So now that same sex marriage is a legal right...

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I'm against child fucking, whether the child consents or not.

Based upon what? WHY ARE YOU AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS PURSUING CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION?

 

[HappyJoy]

You've lost your mind over this issue.

Really?

Then please inform the reader of your position, with regard to providing equal protection under the law for the Right of Children to consent to sex.

If you're an advocate of recognizing Children's right to legal independence, please tell the reader, why.

If you contest the advocacy to recognize children's right to consent to sex... please explain your contest.

(Reader, she can't tell you, because to do so provides that she will inevitably either expose the bottomless nature of degeneracy, or expose herself as a person who does not recognize equal protections under the law for everyone.)

You're really a sick fuck, you know this, right? Nobody, I mean nobody here is advocating anything close to pedophilia but you and it's so far off topic it's insane.

 

[HappyJoy]

I'm against child fucking, whether the child consents or not.

Based upon what? WHY ARE YOU AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS PURSUING CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION?

I'm against adults pursuing children for sex, I really don't care about their sexual orientation. Rape is rape.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Reader, do you see ANY BASIS IN REASON from the Left, with regard to WHY Children should not be treated equally by the law with regard to THEIR RIGHTS?

What they say that they're for or against is irrelevant... what IS relevant is WHY. Because in the answer of "WHY" we find the foundation on which the 'belief' rests as well as the breadth and depth of the conviction with regard to their stated position.

They can't give you a WHY because to do so will readily expose their position as being without a sound basis... OKA: BASELESS.

So... given the over 60 Advocacy groups which seek to legalize the pursuit of Children for sexual gratification; each and every ONE of which is EXCLUSIVELY > HOMOSEXUAL < we KNOW that there are PLENTY of people advocating for such and we know WHO THEY ARE.

We also know that sex with children is a function of sexual deviancy... we know that sexual deviancy was just officially codified as nothing less THAN A RIGHT by the SCOTUS, thus it is an axiomatic certainty that sexual deviancy having been loosed from the bottom, will now rise to the surface, to openly demand that the Law EQUALLY PROTECT THEIR RIGHTS.

Now... knowing what you now KNOW; that the above cited, would-be 'contributor' will have NO MEANS to offer a contest against the pursuit of children for sexual gratification, because she has ALREADY ADOPTED THE ACCEPTANCE of such.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Reader, do you see ANY BASIS IN REASON from the Left, with regard to WHY Children should not be treated equally by the law with regard to THEIR RIGHTS?

What they say that they're for or against is irrelevant... what IS relevant is WHY. Because in the answer of "WHY" we find the foundation on which the 'belief' rests as well as the breadth and depth of the conviction with regard to their stated position.

They can't give you a WHY because to do so will readily expose their position as being without a sound basis... OKA: BASELESS.

So... given the over 60 Advocacy groups which seek to legalize the pursuit of Children for sexual gratification; each and every ONE of which is EXCLUSIVELY > HOMOSEXUAL < we KNOW that there are PLENTY of people advocating for such and we know WHO THEY ARE.

We also know that sex with children is a function of sexual deviancy... we know that sexual deviancy was just officially codified as nothing less THAN A RIGHT by the SCOTUS, thus it is an axiomatic certainty that sexual deviancy having been loosed from the bottom, will now rise to the surface, to openly demand that the Law EQUALLY PROTECT THEIR RIGHTS.

Now... knowing what you now KNOW; that the above cited, would-be 'contributor' will have NO MEANS to offer a contest against the pursuit of children for sexual gratification, because she has ALREADY ADOPTED THE ACCEPTANCE of such, it is reasonable to conclude that she will have little to no contest to offer, when the issue formally comes.

 

[HappyJoy]

Reader, do you see ANY BASIS IN REASON from the Left, with regard to WHY Children should not be treated equally by the law with regard to THEIR RIGHTS?

Uh, they aren't treated equally. They never have been.

What they say that they're for or against is irrelevant... what IS relevant is WHY. Because in the answer of "WHY" we find the foundation on which the 'belief' rests as well as the breadth and depth of the conviction with regard to their stated position.

They can't give you a WHY because to do so will readily expose their position as being without a sound basis... OKA: BASELESS.

So... given the over 60 Advocacy groups which seek to legalize the pursuit of Children for sexual gratification, we KNOW that there are PLENTY of people advocating for such... we know that such is a function of sexual deviancy... we know that sexual deviancy was just officially codified by the SCOTUS, thus it is an axiomatic certainty that sexual deviancy having been loosed from the bottom, will now rise to the surface, to openly demand that the Law EQUALLY PROTECT THEIR RIGHTS.

