Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Syriusly]

False... that is NOT only NOT >WHAT< I am arguing, it is not even CLOSE to what I am arguing and there's NOTHING in ANYTHING that I HAVE ARGUED, that could reasonably lead a reasonable person to such an inference. Which is how we can rest assured that your reasoning is invalid and wholly subjective.

Also, I've got no where to be, so I am free to point out that its false, every time you feel the need to repeat it.

Let's try it this way:

normal: conforming to a standard.

abnormal: deviating from what is normal

deviate: depart from usual or accepted standards

perversion: the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended by the standard.

rationalization: attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with what is erroneously felt to be logical, plausible reasons, even where such are logically invalid, intellectually unsound and otherwise not true or appropriate.

irrational: not logical or reasonable.• not endowed with the power of reason.

delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder

Which of those 'feels' the most familiar to ya?

That's exactly what you are arguing, and it is clear to anyone who understands the English language and the logical fallacy of equivocation. You do not.

That's exactly what you are arguing, and it is clear to anyone who understands the English language and the logical fallacy of equivocation. You do not.

So you've chosen DELUSION!

Good for you! (If it helps, that is the one I was sure you'd choose.)

Nope. I've chosen logic and truth and you've chosen fallacy and bigotry.

Yep... you just prefer to ignore the laws of reason

i.e. Keys with more bat guano craziness.

 

[Syriusly]

From the landmark case of 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."

The Lovings were denied the right to marry each other.

Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.
Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.

The State can restrict the right to marriage- but it must establish a significant state interest that is accomplished by denying that right- and no one has been able to come up with a more significant reason to deny two men from marrying each other that is much beyond "Its icky"

No one is being denied a right to marry. It is being restricted. Seems all the faggots had to do to get a sympathetic, Liberal, queer loving judge to agree with them is whine like the little sissys they are.

You are precious. Please, please, please, keep spewing your bile. The more and more of you folks that shout this nonsense from the rooftops the more people you continue to alienate. The gay community and our allies thank you for your contributions to the cause.

Please keep thinking that the marriage of two of your kind will ever be equivalent to my marriage. You are and always will be nothing more than a dick sucking faggot.

I am sorry, what charm school did you say you attended again?

I am sorry, am I supposed to say things in a manner you like? Like I said, two faggots marrying will never equal to mine.

No marriage will equal the marriage of my wife and I's......certainly not that of a interbred bigot and his half sister. Now two homosexuals who are actually in love, rather than marrying because your mom's brother forced you to.....that marriage would probably be superior to yours.

 

[mdk]

From the landmark case of 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."

The Lovings were denied the right to marry each other.

Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.
Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.

The State can restrict the right to marriage- but it must establish a significant state interest that is accomplished by denying that right- and no one has been able to come up with a more significant reason to deny two men from marrying each other that is much beyond "Its icky"

No one is being denied a right to marry. It is being restricted. Seems all the faggots had to do to get a sympathetic, Liberal, queer loving judge to agree with them is whine like the little sissys they are.

You are precious. Please, please, please, keep spewing your bile. The more and more of you folks that shout this nonsense from the rooftops the more people you continue to alienate. The gay community and our allies thank you for your contributions to the cause.

Please keep thinking that the marriage of two of your kind will ever be equivalent to my marriage. You are and always will be nothing more than a dick sucking faggot.

I am sorry, what charm school did you say you attended again?

I am sorry, am I supposed to say things in a manner you like? Like I said, two faggots marrying will never equal to mine.

No, in fact I quite enjoy it. Every time you post your bile more people flee to my side of the argument. The gay community thanks you for your service.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

That's because the two definitions are intrinsic to one another, thus they inherently conflate.

Lol...no. That is patently false. Your argument is entirely based on a fallacious equivocation.

Well what ya have there is a subjective conclusion, wherein despite the otherwise incontrovertible evidence to the contrary... you NEED that do be FALSE... evidenced in your inability to show the reasoning which would otherwise DEMONSTRATE IT TO BE FALSE.

See how that works?

Nothing subjective about it. I can objectively classify your argument as an equivocation, as would anyone else who knows what an equivocation is.

From the landmark case of 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."

The Lovings were denied the right to marry each other.

Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.
Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.

The State can restrict the right to marriage- but it must establish a significant state interest that is accomplished by denying that right- and no one has been able to come up with a more significant reason to deny two men from marrying each other that is much beyond "Its icky"

No one is being denied a right to marry. It is being restricted. Seems all the faggots had to do to get a sympathetic, Liberal, queer loving judge to agree with them is whine like the little sissys they are.

You are precious. Please, please, please, keep spewing your bile. The more and more of you folks that shout this nonsense from the rooftops the more people you continue to alienate. The gay community and our allies thank you for your contributions to the cause.

Please keep thinking that the marriage of two of your kind will ever be equivalent to my marriage. You are and always will be nothing more than a dick sucking faggot.

I am sorry, what charm school did you say you attended again?

I am sorry, am I supposed to say things in a manner you like? Like I said, two faggots marrying will never equal to mine.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. That is all it can be... as that is how nature designed it. As such, there's nothing to compare it with... or to which to equate it.

No one is being denied a right to marry. It is being restricted. Seems all the faggots had to do to get a sympathetic, Liberal, queer loving judge to agree with them is whine like the little sissys they are.

You are precious. Please, please, please, keep spewing your bile. The more and more of you folks that shout this nonsense from the rooftops the more people you continue to alienate. The gay community and our allies thank you for your contributions to the cause.

Please keep thinking that the marriage of two of your kind will ever be equivalent to my marriage. You are and always will be nothing more than a dick sucking faggot.

I am sorry, what charm school did you say you attended again?

I am sorry, am I supposed to say things in a manner you like? Like I said, two faggots marrying will never equal to mine.

No, in fact I quite enjoy it. Every time you post your bile more people flee to my side of the argument. The gay community thanks you for your service.

Well such is rather vile, that much is true.

But there's nothing 'gay' about your community... except in the sense that it's sexually abnormal. In truth, it's a fairly sad little cult, steeped in delusion, regret, remorse, guilt and sadly, a waning shame.

The hijacking of the word "gay" was a deceitful attempt to re-define sexual abnormality. Such was a fraudulent means to influence the ignorant.

BUT! It did serve to demonstrate that Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance are the fundamental elements of your cult.


And that makes it easier to educate the ignorant, so they will be less likely to be influenced by your deceit.

So THANK YOU!

 

[Syriusly]

That's because the two definitions are intrinsic to one another, thus they inherently conflate.

Lol...no. That is patently false. Your argument is entirely based on a fallacious equivocation.

Well what ya have there is a subjective conclusion, wherein despite the otherwise incontrovertible evidence to the contrary... you NEED that do be FALSE... evidenced in your inability to show the reasoning which would otherwise DEMONSTRATE IT TO BE FALSE.

See how that works?

Nothing subjective about it. I can objectively classify your argument as an equivocation, as would anyone else who knows what an equivocation is.

No one is being denied a right to marry. It is being restricted. Seems all the faggots had to do to get a sympathetic, Liberal, queer loving judge to agree with them is whine like the little sissys they are.

You are precious. Please, please, please, keep spewing your bile. The more and more of you folks that shout this nonsense from the rooftops the more people you continue to alienate. The gay community and our allies thank you for your contributions to the cause.

Please keep thinking that the marriage of two of your kind will ever be equivalent to my marriage. You are and always will be nothing more than a dick sucking faggot.

I am sorry, what charm school did you say you attended again?

I am sorry, am I supposed to say things in a manner you like? Like I said, two faggots marrying will never equal to mine.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. That is all it can be... as that is how nature designed it. As such, there's nothing to compare it with... or to which to equate it.

You are precious. Please, please, please, keep spewing your bile. The more and more of you folks that shout this nonsense from the rooftops the more people you continue to alienate. The gay community and our allies thank you for your contributions to the cause.

Please keep thinking that the marriage of two of your kind will ever be equivalent to my marriage. You are and always will be nothing more than a dick sucking faggot.

I am sorry, what charm school did you say you attended again?

I am sorry, am I supposed to say things in a manner you like? Like I said, two faggots marrying will never equal to mine.

No, in fact I quite enjoy it. Every time you post your bile more people flee to my side of the argument. The gay community thanks you for your service.

