Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
no one gives a shit.
Yes, there are legions of people who agree with you, who agree with you. They are patting you on the back and telling you how right you are. LOL, is your sense of self worth so tiny that you need to believe that? I speak for myself. I don't need to agreed with or disagreed with to consider my view valid. Grow a pair.
Suffice to say, there are some very decent gays who aren't pushy assholes. I know, two of them are dear friends of mine. It's a tragedy that the faggots have become the face of gay people, but that's how life is.
Your standard for a 'pushy asshole' is any gay or lesbian who doesn't 'sit down and shut the fuck up'. Which isn't a particularly compelling standard.
You're a far greater threat to the rights of gays, then gays are a threat to your rights.
There is nothing "pushy" about two people who want to commit to a stable long term legally recognized relationship.
And the bakers being fined for refusing to serve gays are violating these reasonable, legal, and ethical civil laws.
To an authoritarian leftist, yes. To a liberal, no. A liberal walks out of a business that doesn't want to do business with them and goes to one that does. An authoritarian leftist runs to government to use force to compel them to do business. It's very clear.
We've resolved the authority issue, as the states clearly have the authority over commerce within their States.
What's left are ethical issues. And I think its perfectly ethical and reasonable for a State to require those doing business with the public to treat the public fairly and equally.
You disagree. So?
And the bakers being fined for refusing to serve gays are violating these reasonable, legal, and ethical civil laws.
To an authoritarian leftist, yes. To a liberal, no. A liberal walks out of a business that doesn't want to do business with them and goes to one that does. An authoritarian leftist runs to government to use force to compel them to do business. It's very clear.
We've resolved the authority issue, as the states clearly have the authority over commerce within their States.
What's left are ethical issues. And I think its perfectly ethical and reasonable for a State to require those doing business with the public to treat the public fairly and equally.
You disagree. So?
So, I am a liberal and you are an authoritarian leftist.
And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation. It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.
Now that depends. Every other generation didn't celebrate it.
Mark
Most don't "celebrate it". Wanting to not be forced to hide it is not "celebrating" it. They want to be treated the same way you are - like people.
1. It is about science and how different conlcusions can come from the same research.
People Are Not Born Gay Affirms Royal College of Psychiatrists
Except that's not what happened. What happened was an anti gay group misinterpreted the study.
UK ‘gay cure’ group red-faced as psychiatrists point out they are wrong
Speaking to Gay Star News, a Royal College of Psychiatrists spokeswoman said it was a clear ‘misinterpretation’ of their actual statement.
‘Homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder,’ it reads. ‘The College believes strongly in evidence-based treatment. There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.
‘The College would not support a therapy for converting people from homosexuality any more than we would do so from heterosexuality.
‘Psychiatrists should be committed to reducing inequalities, not supporting practices that are explicitly based on pathologizing homosexuality. As such, the College remains in favor of legislative efforts to ban such conversion therapies.’
There was a lot more than just "saying something" in that case. Also, you can't "say anything" at work, you know that right? Your "free speech" goes only as far as your employer allows.
Tebow's action of praying got media attention. However, had he not scored a toughdown, etc. there would have been no attention because he wouldn't have Tebowed. For Sam, the attention came before ever stepping foot on an NFL field. Tebow also had high school accomplishments. You don't start at Florida and win the Heisman if you don't.
You can't pretend Michael Sam didn't have accomplishments prior to coming out. He was SEC defensive player of the year and I think would be on a roster right now if he hadn't come out as gay.
Do you think role models are important? You obviously see Tebow as a role model for Christians and have no problem with that. Why can't Michael Sam be a role model for gay athletes? You may not realize it, but it is important for the gay High School football player in Iowa to see that there are others like him and it's okay to be athletic and gay.
5. Define equal. It doens't mean you get to do exactly the same things I do or vice versa.
Just ask them about polygamy or a sibling marriage. They are quicker to say no to it coming up with why equality should be denied than they are about bending over and taking one in the ass for the homos.
Polygamy and incest are both illegal so bringing them up is what is referred to in polite circles as a "slippery slope fallacy". They are completely unrelated to gays having equal access to civil marriage, and would either have a valid argument for legalization or they would not regardless of gays civilly marrying.
Quite a few countries have been marrying the gays for a while now. Even more countries perform legal polygamist marriages. None do both. There is no slippery slope.
There is a slippery slope. It started with the leftists instituting welfare, easy divorce, and single motherhood to destroy families.
Gay marriage is simply the latest step in that direction.
Mark
Gays would not have to complain about their rights if it wasn't for big government that is taking their rights away in the first place.
