The Homosexual Dilemma

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

So there's an audio clip of them laughing out loud? Let's hear it!

Wow. The audio is in that link. You really do need your hand held every step of the way.

That's quite a lengthy audio. Do you know about where the Justices "laughed out loud"?

Not my problem You want to know...take the time.

Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie. Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments. That would dispense with any pretense of objectivity. Such a gross breach of decorum would certainly have made the papers and no audio link would be required.

In other words, you're lying and you've been found out.

Stop lying, Fish breath!

I've provided you with the audio of the SCOTUS proceedings. You are chosing (actually whining) to not listen to it. Not my problem. But it HAS been provided to you.

You've been exposed as a liar. My logic has already been posted and it is irrefutable.

 

[g5000]

I can actually provide cogent, scientific reasons for why those states who have low age of consent laws should raise their age of consent to 18.

I would not be able to provide rational reasons for why any state should lower its age of consent.

This is again why the bullshit pedophilia meme that invariably comes up in every gay marriage topic fails.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

What's that supposed to mean?

Who here, besides you, is telling us about what NAMBLA will do?

Tread carefully, Trout. If you're implying I'm a pedophile, I'll report you.

Why are you saying that? I've done no such thing. Just like you've not implied that gays like myself and others here are pedophiles.

Actually you did and I didn't. Do it again and I'll report you.

If this is your strategy to try to silence me, go right ahead. It's not as if you can legitimately debate anyways.

Talk all you want, just follow the rules. That's all I'm asking

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I can actually provide cogent, scientific reasons for why those states who have low age of consent laws should raise their age of consent to 18.

I would not be able to provide rational reasons for why any state should lower its age of consent.

This is again why the bullshit pedophilia meme that invariably comes up in every gay marriage topic fails.

We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else. What we're saying will soon become evident to all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There it is. Can't defend your argument without bringing up NAMBLA.....you lose.

It is a truly a sign of the desperate. NAMBLA apparently represents all gays but the instant you mention that Westboro represents all Christians the social conservatives flip their wigs. Both accusations are moronic but watching the selective outrage is delightful.

StMike sure seems to know what NAMBLA is going to do. More than any others of us, that's for sure.

What's that supposed to mean?

Who here, besides you, is telling us about what NAMBLA will do?

Tread carefully, Trout. If you're implying I'm a pedophile, I'll report you.

Back up, silly boy. You are the only one implying anything. And you have already been reported.

 

[g5000]

You've been exposed as a liar. My logic has already been posted and it is irrefutable.

Your claim that, "Justices do not 'laugh out loud' while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments" is neither true, nor logical, nor irrefutable. In fact, the audio does refute it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I can actually provide cogent, scientific reasons for why those states who have low age of consent laws should raise their age of consent to 18.

I would not be able to provide rational reasons for why any state should lower its age of consent.

This is again why the bullshit pedophilia meme that invariably comes up in every gay marriage topic fails.

We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else. What we're saying will soon become evident to all.

You are neither perceptive nor an intellectual.

 

[g5000]

We the perceptive intellectuals...

Fuck. I damn near choked to death on my Pepsi. You owe me a new monitor.

 

[GreenBean]

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Here is what Sanger actually said. Notice the parts you chopped out: "The ministers work is also important and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Read the whole letter for yourself, dipshit. Sanger was trying to introduce birth control to a superstitious population. Her aim was to allay their fears. She knew some would think this was some kind of extermination movement, and she wanted the minister to explain the true aim.

http://smithlibraries.org/digital/files/original/d6358bc3053c93183295bf2df1c0c931.pdf

So you just quoted Sanger as saying that they will use ministers to lie about their agenda and hide the facts. I told you there's no flattering context for her words and I was right.

Your twisted perception filters have failed you again.

Sanger was advocating birth control. This was a radical idea at the time, and she knew that ignorant people like yourself would claim they were trying to exterminate the negroes. She suggested the Federation have a minister explain the true goals (birth control) because of the inherent integrity a minister would bring to the conversation.

It was precisely because a minister WOULD NOT LIE that she suggested one be used to explain this was about birth control, not extermination.

And morons like you and Greenbean have just demonstrated her fears were well-founded. You have twisted her words to make her out to be an exterminator. QED.

As I said before - the useful idiots / tools of their leftists elite masters will spin any bullshit to protect their own little fascist realm ..