Well such is rather vile, that much is true.

But there's nothing 'gay' about your community... except in the sense that it's sexually abnormal. In truth, it's a fairly sad little cult, steeped in delusion, regret, remorse, guilt and sadly, a waning shame.

The hijacking of the word "gay" was a deceitful attempt to re-define sexual abnormality. Such was a fraudulent means to influence the ignorant.

BUT! It did serve to demonstrate that Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance are the fundamental elements of your cult.


And that makes it easier to educate the ignorant, so they will be less likely to be influenced by your deceit.

So THANK YOU!

More bat guano crazy stuff.

 

[ShackledNation]

Who is "we", tonto? Certainly not the USA, and the millennials will float you out to sea if you try that with them.

Keep running your little dick suckers, we will see at the end of the day what millennial's will say ..............

We are already seeing it.

As a millennial myself, I don't even know a single person my age who is against same-sex marriage.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Let me ask ya. If you kids developed the strongly felt obsession that Gravity had it all wrong and that just because a person got on an unstable aircraft, they shouldn't be forced to hurtle back to earth at terminal velocity, do ya feel that this would in, in any way, change nature's position on that natural law?

If so, why so?

If not, why not?

Marriage is a social creation.

Marriage is the joining of the complimenting genders, designed by nature, for the purpose which nature designed it for.

Gravity is a reality of physics.

"Physics"? You're speaking of the study of the physical aspects of our universe?

Yes... Gravity is a physical law of nature.

To equate the definition of marriage with the reality of gravity is absurd.

Where the two issues equate is in their both being the result of nature's law. One relevant to the physical laws of nature... the other relevant to the laws of nature as they govern human behavior.

If marriage was unchangeable, women would still be considered property to husbands.

How so? Seems like ya just high-sided your argument on a non-sequitur there... .

LOL! You work it out and get back to me.

Well, they're only likely to not be living in a population center. What's more, the farther from urban centers (thus the farther from socialist governance) one lives, the less likely a person is to accept sexual abnormality as normal... .

But that serves reason, because the farther from urban environments one lives, the more likely a person is to recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the soundly reasoned principles of nature.

Homosexuality is a completely natural phenomenon, so this whole nature argument of yours is quite meaningless.

So because something is natural, we should embrace it? Even where the natural phenomenon deviates from the natural standards to the extent that it literally rejects the standard itself, threatening the viability of the species?

LOL! ... Are you sure?

Take Ebola, for instance. It's a perfectly natural phenom... . Should we embrace it too?

LOL! BAD EXAMPLE... clearly the Left is already working towards the embracing of Ebola...

Ya know... the more we discuss this, the more clear it becomes that entertaining you people is a literal threat to the very survival of the human species itself.

Marriage was not designed by nature. That is pure BS. You do realize that women were considered property in marriage in the past, do you not? The rest of your post is a strawman. I never said what is natural is therefore moral. It is you who is claiming that was is unnatural is therefore immoral.

As to your other posts, nature designed some human beings to be homosexual. So your argument, again, is meaningless. How does homosexuality perpetuate deceit? You throw out these baseless assertions, yet the crux of your argument is an equivocation. The fact that you have to type pages to rationalize your fallacy just proves how irrational your position is. I can debunk your entire diatribe in a few lines.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... Ya know, the more we discuss this, the more clear it becomes that entertaining you people is a literal threat to the very survival of the human species itself.

Marriage was not designed by nature.

Well, if that were true, then Nature didn't design the subjects of marriage.

And since we know that Nature IS the source of the design of human physiology, we can now rest assured that nature also designed the union in which one man and one woman, analogous to coitus, where the complimenting but distinct genders join as one sustainable body... was also designed by nature.

That is pure BS.

ROFLMNAO! And you claim ya don't believe in relativism. Yet you're a CLASSIC example of such!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

As to your other posts, nature designed some human beings to be homosexual.

No... Nature designed the species... homosexuality is a deviation from that physiological standard.

You're claiming that because 'it happens' it's natural. And I can see how you'd think that, as such is a common misnomer, usually because such drivel is chronically promoted by those who are unable to rise above their own subjective needs. It's a function of evil

The problem is that viability is promoted through 'the standard'... inviability is promoted through abnormality.

