So What's the Next Perversion that Liberals Will Seek to Normalize?

[EatMorChikin]

If one believes in less gov't and more freedom then didn't the gay marriage thing follow conservatives outlook on gov't? Nobody can answer the question how is gay marriage a threat to traditional marriage. Crickets on that one. I am supposed to fear this ruling and its affect on my traditional marriage? Why would I fear it?

So less government is having the government force something on it's people? Be reminded, that even California voted down gay marriage, and were ignored. Do you even think the federal government should be involved in marriage?

 

[mikegriffith1]

I'm just curious about the next perversion that liberals will seek to normalize. How about marriage between adult men and pubescent pre-teens? After all, many pubescent 11- and 12-year-old girls are more mature and smarter than some 18-year-old boys. Or how about man-animal marriage? Indeed, some animal sex lovers have already filed suits to be allowed to marry their horses and dogs. Why? If we can change the definition of marriage to include the perversion of homosexuality, why not further expand it to include other deviant lifestyles?

I mean--let's see, how does that argument go?--if society has no right to decide who a person can marry, why should society be able to prevent a man and his dog who clearly love each other from getting married? The dog can't sign a marriage license, but she can make it clear that she loves the man and wants to stay with him. So who is society to judge who you love?!

Let's just be clear about one thing: The Supreme Court just did something that our grandparents and their parents would have found unthinkable and disgusting: they just expanded the definition of marriage to include a type of conduct that God has condemned in clear terms and that Western civilization recognized as deviant and abnormal for over 2,000 years.

How about you grow up?

How about you answer the question? What's the next perversion that you guys are going to demand be given "rights"? You do realize that some animal sex lovers have filed lawsuits arguing that they should be allowed to marry their horses and dogs if two men can get married, right? I wasn't joking. And you can use the exact same godless arguments for man-animal marriage and adult-pubescent preteen marriage that you use for gay marriage.

You also realize that some of the same "scientists" who claim that gays are born gay also argue that pedophiles are born that way, right? You know this, right? Again, I wasn't joking. In Europe, some liberals are pushing to further weaken laws against pedophilia--some of the "peds are born that way" scientists have even testified before European legislative committees.

So how about you answer the question? Those who still believe in basic decency and traditional morality are curious to know what perversion is next up to bat for being given "rights."

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm just curious about the next perversion that liberals will seek to normalize..

Having sex with conservatives?

 

[Iceweasel]

Like all authoritarians their prime objective is to outlaw objection so anything they say goes.

 

[Iceweasel]

I'm just curious about the next perversion that liberals will seek to normalize..

Having sex with conservatives?

Better jump Ann Coulter's bones while you can.

 

[Billy000]

I'm just curious about the next perversion that liberals will seek to normalize. How about marriage between adult men and pubescent pre-teens? After all, many pubescent 11- and 12-year-old girls are more mature and smarter than some 18-year-old boys. Or how about man-animal marriage? Indeed, some animal sex lovers have already filed suits to be allowed to marry their horses and dogs. Why? If we can change the definition of marriage to include the perversion of homosexuality, why not further expand it to include other deviant lifestyles?

I mean--let's see, how does that argument go?--if society has no right to decide who a person can marry, why should society be able to prevent a man and his dog who clearly love each other from getting married? The dog can't sign a marriage license, but she can make it clear that she loves the man and wants to stay with him. So who is society to judge who you love?!

Let's just be clear about one thing: The Supreme Court just did something that our grandparents and their parents would have found unthinkable and disgusting: they just expanded the definition of marriage to include a type of conduct that God has condemned in clear terms and that Western civilization recognized as deviant and abnormal for over 2,000 years.

Any mature adult does not give a shit what two consenting adults do behind closed doors. That is mostly why your scenario lacks any plausibility. There is no political movement for such a thing.

 

[nuhuh]

I'm just curious about the next perversion that liberals will seek to normalize. How about marriage between adult men and pubescent pre-teens? After all, many pubescent 11- and 12-year-old girls are more mature and smarter than some 18-year-old boys. Or how about man-animal marriage? Indeed, some animal sex lovers have already filed suits to be allowed to marry their horses and dogs. Why? If we can change the definition of marriage to include the perversion of homosexuality, why not further expand it to include other deviant lifestyles?

