Various Thoughts on the Issues of Homosexuality

[PaintMyHouse]

Saying I'm gay isn't discussing my sex life. That you go immediately to the sex if someone tells you they are gay tells us a lot about YOU.

Homosexual not gay. Gay means happy and you are never that.

The current usage of the word "GAY" is an oxymoron , as well - so is the term "Gay Sex"
Gay Sex is not "sex at all- it's Sodomy

To be Gay is not to be Happy , it's a sad pathetic existence populated by degenrate pathetic sad little people- So basically Gay=Sad - in its popular usage. In effect Gay Sex = Sad Sodomy

Your homophobia bores me. What else have you got?

 

[GreenBean]

Gay also means people who are attracted to members of the same gender and I happen to be very happy. Of course, I live an idyllic life.

No it doesn't.... Just because you dont like the word homosexual doesn't mean you get to co-opt any word you want.

Yeah, actually it does and it's done. Gay...co-opted.

Okay - so how about Fag, fruitcake, he-she, she-he, dyke, queer, cum guzzler, fudge packer, rug muncher, Can we co-opt them ?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Gay also means people who are attracted to members of the same gender and I happen to be very happy. Of course, I live an idyllic life.

No it doesn't.... Just because you dont like the word homosexual doesn't mean you get to co-opt any word you want.

Yeah, actually it does and it's done. Gay...co-opted.

Long ago. Then again, he wants to live in 1890, or maybe 1820?

 

[Pop23]

Gay also means people who are attracted to members of the same gender and I happen to be very happy. Of course, I live an idyllic life.

No it doesn't.... Just because you dont like the word homosexual doesn't mean you get to co-opt any word you want.

Yeah, actually it does and it's done. Gay...co-opted.

Automobiles are now known as cars. One time a car was something that was pulled by an engine and followed by a caboose.

Got no problem with the word used to describe something that it was not used for in the past

Move on people.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No it doesn't.... Just because you dont like the word homosexual doesn't mean you get to co-opt any word you want.

Yeah, actually it does and it's done. Gay...co-opted.

Okay - so how about Fag, fruitcake, he-she, she-he, dyke, queer, cum guzzler, fudge packer, rug muncher, Can we co-opt them ?

You just did.

 

[GreenBean]

Saying I'm gay isn't discussing my sex life. That you go immediately to the sex if someone tells you they are gay tells us a lot about YOU.

Homosexual not gay. Gay means happy and you are never that.

Gay also means people who are attracted to members of the same gender and I happen to be very happy. Of course, I live an idyllic life.

If you say so Pinocchio

 

[GISMYS]

Sick minded sexual perverts are not fit parents, THAT WOULD BE CHILD ABUSE OF THE WORST KIND!!PERIOD!!!
God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against God’s natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.

28 So it was that when they gave God up and would not even acknowledge him, God gave them up to doing everything their evil minds could think of. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness and sin, of greed and hate, envy, murder, fighting, lying, bitterness, and gossip.

30 They were backbiters, haters of God, insolent, proud, braggarts, always thinking of new ways of sinning and continually being disobedient to their parents. 31 They tried to misunderstand, broke their promises, and were heartless—without pity. 32 They were fully aware of God’s death penalty for these crimes, yet they went right ahead and did them anyway and encouraged others to do them, too.
Romans 132

 

[RKMBrown]

Gay and lesbian individuals and couples are capable of meeting the best interest of the child and should be afforded the same rights and should accept the same responsibilities as heterosexual parents.

There is no rational basis upon which to deny same-sex couples their 14th Amendment right to access marriage law.

14th Amendment right to access marriage law?

Huh?

 

[Seawytch]

Gay and lesbian individuals and couples are capable of meeting the best interest of the child and should be afforded the same rights and should accept the same responsibilities as heterosexual parents.

There is no rational basis upon which to deny same-sex couples their 14th Amendment right to access marriage law.

14th Amendment right to access marriage law?

