NO! Homosexuality IS NOT NORMAL

[NYcarbineer]

Procreation isn't in the Constitution. Interstate travel isn't in the Constitution. Does that mean you don't have a fundamental right to procreate or travel from state to state?

Marriage hasn't been a "state's right" since 1967...get over it already.

There's nothing for me to get over. You're the one living for this issue and this issue alone. I can laugh it off. AND point out the flaws in the thinking. In fact, I rather enjoy it.

States have define marriage, you are clueless (STILL). Interracial bans were unConstitutional because they treated men differently due to race. Government cannot discriminate against race, how fucking hard is that?

And no, you do not have the right to anything you want because it isn't in the Constitution.

Marriage isn't a state 'right'- states don't have rights. However Marriage is a state issue.

But all State laws must be Constitutional- and gay marriage bans were as unconstitutional as mixed race marriage bans- and for the same reasons- because Americans have the right to marry, and states cannot arbritrarily take away rights.

Staes don't have rights? WTF?

Repeating your error doesn't make it true. Same sex isn't "equal" to opposite sex, no way no how. So gay marriage can't be equal. It was a very bad ruling, like Roe V Wade and will be overturned in the future when people realize what a joke it is.

A same sex relationship is sufficiently similar to an opposite sex relationship to render the two relationships equal under the law.

We are talking about the law here.

 

[Faun]

Procreation isn't in the Constitution. Interstate travel isn't in the Constitution. Does that mean you don't have a fundamental right to procreate or travel from state to state?

Marriage hasn't been a "state's right" since 1967...get over it already.

There's nothing for me to get over. You're the one living for this issue and this issue alone. I can laugh it off. AND point out the flaws in the thinking. In fact, I rather enjoy it.

States have define marriage, you are clueless (STILL). Interracial bans were unConstitutional because they treated men differently due to race. Government cannot discriminate against race, how fucking hard is that?

And no, you do not have the right to anything you want because it isn't in the Constitution.

Marriage isn't a state 'right'- states don't have rights. However Marriage is a state issue.

But all State laws must be Constitutional- and gay marriage bans were as unconstitutional as mixed race marriage bans- and for the same reasons- because Americans have the right to marry, and states cannot arbritrarily take away rights.

Staes don't have rights? WTF?

Repeating your error doesn't make it true. Same sex isn't "equal" to opposite sex, no way no how. So gay marriage can't be equal. It was a very bad ruling, like Roe V Wade and will be overturned in the future when people realize what a joke it is.

LOL

How cute. The, just you wait and see, shtick. You know, like just you wait and see, abortion will be overturned; and, just you wait and see, we'll find those WMD programs; and just you wait and see, George Bush will be revered as a great president.

 

[Syriusly]

Is oral sex between a man and wife normal or abnormal?

It could be more normal, and I wouldn't object...

The number one reason so many woman object to performing oral sex is that it means they have to stop talking for 5 minutes.

No it's not, it's because women understand the only reason a man enjoys it is because it positions the woman in a role of SUBMISSION and the man in a role of control and superiority

So does the missionary postion, fucktard.

The woman is "servicing" the man, in such a way she would get no physical sexual pleasure out of it (although, some could get psychologically turned on by it).

Sex is supposed to be about expressing love. (not power and control)

If traditional sex is not doing it for you, you have issues and hang ups.

Is giving your spouse a foot massage 'Submission'? Of course not- a foot massage can be an act of love- and one my wife gets regularly.

I get no physical pleasure from giving my wife a foot massage, but I take immense sensual pleasure, and more importantly I enjoy providing her with physical pleasure as I rub her feet with warm oil.

Oral sex- whether given to a man or given to a woman works the same way.

Sex is about lots of things- and how we express our love can be done in many ways.

(and by the way- oral sex can be mutual and simultanuous)

 

[CultureCitizen]

One of the most absurd con jobs that the left in America has been allowed to get away with is the ludicrous notion of homosexuality being normal. This idiotic idea goes back to a 1974 vote within the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality as a disorder category from the APA's DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), a decision ratified by a majority (58%) of the general APA membership.

Four big problems with this though.

1) The 58% of this vote includes a 22% of homosexuals, which they were recused from this, (as they should have been), the pro vote becomes only 36% and the resolution would never have been adopted by they APA.

2) The only reason this topic even was ever put up to be voted on was because it was suggested by the APA's committee on homosexuality. In 1982, I called the APA and asked them about this. This is where I found out about the origin of this. They said it originated with the homosexuality committee in San Francisco. Whoa!! Time out for a second here. Living in San Jose, 40 miles south of San Francisco, I was pretty aware of the large gay population in San Francisco, and strong influences of it there. So I asked, by any chance would there happen to be any gays on this committee ? (who set up the disorder removal vote). The answer I got was "They are all homosexuals" This was clear that if this totally biased committee was not the way it was, there never even would have been a vote on this in the first place, and ther never should have been one.