The smaller the government the more rights all of us have.
Gays have been unfairly taxed with inheritance laws because of bigger government.
They can't see their loved ones because of hospital rules of only relatives.
That is not only for Gays rights but for all of us, just recently a littler girl who survived a plane crash wanted the man who helped her when she knocked on his door, to go to the hospital with her, but he couldn't because he was not a relative. Hospitals had to make that rule because of bid government.
That little girl had just lost her parents and all she wanted was a kind grownup with her for comfort.
If it wasn't for the stupid rules of big government for marriage licenses, gays could get married how ever they wished.
The bigger the government the more of all of our rights are being taken away.
The smaller the government the more rights we have for all of us as Americans.
Your conclusion is false, and the material above it does not lead to your conclusion.
Only through bigger government were the slaves freed, women enfranchised, segregation ended, older teens empowered, and soon gays will be able to marry everywhere just like all heterosexuals.
no one gives a shit.
Yes, there are legions of people who agree with you, who agree with you. They are patting you on the back and telling you how right you are. LOL, is your sense of self worth so tiny that you need to believe that? I speak for myself. I don't need to agreed with or disagreed with to consider my view valid. Grow a pair.
I speak for myself. I don't need to agreed with or disagreed with to consider my view valid.
Do you know that race and lifestyle choice are two different things? Yes you can be judged by how you CHOOSE to live and that doesn't make me a bigot. 90% of blacks oppose homosexuality and resent the hell out of having your fake "cause" lumped in with their genuine plight.Suffice to say, there are some very decent gays who aren't pushy assholes. I know, two of them are dear friends of mine. It's a tragedy that the faggots have become the face of gay people, but that's how life is.Anyone think posting "link" is proves anything? Get a life. The proof is experience. Living a full life and having wide range of experiences. Gays are nice folks, in general. But I don't understand this push for rights for them, I really don't. Tell me why? This is about a general consensus, there isn't any right or wrong. I just don't understand this rationalizing irrational sexual behavior. They are never gonna have children, why this PUSH for marriage equality? Why? I just am not buying it. I don't understand it.
Yeah- I have known racists who claim that there are some very decent negroes too- the ones that aren't uppity like the n*ggers.
They always have a story of dear friends who were colored, the shoe shine man....the guy who pumped their gas- the ones who 'knew their place'.
Bigots always have rationalizations like that.
And they're willing to settle for appearances, because real marriage cannot be redefined. Gay couple can play house and delude themselves, but they can never marry for real. The Bible refers to this as "strong delusions". They forget that marriage is ordained by God and is not up for personal interpretation.Anyone here that that can prove that homosexuals NEED to get married, I will buy you a GOOD cup coffee, you name it. Really.
Don't hold your breath...
The purpose of the demand for marriage is that with marriage come legitimacy... what they don't understand is that legitimacy comes as a result of the standard that defines it. Therefore, they're chasing something that can't be had until THEY turn from that which renders them illegitimate.
It's some fairly sad stuff... but insanity has always been sad.
Marriage in this era is for many reasons. In western culture it is mostly about love. Two people love each other and want to commit to a long term (hopefully) permanent relationship with each other that might or might not include children, that might include purchasing and building a home together, shared assets, a shared future together that is recognized legally and - if religion is involved, by a religious service. It is a relationship recognized right now, in many areas, as limited only to hetero couples.
no one gives a shit.
Yes, there are legions of people who agree with you, who agree with you. They are patting you on the back and telling you how right you are. LOL, is your sense of self worth so tiny that you need to believe that? I speak for myself. I don't need to agreed with or disagreed with to consider my view valid. Grow a pair.I speak for myself. I don't need to agreed with or disagreed with to consider my view valid.
Hope you don't mind Kaz - I know you don't need it - but I "agreed" with your post - lol
Notice how they no longer say, "What business is it of yours what we do in our own bedroom. This is because they know they've taken in out of the bedroom and shoved it in our faces. They hilariously push their lifestyle into the public while at the same time in this post saying it's none of our business. Just another daffy quirk of the faggoty Left.Those who are attracted to children can't make a different choice either. Compulsive hoarding isn't a choice. No compulsive disorder leaves the sufferer with a choice.
There is a choice in acting. For me, as a gay woman, the only choice is in acting upon my natural or god given inclinations. As long as I am acting upon those natural inclinations with another consenting adult, whose fucking business is it and why should I be denied the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage because my life partner of choice happens to be the same gender I am?
As a heterosexual i say- what business is it what we do in our own bedroom?
I live in San Francisco- I have never seen any homosexual shove sex in my face. I have seen people having sex in public twice here- both heterosexual couples.