The Clap occurs in nature as well and no one in the 'viable' column is advocating to NORMALIZE the CLAP!

See how that works?

 

[Silhouette]

As to your other posts, nature designed some human beings to be homosexual.

No... Nature designed the species... homosexuality is a deviation from that physiological standard.

You're claiming that because 'it happens' it's natural. And I can see how you'd think that, as such is a common misnomer, usually because such drivel is chronically promoted by those who are unable to rise above their own subjective needs. It's a function of evil

The problem is that viability is promoted through 'the standard'... inviability is promoted through abnormality.

The Clap occurs in nature as well and no one in the 'viable' column is advocating to NORMALIZE the CLAP!

See how that works?

Your logic requires that LGBTs abandon one of the core edicts of their cult: hypocrisy.

 

[ShackledNation]

... Ya know, the more we discuss this, the more clear it becomes that entertaining you people is a literal threat to the very survival of the human species itself.

Marriage was not designed by nature.

Well, if that were true, then Nature didn't design the subjects of marriage.

Non sequitur. Human beings were created by nature, but the institution of marriage was not. Human beings created the instiution of marriage, not nature. Unless you want to argue that everything human beings created was by extension created by nature?

And since we know that Nature IS the source of the design of human physiology, we can now rest assured that nature also designed the union in which one man and one woman, analogous to coitus, where the complimenting but distinct genders join as one sustainable body... was also designed by nature.

No, we don't. That line of reasoning is completely illogical.

ROFLMNAO! And you claim ya don't believe in relativism. Yet you're a CLASSIC example of such!

Pointing out your pathetic fallacies and falsehoods does not make me a moral relativist.

No... Nature designed the species... homosexuality is a deviation from that physiological standard.

Nature designed the species, and homosexuals are part of the species. What, are you claiming gay people are nonhumans now?

You're claiming that because 'it happens' it's natural. And I can see how you'd think that, as such is a common misnomer, usually because such drivel is chronically promoted by those who are unable to rise above their own subjective needs. It's a function of evil

Something that occurs in nature and is created by nature is natural, yes. Perhaps you need a dictionary again?

The problem is that viability is promoted through 'the standard'... inviability is promoted through abnormality.

The Clap occurs in nature as well and no one in the 'viable' column is advocating to NORMALIZE the CLAP!

See how that works?

See how what works? The above is drivel. Perhaps it is coherent to you, but to everyone else you sound like a crazy person yelling unintelligibly in the streets.

 

[Syriusly]

As to your other posts, nature designed some human beings to be homosexual.

No... Nature designed the species... homosexuality is a deviation from that physiological standard.

You're claiming that because 'it happens' it's natural. And I can see how you'd think that, as such is a common misnomer, usually because such drivel is chronically promoted by those who are unable to rise above their own subjective needs. It's a function of evil

The problem is that viability is promoted through 'the standard'... inviability is promoted through abnormality.

The Clap occurs in nature as well and no one in the 'viable' column is advocating to NORMALIZE the CLAP!

See how that works?

Your logic requires that LGBTs abandon one of the core edicts of their cult: hypocrisy.

Your use of the term logic is word abuse.

 

[Syriusly]

... Ya know, the more we discuss this, the more clear it becomes that entertaining you people is a literal threat to the very survival of the human species itself.

Marriage was not designed by nature.

Well, if that were true, then Nature didn't design the subjects of marriage.

And since we know that Nature IS the source of the design of human physiology, we can now rest assured that nature also designed the union in which one man and one woman, analogous to coitus, where the complimenting but distinct genders join as one sustainable body... was also designed by nature.
!

Nature, so to speak, or more correctly evolution designed mammals to have sex to reproduce.

Evolution also evolved to make sex enjoyable, and humans naturally have sex for reasons beyond procreation.

And none of that has anything to do with marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

Your use of the term logic is word abuse.

LGBT's use of the word "marriage" is word abuse.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... Ya know, the more we discuss this, the more clear it becomes that entertaining you people is a literal threat to the very survival of the human species itself.

Marriage was not designed by nature.

