Support For Same Sex Relationships Plummets

[TheProgressivePatriot]

When it comes to acting lewd and vulgar in public in front of my children against my wishes - YES.

Where is that happening.? Who is doing that ?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

When it comes to trying to indoctrinate my children into a perverse lifestyle against my will - YES.

Teaching children tollerance, acceptance and respect is not indoctrination. Teaching them to hate is.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

When it comes to trying to turn my kids against me and get them to have permanent life altering bodily mutilation behind by back without my knowledge or approval - YES.

That is just pure paranoid bullshit

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

When it comes to trying to feed my kids books and literature corrupting my kid's morals behind my back - YES.

Morals? Is being a bigot your idea of morality? THose books are helping kids to be better than that which is why you are so threatened by it

 

[BS Filter]

Well that is a huge change from every other post you have ever made.

And when I bring it up in an hour you will call me a liar and claim you never side it like you did with civil marriage, and then when proven wrong yet again you will not recant calling me a liar...yet again

We speak different languages. That's the problem. I'm an American.

 

[braalian]

The trans community is doing an absolutely terrible job in the PR department.

The other letters in the LGBTQ community would do well to disassociate themselves with the T part. The trans community is unstable and self destructive.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Teaching children tollerance [sic], acceptance and respect is not indoctrination.

Teaching children to have “tollerance [sic], acceptance and respect” for perverts that want to fuck them, is no virtue.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

We speak different languages. That's the problem. I'm an American.

As am I. You called me a liar, when it was shown you were wrong, you refuse to recant, thus making you the liar....and god tells us liars will not see heaven....you are fucked little man.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The trans community is doing an absolutely terrible job in the PR department.
The other letters in the LGBTQ community would do well to disassociate themselves with the T part. The trans community is unstable and self destructive.

It's the most obviously insane and disordered component of the alphabet deviancies, but at the root, they are all based on the same underlying body of madness and evil.

If you could completely exterminate all the trannies, the instability and destructiveness would merely emerge in a different form.

It's like cutting down all the weeds at the surface but leaving the roots intact.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The trans community is doing an absolutely terrible job in the PR department.

The other letters in the LGBTQ community would do well to disassociate themselves with the T part. The trans community is unstable and self destructive.

Are you confusing them with the Repulican Party?

 

[BS Filter]

As am I. You called me a liar, when it was shown you were wrong, you refuse to recant, thus making you the liar....and god tells us liars will not see heaven....you are fucked little man.

You don't believe in God. You admit you're not a Christian. That makes a liar.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You don't believe in God.

No you are lying again.

Tsk tsk, not very Christian like of you at all.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

Let me stick my 2 cents in here:

Marriage is a right
Let us put aside for a moment the fact that the Supreme Court has, on numerous occasions, said that marriage is a right. However, a brief review is in order. Here is one example:
In Turner v Safley (1987), the Court refused to apply strict scutiny to a Missouri prison regulation prohibiting inmates from marrying, absent a compelling reason. Instead, the Court found the regulation failed to meet even a lowered standard of "reasonableness" that it said it would apply in evaluating the constitutionality of prison regulations.

The right to marry and the Constitution

law2.umkc.edu

This is why even the likes of Charles Manson, a mass murderer who stand little chance of ever getting out of prison was granted permission to marry ( Subsequently the blushing bride came to her senses and the deal was off) Yet, until recently, two people who desired and were committed to each other, but happened to be of the same gender could not marry. How does that make sense?
But, let’s focus on the meaning of the words -rights and privileges rather than the legal aspects. If marriage is not a right as some contend, then it is a privilege. There are no other possibilities. So then what is a privilege? I submit to you that a privilege is something that must be earned- something that you must demonstrate a degree of competence to engage in. Driving is a privilege.
As for marriage, there is no such requirement. One must simply meet certain criteria – age, ability to consent, not to closely related, and until recently, being of the opposite sex. There is no test to take, no requirement that they prove that they will be a good spouse or that they “deserve” to be married. They can take for granted that they will be allowed to marry as long as they meet those very minimal criteria. The fact that a license is required does not, in itself make it a privilege. The license only serves to ensure that those minimal requirements are met.
Now, one can lose both rights and privileges under certain circumstances but the bar is set much higher for revoking a right than it is for revoking a privilege. In the case of driving, if you are irresponsible and have accidents and get tickets, or if you have a medical condition that renders you unsafe, your driving privileges can be revoked often by administrative process for which you have no appeal.. On the other hand, while you have the right to your freedom, that to can be forfeited, but only if you are afforded due process in a court of law, convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of a serious crime, and exhaust your appeals.
In the case of marriage, no third party can nullify it, not the government of anyone else for “not being good at it” or breaking the rules. The government only step in and revoke your marriage if it is found that you misrepresented your eligibility based on the aforementioned minimum criteria. Otherwise, the only role for government is to mediate and ultimately grant the desolation of the marriage. Marriage is clearly a right.