I mean--let's see, how does that argument go?--if society has no right to decide who a person can marry, why should society be able to prevent a man and his dog who clearly love each other from getting married? The dog can't sign a marriage license, but she can make it clear that she loves the man and wants to stay with him. So who is society to judge who you love?!

Let's just be clear about one thing: The Supreme Court just did something that our grandparents and their parents would have found unthinkable and disgusting: they just expanded the definition of marriage to include a type of conduct that God has condemned in clear terms and that Western civilization recognized as deviant and abnormal for over 2,000 years.

How about you grow up?

How about you answer the question? What's the next perversion that you guys are going to demand be given "rights"? You do realize that some animal sex lovers have filed lawsuits arguing that they should be allowed to marry their horses and dogs if two men can get married, right? I wasn't joking. And you can use the exact same godless arguments for man-animal marriage and adult-pubescent preteen marriage that you use for gay marriage.

You also realize that some of the same "scientists" who claim that gays are born gay also argue that pedophiles are born that way, right? You know this, right? Again, I wasn't joking. In Europe, some liberals are pushing to further weaken laws against pedophilia--some of the "peds are born that way" scientists have even testified before European legislative committees.

So how about you answer the question? Those who still believe in basic decency and traditional morality are curious to know what perversion is next up to bat for being given "rights."

I'm more interested in the science of finding a gay gene or a pedophile gene and the Republican defense of abortion then.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm just curious about the next perversion that liberals will seek to normalize. How about marriage between adult men and pubescent pre-teens? After all, many pubescent 11- and 12-year-old girls are more mature and smarter than some 18-year-old boys. Or how about man-animal marriage? Indeed, some animal sex lovers have already filed suits to be allowed to marry their horses and dogs. Why? If we can change the definition of marriage to include the perversion of homosexuality, why not further expand it to include other deviant lifestyles?

I mean--let's see, how does that argument go?--if society has no right to decide who a person can marry, why should society be able to prevent a man and his dog who clearly love each other from getting married? The dog can't sign a marriage license, but she can make it clear that she loves the man and wants to stay with him. So who is society to judge who you love?!

Let's just be clear about one thing: The Supreme Court just did something that our grandparents and their parents would have found unthinkable and disgusting: they just expanded the definition of marriage to include a type of conduct that God has condemned in clear terms and that Western civilization recognized as deviant and abnormal for over 2,000 years.

It's as if you never heard of Harvey Milk Mr. OP. You have to ask? Next up is forcing Christian adoption agencies to disgorge their orphans into the custody of gays. That was the only legal difference between civil unions and marriage; and why the cult of LGBT wanted marriage so badly. After that would be lowering the age of consent a la Harvey Milk style.

The Greeks progressed along these lines in ancient times until boys as young as 6 were routinely surrendered by their own mothers to men in their 30s and 40s to sodomize "to bring up properly". Then they were allowed to marry and "perform the disgusting task of sleeping with a woman" to beget more fresh meat for the next generation and so on. After brief encounters with their wives, the returned to their male lovers to keep the cycle going.

Yipee. Who knew we'd become ancient Greece?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'm just curious about the next perversion that liberals will seek to normalize. How about marriage between adult men and pubescent pre-teens? After all, many pubescent 11- and 12-year-old girls are more mature and smarter than some 18-year-old boys. Or how about man-animal marriage? Indeed, some animal sex lovers have already filed suits to be allowed to marry their horses and dogs. Why? If we can change the definition of marriage to include the perversion of homosexuality, why not further expand it to include other deviant lifestyles?

I mean--let's see, how does that argument go?--if society has no right to decide who a person can marry, why should society be able to prevent a man and his dog who clearly love each other from getting married? The dog can't sign a marriage license, but she can make it clear that she loves the man and wants to stay with him. So who is society to judge who you love?!

Let's just be clear about one thing: The Supreme Court just did something that our grandparents and their parents would have found unthinkable and disgusting: they just expanded the definition of marriage to include a type of conduct that God has condemned in clear terms and that Western civilization recognized as deviant and abnormal for over 2,000 years.

How about you grow up?