Yep, why didn't the Supreme Court here this genius argument? "Gay people shouldn't marry because it's gross...and I like to objectify children sexually in my argument and really fixate on the point a lot while I converse with my imaginary friend named reader." That's about as much sense as you make, pervert.

Now... knowing what you now KNOW about the above cited would-be 'contributor' will have NO MEANS to offer a contest against the pursuit of children for sexual gratification, because she has ALREADY ADOPTED THE ACCEPTANCE of such.

Ew, more scuzz.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Reader, do you see ANY BASIS IN REASON from the Left, with regard to WHY Children should not be treated equally by the law with regard to THEIR RIGHTS?.

Is there lots of support on the left for child labor?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Reader, do you see ANY BASIS IN REASON from the Left, with regard to WHY Children should not be treated equally by the law with regard to THEIR RIGHTS?

Uh, they aren't treated equally. They never have been.

What they say that they're for or against is irrelevant... what IS relevant is WHY. Because in the answer of "WHY" we find the foundation on which the 'belief' rests as well as the breadth and depth of the conviction with regard to their stated position.

They can't give you a WHY because to do so will readily expose their position as being without a sound basis... OKA: BASELESS.

So... given the over 60 Advocacy groups which seek to legalize the pursuit of Children for sexual gratification, we KNOW that there are PLENTY of people advocating for such... we know that such is a function of sexual deviancy... we know that sexual deviancy was just officially codified by the SCOTUS, thus it is an axiomatic certainty that sexual deviancy having been loosed from the bottom, will now rise to the surface, to openly demand that the Law EQUALLY PROTECT THEIR RIGHTS.

Yep, why didn't the Supreme Court here this genius argument? "Gay people shouldn't marry because it's gross...and I like to objectify children sexually in my argument and really fixate on the point a lot while I converse with my imaginary friend named reader." That's about as much sense as you make, pervert.

Now... knowing what you now KNOW about the above cited would-be 'contributor' will have NO MEANS to offer a contest against the pursuit of children for sexual gratification, because she has ALREADY ADOPTED THE ACCEPTANCE of such.

Ew, more scuzz.

Now did anyone find anything in THAT screed, which would help you to understand WHY this person contests the Homosexual Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification?

Again... this is because to do so will readily expose their position as being without a sound basis... OKA: BASELESS.

Now what's that tell ya?

I doubt that there's a single human who contests the use of children by adults, for sex... who cannot explain in profound detail WHY they oppose it.


Yet, the Leftists with a history of advocating for the Federal licensing Sexual Deviancy... who mouth opposition, have absolutely NO MEANS to show ANY basis for their opposition to providing children with equal protections before the law.

 

[HappyJoy]

The problem is you're conflating homosexuality with pedophilia. So, in order to do so you have to prove they are the same thing using more than just your stunning intellect and charm.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The problem is you're conflating homosexuality with pedophilia. So, in order to do so you have to prove they are the same thing using more than just your stunning intellect and charm.

Did anyone see any basis to her opposition to the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification in THAT?

No... because to do so it will readily expose its position as being without a sound basis... OKA: BASELESS. Thus such is evidence of NO actual opposition.

 

[HappyJoy]

The problem is you're conflating homosexuality with pedophilia. So, in order to do so you have to prove they are the same thing using more than just your stunning intellect and charm.

Did anyone see any basis to her opposition to the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification in THAT?

No... because to do so it will readily expose its position as being without a sound basis... OKA: BASELESS. Thus such is evidence of NO actual opposition.

Did you go to some special ed law school? It's like you want to sound like a lawyer but then through your clumsy choice of words absolutely fail. Pedophilia is not the same as homosexuality, if you disagree prove it.

Also, be careful with your pronouns, moron.

 

[deltex1]

How many of you conservatives will be getting divorced?

I mean, that's your argument, isn't it? That same sex marriage is going to destroy 'traditional' man/woman marriage?

How many of you expect your own marriages to be destroyed by this court decision?

Joe will marry Jack...his fishing buddy....so Jack will be covered by Joe's health insurance, which otherwise would have cost a Jack his life savings for extensive cancer treatment. When Jack is out of danger, they'll divorce...with no semen spilled...and plenty of fishing left to be done....

 

[HappyJoy]

How many of you conservatives will be getting divorced?

I mean, that's your argument, isn't it? That same sex marriage is going to destroy 'traditional' man/woman marriage?

How many of you expect your own marriages to be destroyed by this court decision?

Joe will marry Jack...his fishing buddy....so Jack will be covered by Joe's health insurance, which otherwise would have cost a Jack his life savings for extensive cancer treatment. When Jack is out of danger, they'll divorce...with no semen spilled...and plenty of fishing left to be done....

Oh, I like this.

Joe will not marry Jack because he has insurance from the ACA. Thanks, Obama!