I stopped reading at marriage is a right. You've always had a right to marry a woman that would have you. Heterosexuality is not only natural and normal but it's necessary across species. It's really a God given right.

You just choose not to, cause you're gay. That's your right as well.

 

[BS Filter]

No you are lying again.

Tsk tsk, not very Christian like of you at all.

So what God do you believe in?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I stopped reading at marriage is a right. You've always had a right to marry a woman that would have you. Heterosexuality is not only natural and normal but it's necessary across species. It's really a God given right.

You just choose not to, cause you're gay. That's your right as well.

You stopped reading because your defective small brain could not deal with it. You do not want to be exposed to any new knowledge that will challange the premis of your bigotry

You're still doing that same shit that I already called you out on.....making and assumption about my sexuality based on my politics. You don't learn real fast. And you stupidly insist that gay is a choice.

Here is something else that you can refuse to read so that your fragile sensabilities and weak mind wont be troubled
_________________________________________________
I wrote this some tiime ago:

When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already have equality “because they can, like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are presuming that a gay person can decide to live as a straight person and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex. The other possibility is that you do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays. In any case they are, in effect dehumanizing gay people, portraying them as being devoid of emotion and the ability to love and desire another person as heterosexuals do.

In addition, they are reducing the institution of marriage to a loveless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more. It devalues marriage in a way, much more profoundly than feared by the anti-equality bigots, who bemoan the demise of traditional marriage simply because it is being expanded to include gays.

Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. That is a choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to be with the person who they desire, but to do so would require that they forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.

One of the best illustrations of that is the opinion of the 10th Circuit Court of appeals ruling to uphold the lower court which invalidated Utah’s ban on same sex marriage. Selected passages follow:
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH (D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS)

Kitchen V. Herbert

Windsor is the other case referred to above

DOMA “impose[d] a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages . . . .” Id. The statute “undermine[d] both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages” by telling “those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition.” Id (pg.21)

It is already apparent that the courts see marriage as much more than a impersonal business arrangement. Even prisoners have the right to marry:

The Turner Court’s description of the “important attributes of marriage [that] remain . . . after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life,” 482 U.S. at 95, is relevant to the case at bar: First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment…………. (pg 29)


We must reject appellants’ efforts to downplay the importance of the personal elements inherent in the institution of marriage, which they contend are “not the principal interests the State pursues by regulating marriage.”

We nonetheless agree with plaintiffs that in describing the liberty interest at stake, it is impermissible to focus on the identity or class-membership of the individual exercising the right. See De Leon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26236, at *58-59


A state “cannot define marriage in a way that denies its citizens the freedom of personal choice in deciding whom to marry, nor may it deny the same status and dignity to each citizen’s decision” (quotations omitted)). “Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them.” Pg.37)

In summary, we hold that under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, those who wish to marry a person of the same sex are entitled to exercise the same fundamental right as is recognized for persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that Amendment 3 and similar statutory enactments do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.

On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. It concluded that “[a]ll citizens, regardless of their sexual identity, have a fundamental right to liberty, and this right protects an individual’s ability to marry and the intimate choices a person makes about marriage and family.” Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d1181, 1204 (D. Utah 2013).


Two landmark decisions by the Supreme Court have undermined the notion that the question presented in Baker v. Nelson ( which was overturned by the Obergefell decision) is insubstantial. Baker was decided before the Supreme Court held that “intimate conduct with another person . . . can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, (pg. 17)

 

[toobfreak]

To promote "you" ? Who is "you" What the hell does that mean?

 

[toobfreak]

Teaching children tollerance, acceptance and respect is not indoctrination.

You mean teaching them to accept, like and adopt deviant sexual behavior thrust at children as a societal norm so that we can have even more social decay.

Teaching them to hate is.

Then why do so many gays and trans-people express so much hatred, anger and violence?

 

[toobfreak]

That is just pure paranoid bullshit

Yes, Schools Are Secretly Trying to ‘Gender Transition’ Kids, and It Must Be Stopped

Schools are “socially transitioning” confused children with official “gender support plans” while keeping parents in the dark.

www.dailysignal.com

 

[toobfreak]

Is being a bigot your idea of morality?

I'm neither a bigot nor are you moral. Slapping "labels" on anything which you don't like doesn't make it bad.

THose books are helping kids

Corrupting the morals of a minor is not "helping" them you jackass.

California school broadcasts sexually explicit books, some covering 'pedophiles,' kink and pornographic images

A California public school library contained books with pornographic content, including titles such as 'Gender Queer, 'This Book is Gay' and 'Beyond Magenta.'

www.foxnews.com

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So what God do you believe in?

How many do you think there are?