The NEGRO PROJECT: Margaret Sanger's EUGENIC Plan for Black America

The aim of the program was to restrict–many believe exterminate–the black population. Under the pretense of "better health" and "family planning," Sanger cleverly implemented her plan.

Spoiler: These are the "ministers" - the other useful idiots of whom you speak

What’s more shocking is Sanger’s beguilement of black America’s créme de la créme–those prominent, well educated and well-to-do–into executing her scheme.

Some within the black elite saw birth control as a means to attain economic empowerment, elevate the race and garner the respect of whites.

The Negro Project has had lasting repercussions in the black community: "We have become victims of genocide by our own hands," cried Hunter at the "Say So" march.

....
Sanger embraced Malthusian eugenics......

All children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room is made for them by the deaths of grown persons. We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality.

BlackGenocide.org The Negro Project


Unbelievable how indoctrinated idiotic lapdogs such as g5000 jump and salivate when that leftist pavlov rings his bell - You truly are a "Special" kind of stupid my friend.

 

[GreenBean]

We the perceptive intellectuals...

Fuck. I damn near choked to death on my Pepsi. You owe me a new monitor.

Too bad is was only "damn near" ... and are you sure it was a "Pepsi"

 

[GreenBean]

What makes you think what worked for you faggots won't work for them too?

For the most part - they are one and the same

 

[g5000]

Unbelievable how indoctrinated idiotic lapdogs such as g5000 jump and salivate when that leftist pavlov rings his bell - You truly are a "Special" kind of stupid my friend.

The irony is just too rich here.

 

[g5000]

We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else. What we're saying will soon become evident to all.

Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.

 

[Syriusly]

Use the marriage argument they put forth. Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it. At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage. They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples. .

Speaking of hypocrisy- your post is a prime example.

I have always claimed that a same gender couple should be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are.

Nothing more- nothing less.

Bigots like you- who oppose same gender marriage- are the ones who keep calling us hypocrites- for not supporting something you also oppose.

The ones who keep bringing up the subject of brother/sister marriages are conservatives who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.

You bring it up only to try to deny marriage to same gender couples- and that- that is hypocrisy.

It also fails as both a red herring and slippery slope fallacy – same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, brothers and sisters not.

No one is seeking to 'change marriage.'

The "Slippery Slope" exists, therefore appealing to the calamitous nature of that self evident slope, is not fallacious.

When the dropping of the Sodomy Laws was being discussed, Homosexuals REPEATEDLY claimed OUTRAGE over 'suggestions' that they would inevitably claim a right to marry, or adopt children or serve in the US Military... they claimed THEN that the suggestions that they would do so were fallacious and an appeal to the slippery slope.

IN FACT, the slope DOES exist and it IS Slippery... and THEY DID INEVITABLY DEMAND TO ALLOWED TO BE MARRIED, TO ADOPT CHILDREN AND JOIN THE US MILITARY.

And acceptance of the perverse species of reasoning through which you're advocating MUST Result in Incestuous Marriage, inter-species marriage and polygamy and the elimination of the Age of sexual consent.

Just as dropping the sodomy laws HAD TO provide for homosexuals demanding to marry, adopt children and join the US Military.

Expecting anything else is every bit as foolish as expecting Relativists to consider anything which extends beyond their own needs, wants and desires.

You must be related to the cretin, Charles Worley, who wants to place all gays and lesbians behind an electrical fence. Do you wear a white sheet?

Yes, I would support locking up those who present with mental disorder. And yes... Homosexuality is a presentation of mental disorder.

And there we have the slippery slope- Keys is opposed to equal rights for homosexuals, Keys is opposed to even allowing homosexuals to have any freedom- he wants them incarcerated- and according to the slippery slope, the next step in the slippery slope are Keys "Death Camps for Krazy Homosexuals".

I mean if you believe in slippery slopes.

 

[Syriusly]

but thats exactly what you want. you want a minority to dictate to the majority.

The 3 branches of government were established to prevent the tyranny of the majority over the minority. No one is forcing you to become gay, attend a gay wedding, condone or endorse gay marriage, or marry gay people. But, you don't get to determine what someone else's rights should be.

Nope. You faggots are just forcing people to conduct the ceremonies, bake wedding cakes, and offer photography services for fag weddings. I love how how you turd pirates pretend like you're not in everyone's face and not forcing your beliefs on anyone. Bull fcking shit!

You mean that people are demanding that business's comply with the law? I can see why that would upset bigots.

