HOMOS should STAY AWAY FROM YOUNG KIDS!!!!!!
Period.
Same sex couples are already parents by the 10s of thousands. Are you calling for their children to be taken from them forcibly?
The kinds of parents that scare Dexter....
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.
HOMOS should STAY AWAY FROM YOUNG KIDS!!!!!!
Period.
Same sex couples are already parents by the 10s of thousands. Are you calling for their children to be taken from them forcibly?
Syriusly's posts = a diversion to this vv It's one of those pesky empirical studies that reflects poorly on the "born this way" premise from which all their court victories have been won thusfar...
HOMOS should STAY AWAY FROM YOUNG KIDS!!!!!!
Period.
Same sex couples are already parents by the 10s of thousands. Are you calling for their children to be taken from them forcibly?
HOMOS should STAY AWAY FROM YOUNG KIDS!!!!!!
Period.
Same sex couples are already parents by the 10s of thousands. Are you calling for their children to be taken from them forcibly?
Definitely.
Lesbians raise boys to be "docilized" and subservient to women
Homos raise boys to tie them up and poke them up the rear - see JESSE DIRKHISING
REMEMBERING JESSE: The Deviant Homosexual Rape-Murder of Young Jesse Dirkhising » Americans for Truth
Fifteen years ago today, a 13-year-old Arkansas boy, Jesse Dirkhising, was sodomized to death by two older homosexual men who used him as their “sex toy.” This account by my friend and AFTAH adviser Allyson Smith gives the sordid and astonishing facts of his sadistic rape-killing.
Both of Jesse’s assailants, the more sinister (and older), David Don Carpenter, who planned the sickening, penetrative assault on Jesse, and his (their) lover, Joshua Macave Brown, were friends of Jesse’s mother, Tina Yates, who naively allowed the boy to go away with the men and stay the night in another town. Tragically, Yates’ “pro-gay” attitudes contributed to the cruel death of her son.
HOMOS should STAY AWAY FROM YOUNG KIDS!!!!!!
Period.
Same sex couples are already parents by the 10s of thousands. Are you calling for their children to be taken from them forcibly?
Definitely.
Lesbians raise boys to be "docilized" and subservient to women
Homos raise boys to tie them up and poke them up the rear - see JESSE DIRKHISING
REMEMBERING JESSE: The Deviant Homosexual Rape-Murder of Young Jesse Dirkhising » Americans for Truth
Fifteen years ago today, a 13-year-old Arkansas boy, Jesse Dirkhising, was sodomized to death by two older homosexual men who used him as their “sex toy.” This account by my friend and AFTAH adviser Allyson Smith gives the sordid and astonishing facts of his sadistic rape-killing.
Both of Jesse’s assailants, the more sinister (and older), David Don Carpenter, who planned the sickening, penetrative assault on Jesse, and his (their) lover, Joshua Macave Brown, were friends of Jesse’s mother, Tina Yates, who naively allowed the boy to go away with the men and stay the night in another town. Tragically, Yates’ “pro-gay” attitudes contributed to the cruel death of her son.
WHY are HOMOS so OBSESSED with TOUCHING young kids???
CONFISCATE THOSE KIDS to save them from the horrible fate they currently endure...
You have no concern for Jesse Dirkhising.
You were likely there watching it....
You have no concern for Jesse Dirkhising.
You were likely there watching it....
And now you've crossed into batshit tin foil territory.
Well. You got your straw man at least.
Wonder what the staff on the USSC will look like by 2019?
Well. You got your straw man at least.
Wonder what the staff on the USSC will look like by 2019?
Would anyone bother to read that word salad? Just more butthurt from the homophobic bigots who cannot accept Gay marriage.
Would anyone bother to read that word salad? Just more butthurt from the homophobic bigots who cannot accept Gay marriage.
They got "married" creating a contract that banishes children (that the court said were intrinsic to marriage) for life from either a mother or father, And children collective had no representation at that Hearing. The People who were rendered as unimportant as mothers or fathers in marriage had no representation on that point. Nor were any studies cited nor discussion had of any ramifications of such a drastic and fundamental change in the benefits children gained from marriage since time immemorial.Sil raises it to an artform. It's like his/her/whatever entire sense of reality is based on this being rolled back after thousands of people have already gotten married.
Here's what happened Sil. Gays go married. God did not cause the Apocolypse to happen. Life just kind of went on and we were all better off for it.
Would anyone bother to read that word salad? Just more butthurt from the homophobic bigots who cannot accept Gay marriage.
They got "married" creating a contract t.Sil raises it to an artform. It's like his/her/whatever entire sense of reality is based on this being rolled back after thousands of people have already gotten married.
Here's what happened Sil. Gays go married. God did not cause the Apocolypse to happen. Life just kind of went on and we were all better off for it.
Part I: Judiciary Weaving Language To Create New Constitutional Protections Without The Pesky Legislature Interfering: (a violation of the separation of powers all done by the Court's democratic party representatives...ok a couple of independents in name only.)