But I think I get what you are trying to say- f*ggots have just gotten too uppity for your liking- they don't know their place anymore.
Because to bigots- f*ggots, n*ggers, c*nts, k*kes......just the same kind of word used for the same kind of purpose.
[QUOTE]I live in San Francisco- I have never seen any homosexual shove sex in my face.
Mod Note: photo removed due to uncovered nipples.
I don't get that from men either. That's why I chose women.
Oh I certainly chose to have sex with women- I chose to marry a woman- but I never, ever chose to be attracted to women.
IF you can choose to be attracted to women- then you should be able to chose to be attracted to men.
If you find the idea of a stubbly male face kissing your lips repugnant- like I do- then your attraction is not a choice.
I choose not to be attracted to men.
I find a lot of things repugnant. Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?
Then you are probably bisexual.
As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.
I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.
If you think you could chose to be turned on by a photo of Clooney in a bathing suit- then you are probably bisexual.
I could choose to be a criminal. Does that make me one?
I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.
You can't choose your attraction, only whether to act on them or not. If you are not attracted to men, you can't make yourself attracted to men, trust me on this. (It's why reparative "therapy" has such a high failure rate)
And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation. It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.
Now that depends. Every other generation didn't celebrate it.
Mark
Most don't "celebrate it". Wanting to not be forced to hide it is not "celebrating" it. They want to be treated the same way you are - like people.
The militiant straights want to "celebrate" their sexuality. Of course. So do gays.
The straights do not want gays to have the same rights under law.
That is deviant.
And the bakers being fined for refusing to serve gays are violating these reasonable, legal, and ethical civil laws.
To an authoritarian leftist, yes. To a liberal, no. A liberal walks out of a business that doesn't want to do business with them and goes to one that does. An authoritarian leftist runs to government to use force to compel them to do business. It's very clear.
And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation. It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.
Now that depends. Every other generation didn't celebrate it.
Mark
Most don't "celebrate it". Wanting to not be forced to hide it is not "celebrating" it. They want to be treated the same way you are - like people.
The militiant straights want to "celebrate" their sexuality. Of course. So do gays.
The straights do not want gays to have the same rights under law.
That is deviant.
So Penis Breath - who, pray tell , in your warped little mind are the "militant" Heterosexuals - ya know - I've been away for a few months and forgot how incredibly hopelessly and pathetically ignorant you are
no one gives a shit.
Yes, there are legions of people who agree with you, who agree with you. They are patting you on the back and telling you how right you are. LOL, is your sense of self worth so tiny that you need to believe that? I speak for myself. I don't need to agreed with or disagreed with to consider my view valid. Grow a pair.
More accurately, your one trick pony shctick, where you try and turn every conversation into another long, whining screed about anarchy is something most folks don't give a shit about.
Want to discuss anarchy? Start a thread. Want to babble about anarchy *here*, in a thread about homosexuality? No one gives a shit.
And the bakers being fined for refusing to serve gays are violating these reasonable, legal, and ethical civil laws.
To an authoritarian leftist, yes. To a liberal, no. A liberal walks out of a business that doesn't want to do business with them and goes to one that does. An authoritarian leftist runs to government to use force to compel them to do business. It's very clear.
We've resolved the authority issue, as the states clearly have the authority over commerce within their States.
What's left are ethical issues. And I think its perfectly ethical and reasonable for a State to require those doing business with the public to treat the public fairly and equally.
You disagree. So?
So, I am a liberal and you are an authoritarian leftist.
Nope. You're just an anarchist with an opinion. One I don't give a shit about in this thread.
Do you have anything else to say about homosexuality?
Oh I certainly chose to have sex with women- I chose to marry a woman- but I never, ever chose to be attracted to women.
IF you can choose to be attracted to women- then you should be able to chose to be attracted to men.
If you find the idea of a stubbly male face kissing your lips repugnant- like I do- then your attraction is not a choice.
I choose not to be attracted to men.
I find a lot of things repugnant. Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?
Then you are probably bisexual.
As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.
I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.
If you think you could chose to be turned on by a photo of Clooney in a bathing suit- then you are probably bisexual.
I could choose to be a criminal. Does that make me one?
I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.
You can't choose your attraction, only whether to act on them or not. If you are not attracted to men, you can't make yourself attracted to men, trust me on this. (It's why reparative "therapy" has such a high failure rate)
And that's what at issue. The Action and the choice to take that action.
The desire is irrelevant... the choice to act on that desire is what brings the negative consequences.
You can't choose your attraction, only whether to act on them or not.
