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.
WTF?Homosexuality is sexual deviancy. Why would you think it isnt?ROFLMNAO...
Reader, what the cultist is trying not to tell you, is that it believes that behavior: sexual deviancy equates to 'being black'.
Or the idea that " sexual deviency" equates to being gay.
See how that works?
Because it would be stupid to assume that the only motivation for homosexuality is sexual. Is that your sole motivation with heterosexuality?
Homosexuality by definition involves sexual preference. What other motivation could there be?
Geezus you dont think about what you post before you do it, do you?
Sexual preference. Not sexual "deviency".
It's not about genetics, nature or nurture or any other ridiculous arguments you make, it's about equality. The same "unnatural" argument was made agaist interracial marriage as well. It lost .
I agree... It's all about equality.
The problem is that you and you cult of idiocy are trying to equate RACE, with BEHAVIOR... And there is no potential equity between dissimilar concepts.
For instance, steel is not equal to yellow.
But hey, in fairness to you, as an imbecile, there is no way you could have known that.
They harp on it because it is the only argument they have. Otherwise there is no reason whatsoever to have "same sex marriage." In fact there is every reason not to. Once marriage can mean anything then it means nothing.
Indeed sir. Particularly given that Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
WTF?Homosexuality is sexual deviancy. Why would you think it isnt?Or the idea that " sexual deviency" equates to being gay.
See how that works?
Because it would be stupid to assume that the only motivation for homosexuality is sexual. Is that your sole motivation with heterosexuality?
Homosexuality by definition involves sexual preference. What other motivation could there be?
Geezus you dont think about what you post before you do it, do you?
Sexual preference. Not sexual "deviency".
Nature defined human sexuality... As a result, in terms of gender and normality: preference has already been established.
You feel that because you have a craving for something other than the established normality, that this entitles you to pursue the gratification of that craving.
What you aren't capable of understanding is that you're wrong.
The problem with your theory is that in one case the demand to be married goes against the laws of nature.It's not about genetics, nature or nurture or any other ridiculous arguments you make, it's about equality. The same "unnatural" argument was made agaist interracial marriage as well. It lost .
I agree... It's all about equality.
The problem is that you and you cult of idiocy are trying to equate RACE, with BEHAVIOR... And there is no potential equity between dissimilar concepts.
For instance, steel is not equal to yellow.
But hey, in fairness to you, as an imbecile, there is no way you could have known that.
Ridiculous.
In both instances we are talking about people having the right to marry be recognized under the law. It is exactly the same.
Thankfully your labels and definitions don't mean anything.
WTF?Homosexuality is sexual deviancy. Why would you think it isnt?
Because it would be stupid to assume that the only motivation for homosexuality is sexual. Is that your sole motivation with heterosexuality?
Homosexuality by definition involves sexual preference. What other motivation could there be?
Geezus you dont think about what you post before you do it, do you?
Sexual preference. Not sexual "deviency".
Nature defined human sexuality... As a result, in terms of gender and normality: preference has already been established.
You feel that because you have a craving for something other than the established normality, that this entitles you to pursue the gratification of that craving.
What you aren't capable of understanding is that you're wrong.
Homosexuality is a normal and natural part of the human condition. There have always been homosexuals and there will always be Homosexuals. They are born and die everyday.
They harp on it because it is the only argument they have. Otherwise there is no reason whatsoever to have "same sex marriage." In fact there is every reason not to. Once marriage can mean anything then it means nothing.
Indeed sir. Particularly given that Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
Your definition. Thankfully the courts have a wider rage of thought.
Are you disputing that fact? Please show me where judicial review is mentioned in the COnstitution? I want to see you double down on stupid.I'll use your own words then:
"Judicial review is not part of the constittuion and is a power the Court dreamed up in Marbury."
Happy now? Need a link to you saying that?
lol
Don't ask me questions until you've answered mine.
And while you're at it, prove that all the judges who upheld same sex marriage were homosexuals.
I'll wait.
"California Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Upheld: Court Won't Overturn Prop 8 Decision Because Judge Was Gay"
California Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Upheld Court Won t Overturn Prop 8 Decision Because Judge Was Gay
His decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on February 7, 2012.
There have been over two score rulings all over the country by justices appointed by Republicans and Democrats. What's the current "score"? Fifty plus rulings in favor of same sex couples having full and equal access to civil marriage and like one or two that said "nah, gays are icky"?
Huh. There's a reason they call that court the "9th Circus." It's populated with leftwing hacks. The entire judicial process is corrupt and hostile to the principles this country was founded on.
Actually we'd like a judicial system that worked as it was supposed to. Not one that concerned itself with imposing values by fiat.Contrary to the pretend principles the RWnuts are throwing around in this thread,
they would LOVE the judicial system, in principle, if it were packed with rightwingers they agreed with.
They harp on it because it is the only argument they have. Otherwise there is no reason whatsoever to have "same sex marriage." In fact there is every reason not to. Once marriage can mean anything then it means nothing.
Indeed sir. Particularly given that Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
Your definition. Thankfully the courts have a wider rage of thought.
Just as they did in the 1600s when they burned heretics at the stake.
Actually we'd like a judicial system that worked as it was supposed to. Not one that concerned itself with imposing values by fiat.Contrary to the pretend principles the RWnuts are throwing around in this thread,
they would LOVE the judicial system, in principle, if it were packed with rightwingers they agreed with.
The problem with your theory is that in one case the demand to be married goes against the laws of nature.It's not about genetics, nature or nurture or any other ridiculous arguments you make, it's about equality. The same "unnatural" argument was made agaist interracial marriage as well. It lost .
I agree... It's all about equality.