How about you answer the question? What's the next perversion that you guys are going to demand be given "rights"? You do realize that some animal sex lovers have filed lawsuits arguing that they should be allowed to marry their horses and dogs if two men can get married, right? I wasn't joking. And you can use the exact same godless arguments for man-animal marriage and adult-pubescent preteen marriage that you use for gay marriage.

You also realize that some of the same "scientists" who claim that gays are born gay also argue that pedophiles are born that way, right? You know this, right? Again, I wasn't joking. In Europe, some liberals are pushing to further weaken laws against pedophilia--some of the "peds are born that way" scientists have even testified before European legislative committees.

So how about you answer the question? Those who still believe in basic decency and traditional morality are curious to know what perversion is next up to bat for being given "rights."

The only perversion here, is yours. You've perverted human decency into what is little more than childish fears and hatreds...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'm more interested in the science of finding a gay gene or a pedophile gene and the Republican defense of abortion then.

Humans aren't that simple, and for a few, playing for the other team is a choice just as for some playing it straight is as well.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

If one believes in less gov't and more freedom then didn't the gay marriage thing follow conservatives outlook on gov't? Nobody can answer the question how is gay marriage a threat to traditional marriage. Crickets on that one. I am supposed to fear this ruling and its affect on my traditional marriage? Why would I fear it?

People who push the perversion known as gay marriage tell others that there lifestyle has to be morally excepted and if they don't they are called all sorts of nasty names. Once that idea is morally excepted normal marriage becomes redefined in the minds of its participants which changes how it is defined and if I didn't know any better it is the perfect vehicle for destroying the family unit and religion at the same time. How diabolical!

 

[SuperDemocrat]

If one believes in less gov't and more freedom then didn't the gay marriage thing follow conservatives outlook on gov't? Nobody can answer the question how is gay marriage a threat to traditional marriage. Crickets on that one. I am supposed to fear this ruling and its affect on my traditional marriage? Why would I fear it?

So less government is having the government force something on it's people? Be reminded, that even California voted down gay marriage, and were ignored. Do you even think the federal government should be involved in marriage?

I was ok with it as a state by state issue because if it doesn't hurt me then it is no big deal. Now the Supreme Court has said no you cant do that.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If one believes in less gov't and more freedom then didn't the gay marriage thing follow conservatives outlook on gov't? Nobody can answer the question how is gay marriage a threat to traditional marriage. Crickets on that one. I am supposed to fear this ruling and its affect on my traditional marriage? Why would I fear it?

So less government is having the government force something on it's people? Be reminded, that even California voted down gay marriage, and were ignored. Do you even think the federal government should be involved in marriage?

I was ok with it as a state by state issue because if it doesn't hurt me then it is no big deal. Now the Supreme Court has said no you cant do that.

It doesn't hurt you regardless, unless you call not being able to have your hatred codified into law harm...

 

[mikegriffith1]

Gay marriage is not "natural." Nature knows of no case where two animals of the same gender live together romantically. It is unheard of.

Gay marriage is unnatural in another way: the nurturing of children. We know from a ton of science that men and women's brains are wired differently, which is why they react so differently in so many situations. Any human who's willing to be honest knows there are times when a child needs mom, and only mom, and that there are other times when a child needs dad, and only dad. This is just the reality of nature and human existence. That is how God made us.

That's why there's a mountain of evidence that children who are raised by a mom and a dad do so much better than kids raised in single-parent homes or by two same-gender parents. The evidence is off the charts. Again, God made us to be raised by a mom and a dad. It was Adam and Eve, and not Adam and Steve.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Gay marriage is not "natural." Nature knows of no case where two animals of the same gender live together romantically. It is unheard of.

Gay marriage is unnatural in another way: the nurturing of children. We know from a ton of science that men and women's brains are wired differently, which is why they react so differently in so many situations. Any human who's willing to be honest knows there are times when a child needs mom, and only mom, and that there are other times when a child needs dad, and only dad. This is just the reality of nature and human existence. That is how God made us.

That's why there's a mountain of evidence that children who are raised by a mom and a dad do so much better than kids raised in single-parent homes or by two same-gender parents. The evidence is off the charts. Again, God made us to be raised by a mom and a dad. It was Adam and Eve, and not Adam and Steve.