 

[deltex1]

How many of you conservatives will be getting divorced?

I mean, that's your argument, isn't it? That same sex marriage is going to destroy 'traditional' man/woman marriage?

How many of you expect your own marriages to be destroyed by this court decision?

Joe will marry Jack...his fishing buddy....so Jack will be covered by Joe's health insurance, which otherwise would have cost a Jack his life savings for extensive cancer treatment. When Jack is out of danger, they'll divorce...with no semen spilled...and plenty of fishing left to be done....

Oh, I like this.

Joe will not marry Jack because he has insurance from the ACA. Thanks, Obama!

You don't know Jack...he cant even afford the deductible....

 

[HappyJoy]

How many of you conservatives will be getting divorced?

I mean, that's your argument, isn't it? That same sex marriage is going to destroy 'traditional' man/woman marriage?

How many of you expect your own marriages to be destroyed by this court decision?

Joe will marry Jack...his fishing buddy....so Jack will be covered by Joe's health insurance, which otherwise would have cost a Jack his life savings for extensive cancer treatment. When Jack is out of danger, they'll divorce...with no semen spilled...and plenty of fishing left to be done....

Oh, I like this.

Joe will not marry Jack because he has insurance from the ACA. Thanks, Obama!

You don't know Jack...he cant even afford the deductible....

That's perfect, Jack can use government subsidies via the ACA to help pay his deductible.

That's way better than what Jane had to do 6 years ago to pay her medical bills when she had a pre existing condition and was unable to get insurance. She to was forced to marry Joe to meet her medical expenses.

 

[deltex1]

How many of you conservatives will be getting divorced?

I mean, that's your argument, isn't it? That same sex marriage is going to destroy 'traditional' man/woman marriage?

How many of you expect your own marriages to be destroyed by this court decision?

Joe will marry Jack...his fishing buddy....so Jack will be covered by Joe's health insurance, which otherwise would have cost a Jack his life savings for extensive cancer treatment. When Jack is out of danger, they'll divorce...with no semen spilled...and plenty of fishing left to be done....

Oh, I like this.

Joe will not marry Jack because he has insurance from the ACA. Thanks, Obama!

You don't know Jack...he cant even afford the deductible....

That's perfect, Jack can use government subsidies via the ACA to help pay his deductible.

That's way better than what Jane had to do 6 years ago to pay her medical bills when she had a pre existing condition and was unable to get insurance. She to was forced to marry Joe to meet her medical expenses.

Sounds like Joe didn't spill any semen either...I hope you're better now...

 

[HappyJoy]

How many of you conservatives will be getting divorced?

I mean, that's your argument, isn't it? That same sex marriage is going to destroy 'traditional' man/woman marriage?

How many of you expect your own marriages to be destroyed by this court decision?

Joe will marry Jack...his fishing buddy....so Jack will be covered by Joe's health insurance, which otherwise would have cost a Jack his life savings for extensive cancer treatment. When Jack is out of danger, they'll divorce...with no semen spilled...and plenty of fishing left to be done....

Oh, I like this.

Joe will not marry Jack because he has insurance from the ACA. Thanks, Obama!

You don't know Jack...he cant even afford the deductible....

That's perfect, Jack can use government subsidies via the ACA to help pay his deductible.

That's way better than what Jane had to do 6 years ago to pay her medical bills when she had a pre existing condition and was unable to get insurance. She to was forced to marry Joe to meet her medical expenses.

Sounds like Joe didn't spill any semen either...I hope you're better now...

Not sure, it's all one big hypothetical mess that you started.

 

[SwimExpert]

LOL! NO... The Scotus did not apply to the Constitution, they made reference to it, then simply made up conclusions which could not have possible been drawn from any words set forth in the US Constitution.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

^^^Those^^^ are words set forth in the US constitution.

There is no fundamental right to marry.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Some more words set forth in the US constitution.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

LOL! NO... The Scotus did not apply to the Constitution, they made reference to it, then simply made up conclusions which could not have possible been drawn from any words set forth in the US Constitution.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

^^^Those^^^ are words set forth in the US constitution.

Yep... and no privilege or immunity of a single homosexual was being abridged and not a single homosexual was deprived of life, liberty or property through the sustaining of the natural standards that define marriage.

 

[HappyJoy]

LOL! NO... The Scotus did not apply to the Constitution, they made reference to it, then simply made up conclusions which could not have possible been drawn from any words set forth in the US Constitution.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

^^^Those^^^ are words set forth in the US constitution.

Yep... and no privilege or immunity of a single homosexual was being abridged and not a single homosexual was deprived of life, liberty or property through the sustaining of the natural standards that define marriage.

The courts disagreed with you, all fixed now.