Well, if that were true, then Nature didn't design the subjects of marriage.

Non sequitur.

So LOL!, you're saying that it 'doesn't follow' that 'Marriage': the joining of one man and one woman who join as one being, providing security for the female during gestation... and serves as a stable environment for the training and nurturing of children through the benefit of the complimenting traits of each respective gender, ... which incontestably follows the human physiological design, wherein the distinct, but complimenting genders join as one being, analogous to wherein the two complimenting bodies join in sustainable coitus... is a direct result of the natural design created by nature?

ROFLMNAO!

And you claim that you're no Relativist... .

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And since we know that Nature IS the source of the design of human physiology, we can now rest assured that nature also designed the union in which one man and one woman, analogous to coitus, wherein the complimenting but distinct genders join as one sustainable body... was also designed by nature.

No, we don't. That line of reasoning is completely illogical.

Logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
Validity: the quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency
Soundness: based on reason, sense, or judgment
Cogent: clear, logical, and convincing

Marriage: The Joining of ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN, is the intrinsic consequence of the human physiological design.

Now, using the definitions of all those things you claim my position is NOT... take each one and show where my position fails that particular trait.

Now here's the cool part. Whether you do that or not... I will then take what you say in response to that, or what you're said in the past and show where that mates up with the concepts cited below:

Relativism: the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality can only exist in relation to culture, society, historical or one's personal context, and not the result of soundly absolutes.

Delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

ROFLMNAO! And you claim ya don't believe in relativism. Yet you're a CLASSIC example of such!

Pointing out your pathetic fallacies and falsehoods does not make me a moral relativist.

Oh! Well, that's true... your rejection of objective reasoning, substituting such with conclusions which serve your subjective need, determine THAT.

 

[Silhouette]

One of the critical arguments emerging against gay marriage is that the children in that home, newly incentivized by the states forced to do so by the limbo SCOTUS has created refusing to hear states' appeals, is that in a gay marriage home, the children there will 100% of the time be missing one of their natural blood parents. They will be missing the influence of the missing gender also 100% of the time, to their developmental and social disadvantage.

If they are in the unhappy position of being the opposite gender of the gay parents, they might likely internalize that "your gender isn't necessary/YOU aren't necessary" message implied and modeled for them every day. Then you might get this as the extreme result of that child's butchered self esteem: a total rejection of his own gender so that he can fit in/be loved...

A LESBIAN couple in California who say their 11-year-old son Tommy wants to be a girl named Tammy are giving their child hormone blockers that delay the onset of puberty, so that he can have more time to decide if he wants to change his gender.
The couple's supporters say the Hormone Blocking Therapy has only minor side effects and is appropriate for a child who is unsure of his gender.
"This is definitely a changing landscape for transgender youth," said Joel Baum, director of education and training for Gender Spectrum, a California-based non-profit group. "This is about giving kids and their families the opportunity to make the right decision."We ll stop puberty so Tommy can become Tammy Lesbian couple want to help boy to become girl

How many members of the LGBT community have openly opposed this? 0%.

 

[Silhouette]

Here's more on how a same-sexed environment is seen by even the very young boy in that lesbian home from my last post:

Tommy began saying he was a girl when he was three years old, his parents said. He was learning sign language due to a speech impediment, and one of the first things he told his mothers was, "I am a girl."
The child's parents also said Tommy threatened to mutilate his genitals when he was seven, and psychiatrists diagnosed a gender identity disorder. One year later, he began transitioning to Tammy.

In his world from the earliest of ages, "girl" is all he would have seen or known. To be "other than girl" would be seen by the forming mind as "not part of this family". That's how the early developing mind of a child operates, in very rudimentary logical fashion in what it sees modeled before him in his immediate caretakers. It's how they form their view of the world and why it is so very important to do well by them at that age.

So the two lesbians decided for Tommy so he "could decide later"...you know...after his body has been stunted to be female and retarded in that regard of male development compared to his peers.. Some "choice" the drugged boy will have by then.

The medication, which must be changed once a year, was implanted in the boy's upper left arm.
Tommy will continue the treatment until he turns 14 or 15, at which point he will be taken off the blockers and pursue the gender he feels is the right one.