Get over it, you lost, and homosexual animals: List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[nuhuh]

Gay marriage is not "natural." Nature knows of no case where two animals of the same gender live together romantically. It is unheard of.

Gay marriage is unnatural in another way: the nurturing of children. We know from a ton of science that men and women's brains are wired differently, which is why they react so differently in so many situations. Any human who's willing to be honest knows there are times when a child needs mom, and only mom, and that there are other times when a child needs dad, and only dad. This is just the reality of nature and human existence. That is how God made us.

That's why there's a mountain of evidence that children who are raised by a mom and a dad do so much better than kids raised in single-parent homes or by two same-gender parents. The evidence is off the charts. Again, God made us to be raised by a mom and a dad. It was Adam and Eve, and not Adam and Steve.

Gay marriage is a consensual act between two adults and there isn't anything unnatural with that. You dragging animals into this is just a cheap attempt to enforce your argument with a moral authority.

Your second claim is demonstrably false because we have evidence that both straight and gay parents of the same demographic group share the same successes in nurturing children.

Your mountain of evidence claim is destroyed here. Children Raised by Lesbians Do Just Fine Studies Show

 

[SuperDemocrat]

If one believes in less gov't and more freedom then didn't the gay marriage thing follow conservatives outlook on gov't? Nobody can answer the question how is gay marriage a threat to traditional marriage. Crickets on that one. I am supposed to fear this ruling and its affect on my traditional marriage? Why would I fear it?

So less government is having the government force something on it's people? Be reminded, that even California voted down gay marriage, and were ignored. Do you even think the federal government should be involved in marriage?

I was ok with it as a state by state issue because if it doesn't hurt me then it is no big deal. Now the Supreme Court has said no you cant do that.

It doesn't hurt you regardless, unless you call not being able to have your hatred codified into law harm...

It didn't hurt you to allow states to decide this issue independently either.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If one believes in less gov't and more freedom then didn't the gay marriage thing follow conservatives outlook on gov't? Nobody can answer the question how is gay marriage a threat to traditional marriage. Crickets on that one. I am supposed to fear this ruling and its affect on my traditional marriage? Why would I fear it?

So less government is having the government force something on it's people? Be reminded, that even California voted down gay marriage, and were ignored. Do you even think the federal government should be involved in marriage?

I was ok with it as a state by state issue because if it doesn't hurt me then it is no big deal. Now the Supreme Court has said no you cant do that.

It doesn't hurt you regardless, unless you call not being able to have your hatred codified into law harm...

It didn't hurt you to allow states to decide this issue independently either.

That was unnecessary, entirely. It's not up for a popular vote.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Gay marriage is not "natural." Nature knows of no case where two animals of the same gender live together romantically. It is unheard of.

Gay marriage is unnatural in another way: the nurturing of children. We know from a ton of science that men and women's brains are wired differently, which is why they react so differently in so many situations. Any human who's willing to be honest knows there are times when a child needs mom, and only mom, and that there are other times when a child needs dad, and only dad. This is just the reality of nature and human existence. That is how God made us.

That's why there's a mountain of evidence that children who are raised by a mom and a dad do so much better than kids raised in single-parent homes or by two same-gender parents. The evidence is off the charts. Again, God made us to be raised by a mom and a dad. It was Adam and Eve, and not Adam and Steve.

Get over it, you lost, and homosexual animals: List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

These ain't relationships but domination excercises males do to one another.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

If one believes in less gov't and more freedom then didn't the gay marriage thing follow conservatives outlook on gov't? Nobody can answer the question how is gay marriage a threat to traditional marriage. Crickets on that one. I am supposed to fear this ruling and its affect on my traditional marriage? Why would I fear it?

So less government is having the government force something on it's people? Be reminded, that even California voted down gay marriage, and were ignored. Do you even think the federal government should be involved in marriage?

I was ok with it as a state by state issue because if it doesn't hurt me then it is no big deal. Now the Supreme Court has said no you cant do that.

It doesn't hurt you regardless, unless you call not being able to have your hatred codified into law harm...

It didn't hurt you to allow states to decide this issue independently either.

That was unnecessary, entirely. It's not up for a popular vote.

Apparently a lot of things are not up to popular vote. Apparently nothing is up for popular vote anymore. Long live the dictatorship!