the Wisconsin Constitution violates
plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry and their right to equal protection of laws under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Any Wisconsin statutory
provisions, including those in Wisconsin Statutes chapter 765, that limit marriages to a
“husband” and a “wife,” are unconstitutional as applied to same-sex couples.
Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... that is all anyone needs to understand.
Some are simply poorly equipped for such complex equations... understand?
Like I said- and you keep pointing out- you have displayed no 'deep understanding'
Marriage is a right in the United States- that is well established.
Loving v Virginia
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
In Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:
"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions
So does the well established right to marriage extend to homosexuals?
Multiple courts have found that yes it does- such as the Court in Wisconsin
It is DECLARED that art. XIII, § 13 of the Wisconsin Constitution violates
plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry and their right to equal protection of laws under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Any Wisconsin statutory
provisions, including those in Wisconsin Statutes chapter 765, that limit marriages to a
“husband” and a “wife,” are unconstitutional as applied to same-sex couples.
Very straightforward.
Marriage is the joining together of two people- and in most states and many countries- that includes two persons of the same gender.
In all of nature, due to the intrinsic human biology and wholly without regard to the irrational and all too whimsical notions of the pop-culture, comprised exclusively of the intellectually less fortunate, marriage is the joining of one man and one wo-man. This is the immutable law of nature, who doesn't give a red rats ass, how the pretense of a popular majority feels about it.
There is no 'marriage' in nature.
There is sex in nature. There is even pair bonding.
But no marriage.
Marriage is entirely a human creation and a right to all humans- straight or gay.
You're invited to state IN SPECIFIC TERMS THE "RIGHT(S)" which you feel are being usurped... you will produce no legitimate examples of such usurpations... I can 'know' this due to my deep understanding of what rights are, from where they come and the responsibilities that sustain such.
You haven't demonstrated any 'deep understanding' so far.
Marriage is a right in the United States- that is well established.
Loving v Virginia
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
In Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:
"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions
So does the well established right to marriage extend to homosexuals?
Multiple courts have found that yes it does- such as the Court in Wisconsin
It is DECLARED that art. XIII, § 13 of the Wisconsin Constitution violates
plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry and their right to equal protection of laws under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Any Wisconsin statutory
provisions, including those in Wisconsin Statutes chapter 765, that limit marriages to a
“husband” and a “wife,” are unconstitutional as applied to same-sex couples.
Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... that is all anyone needs to understand.
Some are simply poorly equipped for such complex equations... understand?
Like I said- and you keep pointing out- you have displayed no 'deep understanding'
Marriage is a right in the United States- that is well established.
Loving v Virginia
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
In Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:
"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions
So does the well established right to marriage extend to homosexuals?
Multiple courts have found that yes it does- such as the Court in Wisconsin
It is DECLARED that art. XIII, § 13 of the Wisconsin Constitution violates
plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry and their right to equal protection of laws under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Any Wisconsin statutory
provisions, including those in Wisconsin Statutes chapter 765, that limit marriages to a
“husband” and a “wife,” are unconstitutional as applied to same-sex couples.
Very straightforward.
Marriage is the joining together of two people- and in most states and many countries- that includes two persons of the same gender.
In all of nature, due to the intrinsic human biology and wholly without regard to the irrational and all too whimsical notions of the pop-culture, comprised exclusively of the intellectually less fortunate, marriage is the joining of one man and one wo-man. This is the immutable law of nature, who doesn't give a red rats ass, how the pretense of a popular majority feels about it.
Third, the Founders set no conditions which precluded any individual(s) from setting law and standards rooted in the observed and otherwise irrefutable natural principles common to their understanding of the universe about them.
See how easy that is?
Poe's law...or insanity. We report, you decide.
[
Yo, bimbo,
Gay marraige affects orphanges, adoption, children's civil rights and a state's right to define marriage to create incentives for an environment of "father/mother" for children in order that they might thrive best.
"If your marriage is threatened by gay marriage, then one of your family is a child" . Children's rights dominate "gay rights". Cults don't have rights.
Indeed, the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is founded upon the greatest of all evils: The desire to legalize the sexual pursuit of children.
What bigoted BS
What you call 'normalize Sexual abnormality'- the Supreme Court calls invasion of privacy
Lawrence v Texas the court said:
The Court held that homosexuals had a protected liberty interest to engage in private, sexual activity; that homosexuals' moral and sexual choices were entitled to constitutional protection; and that moral disapproval did not provide a legitimate justification for Texas's law criminalizing sodomy.[36]
Holding that "the Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual", the court struck down the anti-sodomy law as unconstitutional. Kennedy underscored the decision's focus on consensual adult sexual conduct in a private setting:
The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter
The court was wrong; their reasoning was vacuous, their ruling specious and as is always the case in such decisions, the ramifications of such are going to be catastrophic..
Of course since the courts disagree with you- since the courts didn't find that Government should be deciding what kind of sex you are allowed to have- you think that the courts are wrong.
God save us from you and the Bedroom police.
You're invited to state IN SPECIFIC TERMS THE "RIGHT(S)" which you feel are being usurped... you will produce no legitimate examples of such usurpations... I can 'know' this due to my deep understanding of what rights are, from where they come and the responsibilities that sustain such.
You haven't demonstrated any 'deep understanding' so far.
Marriage is a right in the United States- that is well established.
Loving v Virginia
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
In Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:
"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions
So does the well established right to marriage extend to homosexuals?
Multiple courts have found that yes it does- such as the Court in Wisconsin
It is DECLARED that art. XIII, § 13 of the Wisconsin Constitution violates
plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry and their right to equal protection of laws under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Any Wisconsin statutory
provisions, including those in Wisconsin Statutes chapter 765, that limit marriages to a
“husband” and a “wife,” are unconstitutional as applied to same-sex couples.
Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... that is all anyone needs to understand.
Some are simply poorly equipped for such complex equations... understand?
Like I said- and you keep pointing out- you have displayed no 'deep understanding'
Marriage is a right in the United States- that is well established.
Loving v Virginia
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
In Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:
"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions
So does the well established right to marriage extend to homosexuals?
Multiple courts have found that yes it does- such as the Court in Wisconsin
It is DECLARED that art. XIII, § 13 of the Wisconsin Constitution violates
plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry and their right to equal protection of laws under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Any Wisconsin statutory
provisions, including those in Wisconsin Statutes chapter 765, that limit marriages to a
“husband” and a “wife,” are unconstitutional as applied to same-sex couples.
Very straightforward.
Marriage is the joining together of two people- and in most states and many countries- that includes two persons of the same gender.
In all of nature, due to the intrinsic human biology and wholly without regard to the irrational and all too whimsical notions of the pop-culture, comprised exclusively of the intellectually less fortunate, marriage is the joining of one man and one wo-man. This is the immutable law of nature, who doesn't give a red rats ass, how the pretense of a popular majority feels about it.
There is no 'marriage' in nature.
There is sex in nature. There is even pair bonding.
But no marriage.
Marriage is entirely a human creation and a right to all humans- straight or gay.