The experts are right, this is child abuse. And again, 0% of LGBTs have come out publicly to denounce this child abuse.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

One of the critical arguments emerging against gay marriage is that the children in that home, newly incentivized by the states forced to do so by the limbo SCOTUS has created refusing to hear states' appeals, is that in a gay marriage home, the children there will 100% of the time be missing one of their natural blood parents. They will be missing the influence of the missing gender also 100% of the time, to their developmental and social disadvantage.

If they are in the unhappy position of being the opposite gender of the gay parents, they might likely internalize that "your gender isn't necessary/YOU aren't necessary" message implied and modeled for them every day. Then you might get this as the extreme result of that child's butchered self esteem: a total rejection of his own gender so that he can fit in/be loved...

A LESBIAN couple in California who say their 11-year-old son Tommy wants to be a girl named Tammy are giving their child hormone blockers that delay the onset of puberty, so that he can have more time to decide if he wants to change his gender.
The couple's supporters say the Hormone Blocking Therapy has only minor side effects and is appropriate for a child who is unsure of his gender.
"This is definitely a changing landscape for transgender youth," said Joel Baum, director of education and training for Gender Spectrum, a California-based non-profit group. "This is about giving kids and their families the opportunity to make the right decision."We ll stop puberty so Tommy can become Tammy Lesbian couple want to help boy to become girl

How many members of the LGBT community have openly opposed this? 0%.

I have to say, that of ALL of the hysterical arguments that the Left brings in their Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, the "Adoption" argument is the most absurd... .

As a parent of three biological children who, along with my wife, adopted a 12 year old from Foster Care, I can tell you that nothing... and I am talking ZERO of what the Left is claiming... has ANY kinship with the reality that is THAT abyss into the education of a lifetime on the fool's errand that is "CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES", Foster Care and the Adoption of the product of same.

CPS and its extension: Foster Care is a GENERATOR of LGBT... Its purpose today, without regard to the shiny pamphlets and the happy, smiling faces that adorn such, is perhaps the most profound evil to which my wife and I have ever been subjected.

It is operated by barely functional illiterates, militant homosexuals and reigns over everyone who comes within its purview through a political correctness which takes the breath from the straights who come to it through the publicly advertised justifications... .

If I were to tell you of our experiences, you simply would have no means to believe them. And you could not, because you just do not have anything in your life which would allow you to understand the depravity and guile that rests behind those darkened plate glass windows and locked doors under the shingle "Child Protective Services".

In 54 years on this earth... having worked through the US, across the globe and some of that for the largest corporations on the globe... thus having met some of the most subjective interests within humanity. I've never seen an evil the likes of which exists in the Foster Care System, which is a direct extension of CPS.

We truly BARELY escaped with our lives... suffering only one fatality in the family and being thankful that we got everyone else out alive and that it only cost us a few tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and, other intrinsic expenses.

The mind-numbing hours, hundreds of hours... of PC 'classes', wherein we were 'taught' that 'WE' were the problem, is just the part and parcel of the cost of admission into the rabbit hole of delusion, dah... like I said, you wouldn't believe it, because it is simply 'unbelievable'.

Suffice it to say that there's very little about the issue that I am not either familiar with or expert in. And it is a NIGHTMARE of Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance that NO individual of reason should EVER chance exposure to... as it could cost you your entire family.

With that said... it is the core through which the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality strikes at children; it is their primary recruiting device and it is working at a very high efficacy rate and there is virtually nothing that I can find, which provides any hope that anything can be done to so much as SLOW it down, let alone stop it.

 

[Syriusly]

One of the critical arguments emerging against gay marriage is that the children in that home, newly incentivized by the states forced to do so by the limbo SCOTUS has created refusing to hear states' appeals, is that in a gay marriage home, the children there will 100% of the time be missing one of their natural blood parents..

No- that is just a stupid argument that homophobes make.

Fact: homosexuals were adopting children before they were able to legally adopt children.

As Justice Kennedy said:

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?

Most gay marriage homes won't have any children. Of those with children, they will be no different than any other family which has adopted, or has used sperm donation or egg donation.

Just another stupid, bigoted, homophobic attack against homosexuals.