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

[Silhouette]

Ahhhh, it comes out. you're just another religious fuckwit who lets your religion do your thinking for you. You may as well read tea leaves or toss chicken bones on a dirt floor for divination about what's true and what isn't. Religions can certainly believe whatever they want, that is the essence of freedom of religion. But it has not an iota of legality in a secular world. Thank God.

I got two torpedos for your conclusion there pal. The 1st Amendment and the 9th Amendment. A couple of southern states are fast-tracking the LGBT cult vs Christians case to the SCOTUS as we speak. When that case gets there, the challenge the Court will face is how their flawed interpretation that just some deviant sexual behaviors repugnant to the regulating majority get "special new Constitutional considerations" while other behaviors somehow don't...AND..if Hobby Lobby applies, does it not always apply? And if Christians are allowed to opt out of recognizing or participating in "gay marriage" as their faith demands they do just that or perish in hell for eternity (Jude 1), then why aren't voters allowed to do the same?

Oh, it's going to be like watching the nine do the game Twister.

They're going to find that in order to amend the Constitution to include such a legally-devastating and unworkable class as "some minority behaviors" as "protected" to this carefully pondered set of bylaws, it had to take a ratification in Congress. The Judicial is not allowed to alter the Constitution from the bench. What they did on Friday was not an interpretation, it was an alteration. That is forbidden by law. Congress should vote to annul Friday's Ruling because of that very fact, or this is going to be nightmare on legal-quagmire street. Behaviors are to be regulated at the state level for a reason. This is a new constitutional amendment, de facto....done from the WRONG branch of government.

 

[auditor0007]

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.

Homosexuality has existed as long as man has, but you want to tell us that it is abnormal. Sorry, but while it is not something that the majority take part in, for a certain percentage of the population, homosexuality is very normal and has been for much longer than 2000 years. As for your idiotic suggestion that adults be permitted to marry and have sex with little boys and girls, well you are just stupid. I'm so tired of explaining this one to morons, so I'm not even going to explain it, because you are obviously too ignorant to understand.

 

[auditor0007]

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.

The camels nose is in the tent, so anything goes. I'm going to demand that my church support me in my right to sacrifice a liberal to the rain gods.

Then I want to marry my horse with a full church wedding. She looks beautiful in her white dress.

The lunatics are out in full force tonight. You morons just can't stand that gays now have the full rights they deserve, so you come up with the dumbest shit you can think of. Damn, why don't you move to Russia where the government hates gays as much as you do?

 

[Skylar]

Ahhhh, it comes out. you're just another religious fuckwit who lets your religion do your thinking for you. You may as well read tea leaves or toss chicken bones on a dirt floor for divination about what's true and what isn't. Religions can certainly believe whatever they want, that is the essence of freedom of religion. But it has not an iota of legality in a secular world. Thank God.

I got two torpedos for your conclusion there pal. The 1st Amendment and the 9th Amendment. A couple of southern states are fast-tracking the LGBT cult vs Christians case to the SCOTUS as we speak

The USSC already denied cert for such a case. They apparently have no interest in your 'torpedo'.

Sil, seriously: you are the worst at predicting the court's actions. With an almost supernatural consistency, you are ALWAYS wrong. Your every prediction of the court's actions, your every assessment of the court's take on an issue, your assumptions of what the court has to address, your assessment of what precedent is relevant.....is absolute shit.

There has to come a point when faced with your essentially perfect record of failure on this topic that you have to admit the simple truth: You don't know what you're talking about.

When that case gets there, the challenge the Court will face is how their flawed interpretation that just some deviant sexual behaviors repugnant to the regulating majority get "special new Constitutional considerations" while other behaviors somehow don't...AND..if Hobby Lobby applies, does it not always apply? And if Christians are allowed to opt out of recognizing or participating in "gay marriage" as their faith demands they do just that or perish in hell for eternity (Jude 1), then why aren't voters allowed to do the same?

Or.....they'll deny cert. As their ruling was fine. And when faced with a photographer who ran afoul of PA laws in denying to photograph a gay wedding...

....the USSC denied cert. You don't know what you're talking about. I can almost chart the future by noting your predictions, and then expecting the exact opposite.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What about freedom of speech? Or freedom of religion or something like that? Perversions all of them.

 

[Bush92]

Obama say's "Same sex marriage will strengthen our communities. "

 

[frigidweirdo]

Obama say's "Same sex marriage will strengthen our communities. "

He probably thinks the KKK isn't a positive effect on the US either.