3) ANY association can say anything depending on how corrupted it may be by bribery, cronies, blackmail, etc.

4) Homosexuality's ABnormalcy is proven quite simply be just seeing that it doesn't conform to the design of nature. The body parts of all members of the animal kingdom,including humans, are set up for heterosexual sex, not homosexual. The last word on this is from MOTHER NATURE, not the APA, or any other association.

Right, homosexuality is not normal ... at least by the definition of "normal":

"conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected."

But neither is an IQ of 150 or more normal. Does that mean that sex or mariage between genius should be banned ?

 

[Syriusly]

Oh, this is gonna leave a mark ....

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered.​

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Article. VI.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Yet the 5 Socialists on the SCOTUS found no problem with untethering themselves from the Constitution of the United States.

As the Constitution of the United States does not provide a fundamental right to marriage, as such does not exist outside of the natural standard of Marriage as defined by the Human Physiological Standard and the other soundly reasoned conditions required by the desire of the collective to sustain a viable culture.

How is it that people like this idiot can revere marriage as a most important and sacred institution,

and then turn around and claim that it isn't, and shouldn't be, a basic human right?

It's insanely illogical.

How about that it's too important to pervert into the lie that a man with a man is equal to a man with a woman? Can two brothers share that so called human right? If not, you're a hypocrite.

Two brothers can't share that 'right' for the same reason a brother and sister can't share that right- States have made sibling marriage illegal.

If you don't have an argument why sibling marriage should be illegal- well then that is your problem- not that same gender couples can marry.

 

[Exquisite]

One of the most absurd con jobs that the left in America has been allowed to get away with is the ludicrous notion of homosexuality being normal. This idiotic idea goes back to a 1974 vote within the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality as a disorder category from the APA's DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), a decision ratified by a majority (58%) of the general APA membership.

Four big problems with this though.

1) The 58% of this vote includes a 22% of homosexuals, which they were recused from this, (as they should have been), the pro vote becomes only 36% and the resolution would never have been adopted by they APA.

2) The only reason this topic even was ever put up to be voted on was because it was suggested by the APA's committee on homosexuality. In 1982, I called the APA and asked them about this. This is where I found out about the origin of this. They said it originated with the homosexuality committee in San Francisco. Whoa!! Time out for a second here. Living in San Jose, 40 miles south of San Francisco, I was pretty aware of the large gay population in San Francisco, and strong influences of it there. So I asked, by any chance would there happen to be any gays on this committee ? (who set up the disorder removal vote). The answer I got was "They are all homosexuals" This was clear that if this totally biased committee was not the way it was, there never even would have been a vote on this in the first place, and ther never should have been one.

3) ANY association can say anything depending on how corrupted it may be by bribery, cronies, blackmail, etc.

4) Homosexuality's ABnormalcy is proven quite simply be just seeing that it doesn't conform to the design of nature. The body parts of all members of the animal kingdom,including humans, are set up for heterosexual sex, not homosexual. The last word on this is from MOTHER NATURE, not the APA, or any other association.

Right, homosexuality is not normal ... at least by the definition of "normal":

"conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected."

But neither is an IQ of 150 or more normal. Does that mean that sex or mariage between genius should be banned ?

Absolutely not!

Matter of fact, encourage it immensely and encourage them to have large families. The gene pool desperately needs it.

 

[Iceweasel]

Equal protection covers gender as well. In fact equal protection covers any person or persons who are sufficiently similar to any other person or persons.

Exactly. Men aren't women. Women have been treated differently by government, no draft, separate restrooms and so on. However relationships aren't and never will be equal, there's no such thing. As I pointed out before, two brothers wanting to marry could use the same argument if that's your definition of equal.

Do you really think a state could require driver's licenses in order to drive a car,

but then only offer them to men? Or only offer them to heterosexuals?

How is analogous? ALL men could marry if eligible, same with ALL women.

 

[Iceweasel]

Two brothers can't share that 'right' for the same reason a brother and sister can't share that right- States have made sibling marriage illegal.

If you don't have an argument why sibling marriage should be illegal- well then that is your problem- not that same gender couples can marry.

Oh it's illegal! Golly! Gay marriage wasn't legal either. There's no reason to deny two adult males since they can't have kids, which is the reason incest is illegal. Fail.

 

[Syriusly]

Two brothers can't share that 'right' for the same reason a brother and sister can't share that right- States have made sibling marriage illegal.

If you don't have an argument why sibling marriage should be illegal- well then that is your problem- not that same gender couples can marry.

Oh it's illegal! Golly! Gay marriage wasn't legal either. There's no reason to deny two adult males since they can't have kids, which is the reason incest is illegal. Fail.

LOL.......what a fail at attempting to make an argument.