There has been argument here on the boards that 2015's gay marriage decision (Obergefell) didn't include intimacy as a reason for granting marriage rights. However, this is false. The Court purposefully wove terms of language together to create a new class of protection for just some (but not other) sexual kink behaviors.
What's important to take away from these distinctions, this bastardization of language, is that the Court in interweaving the terms, also created a new non-existent class for inclusion for "special protections/privileges" in the US Constitution which do not exist there. The Court's subversive "have our cake and eat it too"...pandering to the LGBT cult created a rift in the separation of powers and in future laws that cannot any longer deny any other "sexual-intimacy kink"...(unless in these paragraphs, the Justices writing were referring to back rubs or pats on the shoulder when referring directly to "same-sex intimacy/etc.".)
Sorry to be so graphic, but a man inserting his penis into another man's anus as an artificial vagina (outward sign of closeted heterosexuality) and treating that "bottom" partner as a "psuedo-wife/mother" (outward sign of closeted heterosexuality) for the purposes of parenting children implicitly involved in marriage cannot be a superior deviant sex act (the majority objects to) than a man taking two or more wives, for instance. And at least the man's kink of wanting intimacy with more than one wife will provide both a mother and father for life for kids implicitly involved in marriage. If argument should be offered in this thread that "a majority approves of gay marriage", I remind readers here that gay marriage is and always has been illegal in the most liberal goofy state in the Union: California....the majority there always voting it down. Most recently in 2008. It would fail again today because what goes on in the private opinions of the voting booth quite obviously is in direct conflict with cherry-picked polling the LGBT controlled media dispenses to the general public "as fact".
Article I, Section 7.5 of the California Constitution:
Codes Display Text
Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
(Sec. 7.5 added Nov. 4, 2008, by Prop. 8. Initiative measure. Note: Ruled unconstitutional per Perry v. Schwarzenegger (N.D.Cal. 2010) 704 F.Supp.2d 921.)
Here is just one example of many, many examples in Obergefell where the words are used as one and the same:
Page 7: Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution
***
This dynamic can be seen in the Nation’s experiences with the rights of gays and lesbians. Until the mid-20th century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as immoral by the state itself in most Western nations, a belief often embodied in the criminal law. For this reason, among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals to have dignity in their own distinct identity. A truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken. Even when a greater awareness of the humanity and integrity of homosexual persons came in the period after World War II, the argument that gays and lesbians had a just claim to dignity was in conflict with both law and widespread social conventions. Same-sex intimacy remained a crime in many States. Gays and lesbians were prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate.
**********
Rights to associate do not equal marriage. If they did, other sex "intimacy" kinks like polyamorists (polygamists) would have that same right of association in marriage. For they too have long been discriminated against by the majority's rejection of such behaviors/lifestyles.
What readers should take away from this clever use of language is that while they were asleep and thinking interweaving the terms doesn't matter, it created a whole new category of protections based on behaviors and not static class like race, gender, country of origin or actual recognized religion. Unless the Justices were declaring that just some sex kinks are themselves a form of religion, based in behavior, and therefore protected? But I saw no mention of that at all in Obergefell from beginning to end.
The problem is folks, when you deregulate the majority rule on repugnant minority behaviors, where does that stop? The 14th Amendment is about equal treatment for all. So that means, literally, ALL minority repugnant behaviors can now marry since to not grant them that "dignity", is "Unconstitutional".
Will these facts if revealed, and the damage they caused American Law hurt the democrats the Country associates with these high crimes? Remember, a judge or Justice of the court system from the bottom to the top does not have the power to insert brand new language into the US Constitution. There is nothing in the US Constitution referring to deviant-sex intimacy as a protected thing. The only behaviors protected from the majority are religious ones.
Gay Gene Fake Premise:
And, despite hasty conclusions by "scientists"..there is no "gay gene". It's bullshit, contrived purposefully as a psuedo-defense for what they know is coming. In other words they don't want LGBT being seen as behavioral...what it is in fact.. in near-future court battles about cake baking and adoption agencies not wanting to be forced to disgorge vulnerable children into homes with permanent contractual bans on either a father or mother being present... Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: ‘There Is No Gay Gene’ And a really useful link with dozens of links to actual scientific data: CHAPTER 6: THE MYTH OF THE “GAY GENE”
If there is no gay gene, then they are behaviors. If they are behaviors then they are subject to majority rule.
Stay tuned for Part II...
Would anyone bother to read that word salad? Just more butthurt from the homophobic bigots who cannot accept Gay marriage.
They got "married" creating a contract that banishes children (that the court said were intrinsic to marriage) for life from either a mother or father,Sil raises it to an artform. It's like his/her/whatever entire sense of reality is based on this being rolled back after thousands of people have already gotten married.
Here's what happened Sil. Gays go married. God did not cause the Apocolypse to happen. Life just kind of went on and we were all better off for it.
"The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples"
Obergefell v. Hodges
And children collective had no representation at that Hearing.
The People who were rendered as unimportant as mothers or fathers in marriage had no representation on that point.