And once again- since you so eloquently demonstrate it in every post

f*ggot- n*gger- c*nt- k*ke- the same kinds of words, used by the same kind of people for the exact same purpose.

 

[Syriusly]

It might not have passed in 1990.....and what is it, do you think, that changed the minds of people in that regard?

Longer time for indoctrination of more younger people.

You mean, like religious indoctrination? Hey! Maybe you're on to something there. Those worried about the indoctrination of children should work to disallow overtly religious people from marrying.

No one can force you to be a part of a religion. That involves your choice.

People like you want overtly religious people to ignore their beliefs and be happy for you doing something I believe is wrong.

Well then....what I suggested would be a perfect example for those who insist that being gay is a choice......wouldn't it?

You don't have to ignore your belief at all.....just don't shove it down my throat by your own sharia laws.

Being gay is a choice, Fish Breath..

So you really believe that if you wanted to be attracted to men, instead of women, you could chose to do so?

Obviously anyone can screw anyone- male sexual response is pretty straightforward- you could probably choose to screw a man if someone offered you enough money- but do you really think that if someone offered you the same amount of money to be attracted to say Brad Pitt- you would actually physically be attracted to Brad Pitt?

Not me- wouldn't matter how much money you offered- I could never be sexually attracted to another man.

 

[Syriusly]

its called hypocrisy and she is very good at it.

Use the marriage argument they put forth. Their claim is that two consenting adults that want to be married should be able to do so and no one should prevent it. At that point, although I don't personally believe it, pose a brother/sister marriage. They are quick to deny the equality they claim for same sex couples. .

Speaking of hypocrisy- your post is a prime example.

I have always claimed that a same gender couple should be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are.

Nothing more- nothing less.

Bigots like you- who oppose same gender marriage- are the ones who keep calling us hypocrites- for not supporting something you also oppose.

The ones who keep bringing up the subject of brother/sister marriages are conservatives who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.

You bring it up only to try to deny marriage to same gender couples- and that- that is hypocrisy.

It also fails as both a red herring and slippery slope fallacy – same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, brothers and sisters not.

No one is seeking to 'change marriage.'

The "Slippery Slope" exists, therefore appealing to the calamitous nature of that self evident slope, is not fallacious.

When the dropping of the Sodomy Laws was being discussed, Homosexuals REPEATEDLY claimed OUTRAGE over 'suggestions' that they would inevitably claim a right to marry, or adopt children or serve in the US Military... they claimed THEN that the suggestions that they would do so were fallacious and an appeal to the slippery slope.

IN FACT, the slope DOES exist and it IS Slippery... and THEY DID INEVITABLY DEMAND TO ALLOWED TO BE MARRIED, TO ADOPT CHILDREN AND JOIN THE US MILITARY.

And acceptance of the perverse species of reasoning through which you're advocating MUST Result in Incestuous Marriage, inter-species marriage and polygamy and the elimination of the Age of sexual consent.

Just as dropping the sodomy laws HAD TO provide for homosexuals demanding to marry, adopt children and join the US Military.

Expecting anything else is every bit as foolish as expecting Relativists to consider anything which extends beyond their own needs, wants and desires.

Another item on the checklist of the Gay Agenda is normalizing Pedophilia

Ah another attempt by homophobic bigots to equate homosexuals to pedophiles.

Homophobic bigots don't care how much they endanger children in order to promote discrimination against homosexuals.

 

[Redfish]

We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else. What we're saying will soon become evident to all.

Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.

its already happening dingleberry. The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual). They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.

 

[Syriusly]

1, stmike is not the face of Christianity or its doctrines.

2. the anti-gay movement continues to lose traction.

you and wytch just don't get it. Being anti-gay marriage is not being anti-gay.

there is no anti-gay "movement". GRow the fuck up.

If you are anti-gay marriage...don't have a gay marriage, don't go to a gay marriage.

Hard to avoid your fag weddings when Christian business owners are being sued for not offering wedding services. You faggots are more belligerent than you pretend to be.

If you stop reading right wing whacko news sources you could avoid them altogether.

Have you been sued for not following State or local laws?

Anyone forced you to go to a 'f*g' or 'n*gger' or k*ke wedding?

Conservatives are so very offended by lawsuits- until they think that their rights are being violated, and then suddenly they are all for filing lawsuits.

 

[Syriusly]

We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else. What we're saying will soon become evident to all.

Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.

its already happening dingleberry. The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual). They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.

And what is that exact same legal argument?