If you don't have an argument why sibling marriage should be illegal- well then that is your problem- not that same gender couples can marry.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Do you really think a state could require driver's licenses in order to drive a car, but then only offer them to...?

... people with good vision and a sound means to reason?

Yes Gilligan, it turns out that blind people are not well suited to driving, just as those who lack the means to understand or care... the purpose of LANES, SIGNALS and the laws of physics precluding distinct matter from simultaneously occupying the same space.

Just as those who are sexually attracted to people of the same gender are not will suited for Marriage, because Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

A same sex relationship is sufficiently similar to an opposite sex relationship to render the two relationships equal under the law. We are talking about the law here.

You're talking about "Relationships"... and no one gives a happy dam' about who is in a 'relationship' with whom...

We're talking about MARRIAGE... which is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[protectionist]

How is it that people like this idiot can revere marriage as a most important and sacred institution, and then turn around and claim that it isn't, and shouldn't be, a basic human right? It's insanely illogical.

MOTHER NATURE is how he can claim it.

 

[protectionist]

BUT, the Constitution does provide a fundamental right of equal protection under the law, which means, pay attention, ANY law enacted at any level of government cannot apply to some and not others, if all are similar enough to merit that equal protection.

But they are NOT similar enough.

 

[protectionist]

Equal protection is in the Constitution.

Problem is gays are NOT EQUAL. They are gays.

 

[protectionist]

yes, the mentally ill are entitled to equal protection. no one ever questioned that.

FALSE! The mentally ill are NOT entitled to equal protection. There are many laws prohibiting mentally ill people from doing things. In some cases, they are not even permitted basic freedom, and are locked up in insane asylums.

 

[protectionist]

Equal protection covers gender as well. In fact equal protection covers any person or persons who are sufficiently similar to any other person or persons.

Gays are not "sufficiently similar" to heterosexuals, and thereby might not be given EQUAL protection.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

One of the most absurd con jobs that the left in America has been allowed to get away with is the ludicrous notion of homosexuality being normal. This idiotic idea goes back to a 1974 vote within the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality as a disorder category from the APA's DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), a decision ratified by a majority (58%) of the general APA membership.

Four big problems with this though.

1) The 58% of this vote includes a 22% of homosexuals, which they were recused from this, (as they should have been), the pro vote becomes only 36% and the resolution would never have been adopted by they APA.

2) The only reason this topic even was ever put up to be voted on was because it was suggested by the APA's committee on homosexuality. In 1982, I called the APA and asked them about this. This is where I found out about the origin of this. They said it originated with the homosexuality committee in San Francisco. Whoa!! Time out for a second here. Living in San Jose, 40 miles south of San Francisco, I was pretty aware of the large gay population in San Francisco, and strong influences of it there. So I asked, by any chance would there happen to be any gays on this committee ? (who set up the disorder removal vote). The answer I got was "They are all homosexuals" This was clear that if this totally biased committee was not the way it was, there never even would have been a vote on this in the first place, and ther never should have been one.

3) ANY association can say anything depending on how corrupted it may be by bribery, cronies, blackmail, etc.

4) Homosexuality's ABnormalcy is proven quite simply be just seeing that it doesn't conform to the design of nature. The body parts of all members of the animal kingdom,including humans, are set up for heterosexual sex, not homosexual. The last word on this is from MOTHER NATURE, not the APA, or any other association.

Right, homosexuality is not normal ... at least by the definition of "normal":

"conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected."

But neither is an IQ of 150 or more normal. Does that mean that sex or mariage between genius should be banned ?

HEY! We have another contender in the "Non Sequitur" contingent.

LOL! Always a good time.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

They already had that equal dignity. They can marry a person of the opposite gender just like heteros.

And now they can marry a person of the same gender... because YOU LOSE!!!!

Bwahahahahahahahaha

And now you can marry your brother and your sister and your father because all bets are off.

 

[protectionist]

They did no such thing. They upheld the Constitution and protected the rights of American citizens, just like they're supposed to do. ?

5 dumheads went overboard, and extended equal protection to people who are anything but equal. 4 justices remained sane.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

How about that it's too important to pervert into the lie that a man with a man is equal to a man with a woman? Can two brothers share that so called human right? If not, you're a hypocrite.

The other poster said man/woman marriage isn't a right.

Marriage isn't in the Constitution. It WAS a state's right for eligible couples.

Equal protection is in the Constitution.

Yes, black men should be treated the same as white men by government.

Equal protection covers gender as well. In fact equal protection covers any person or persons who are sufficiently similar to any other person or persons.

Yes Gilligan, Homosexuals Males are equally protected under the law, and are subject to the same laws and benefits regulating every other male. Same with females.

Nothing about that provides that the culture must redefine the standards in nature that define marriage, as a means to legitimize the homosexual's personal kinks and deviancies.