The problem is that you and you cult of idiocy are trying to equate RACE, with BEHAVIOR... And there is no potential equity between dissimilar concepts.
For instance, steel is not equal to yellow.
But hey, in fairness to you, as an imbecile, there is no way you could have known that.
Ridiculous.
In both instances we are talking about people having the right to marry be recognized under the law. It is exactly the same.
Thankfully your labels and definitions don't mean anything.
Are you disputing that fact? Please show me where judicial review is mentioned in the COnstitution? I want to see you double down on stupid.
Don't ask me questions until you've answered mine.
And while you're at it, prove that all the judges who upheld same sex marriage were homosexuals.
I'll wait.
"California Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Upheld: Court Won't Overturn Prop 8 Decision Because Judge Was Gay"
California Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Upheld Court Won t Overturn Prop 8 Decision Because Judge Was Gay
His decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on February 7, 2012.
There have been over two score rulings all over the country by justices appointed by Republicans and Democrats. What's the current "score"? Fifty plus rulings in favor of same sex couples having full and equal access to civil marriage and like one or two that said "nah, gays are icky"?
Huh. There's a reason they call that court the "9th Circus." It's populated with leftwing hacks. The entire judicial process is corrupt and hostile to the principles this country was founded on.
If you think you can get a court packed with RWnuts, then elect enough legislators and executives who are RW nutty enough to appoint and approve them.
Contrary to the pretend principles the RWnuts are throwing around in this thread,
they would LOVE the judicial system, in principle, if it were packed with rightwingers they agreed with.
Actually we'd like a judicial system that worked as it was supposed to. Not one that concerned itself with imposing values by fiat.Contrary to the pretend principles the RWnuts are throwing around in this thread,
they would LOVE the judicial system, in principle, if it were packed with rightwingers they agreed with.
Imposing values per the constitution.
You're free to buy an Island and found Christlandia.
They harp on it because it is the only argument they have. Otherwise there is no reason whatsoever to have "same sex marriage." In fact there is every reason not to. Once marriage can mean anything then it means nothing.
Indeed sir. Particularly given that Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
Your definition. Thankfully the courts have a wider rage of thought.
Just as they did in the 1600s when they burned heretics at the stake.
Yes,because this issue will be decided in the 1600's.
Actually we'd like a judicial system that worked as it was supposed to. Not one that concerned itself with imposing values by fiat.Contrary to the pretend principles the RWnuts are throwing around in this thread,
they would LOVE the judicial system, in principle, if it were packed with rightwingers they agreed with.
Imposing values per the constitution.
You're free to buy an Island and found Christlandia.
The problem with your theory is that in one case the demand to be married goes against the laws of nature.It's not about genetics, nature or nurture or any other ridiculous arguments you make, it's about equality. The same "unnatural" argument was made agaist interracial marriage as well. It lost .
I agree... It's all about equality.
The problem is that you and you cult of idiocy are trying to equate RACE, with BEHAVIOR... And there is no potential equity between dissimilar concepts.
For instance, steel is not equal to yellow.
But hey, in fairness to you, as an imbecile, there is no way you could have known that.
Ridiculous.
In both instances we are talking about people having the right to marry be recognized under the law. It is exactly the same.
Thankfully your labels and definitions don't mean anything.
Just not against the constitution.
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
The problem with your theory is that in one case the demand to be married goes against the laws of nature.It's not about genetics, nature or nurture or any other ridiculous arguments you make, it's about equality. The same "unnatural" argument was made agaist interracial marriage as well. It lost .
I agree... It's all about equality.
The problem is that you and you cult of idiocy are trying to equate RACE, with BEHAVIOR... And there is no potential equity between dissimilar concepts.
For instance, steel is not equal to yellow.
But hey, in fairness to you, as an imbecile, there is no way you could have known that.
Ridiculous.
In both instances we are talking about people having the right to marry be recognized under the law. It is exactly the same.
Thankfully your labels and definitions don't mean anything.
Just not against the constitution.
Requiring opposite sexes for marriage also doesn't go against the Constitution.
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
Laws against miscegenation have nothing to do with the "gay marriage" issue.
Actually we'd like a judicial system that worked as it was supposed to. Not one that concerned itself with imposing values by fiat.Contrary to the pretend principles the RWnuts are throwing around in this thread,
they would LOVE the judicial system, in principle, if it were packed with rightwingers they agreed with.
Imposing values per the constitution.
You're free to buy an Island and found Christlandia.
Christians founded the United States, established a government upon Judea/Christian Principles.
Which contrary to your starkly limited understanding does not establish Christianity as the National Religion, only the principles which govern Christianity, as those which govern the United States.
You should TRY to understand what that means, but you should become comfortable with the reality that such is likely WELL beyond your means to understand. As a result, the weeping and gnashing of tooth by your cult of idiocy to 'HOPE TO CHANGE' that... , like you personally... is irrelevant.
Actually we'd like a judicial system that worked as it was supposed to. Not one that concerned itself with imposing values by fiat.Contrary to the pretend principles the RWnuts are throwing around in this thread,
they would LOVE the judicial system, in principle, if it were packed with rightwingers they agreed with.
Imposing values per the constitution.
You're free to buy an Island and found Christlandia.
Christians founded the United States, established a government upon Judea/Christian Principles.
Which contrary to your starkly limited understanding does not establish Christianity as the National Religion, only the principles which govern Christianity, as those which govern the United States.
You should TRY to understand what that means, but you should become comfortable with the reality that such is likely WELL beyond your means to understand. As a result, the weeping and gnashing of tooth by your cult of idiocy to 'HOPE TO CHANGE' that... , like you personally... is irrelevant.