Huh?

Yes, 14th Amendment. Loving v Virginia, Turner v Salfey and Zalblocki v Wisconsin. All rulings were based on what? 14th Amendment.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sick minded sexual perverts are not fit parents, THAT WOULD BE CHILD ABUSE OF THE WORST KIND!!PERIOD!!!
God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against God’s natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.

28 So it was that when they gave God up and would not even acknowledge him, God gave them up to doing everything their evil minds could think of. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness and sin, of greed and hate, envy, murder, fighting, lying, bitterness, and gossip.

30 They were backbiters, haters of God, insolent, proud, braggarts, always thinking of new ways of sinning and continually being disobedient to their parents. 31 They tried to misunderstand, broke their promises, and were heartless—without pity. 32 They were fully aware of God’s death penalty for these crimes, yet they went right ahead and did them anyway and encouraged others to do them, too.
Romans 132

So you find people who are "sick minded perverts" you get them in front of a court which proves this, based on a law that exists, and then you can lock them up. Okay? Or not?

 

[GISMYS]

Sick minded sexual perverts are not fit parents, THAT WOULD BE CHILD ABUSE OF THE WORST KIND!!PERIOD!!!
God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against God’s natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.

28 So it was that when they gave God up and would not even acknowledge him, God gave them up to doing everything their evil minds could think of. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness and sin, of greed and hate, envy, murder, fighting, lying, bitterness, and gossip.

30 They were backbiters, haters of God, insolent, proud, braggarts, always thinking of new ways of sinning and continually being disobedient to their parents. 31 They tried to misunderstand, broke their promises, and were heartless—without pity. 32 They were fully aware of God’s death penalty for these crimes, yet they went right ahead and did them anyway and encouraged others to do them, too.
Romans 132

So you find people who are "sick minded perverts" you get them in front of a court which proves this, based on a law that exists, and then you can lock them up. Okay? Or not?

ALMIGHTY GOD'S law trumps any law made by little man and GOD says sick sexual perversion is an ABOMINATION!!!

 

[RKMBrown]

There is no rational basis upon which to deny same-sex couples their 14th Amendment right to access marriage law.

14th Amendment right to access marriage law?

Huh?

Yes, 14th Amendment. Loving v Virginia, Turner v Salfey and Zalblocki v Wisconsin. All rulings were based on what? 14th Amendment.

The right to due process before they can legally take away your rights and the right to equal protection under the law, are not a right to access marriage.

The rulings were to the fact that the states did not establish due process and provide equal protection in their laws against marriage by certain types of individuals. If they had established due process and provided equal protection the laws may have been ruled constitutional.

The term "marriage" is completely absent from our constitution. Thus it is not an explicit right. Your promotion of it to an explicit right violated proper use of English.

 

[frigidweirdo]

ALMIGHTY GOD'S law trumps any law made by little man and GOD says sick sexual perversion is an ABOMINATION!!!

And clearly God doesn't like gay people because, because..... because you say so huh? Really? Do you have a signed document with God's signature to say this?

Or perhaps it's real easy to just say "God says he hates gay people"

Maybe God also said he likes fried chicken too.

 

[frigidweirdo]

14th Amendment right to access marriage law?

Huh?

Yes, 14th Amendment. Loving v Virginia, Turner v Salfey and Zalblocki v Wisconsin. All rulings were based on what? 14th Amendment.

The right to due process before they can legally take away your rights and the right to equal protection under the law, are not a right to access marriage.

The rulings were to the fact that the states did not establish due process and provide equal protection in their laws against marriage by certain types of individuals. If they had established due process and provided equal protection the laws may have been ruled constitutional.

The term "marriage" is completely absent from our constitution. Thus it is not an explicit right. Your promotion of it to an explicit right violated proper use of English.

Privacy also isn't in the Constitution. Go figure.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Sick minded sexual perverts are not fit parents, THAT WOULD BE CHILD ABUSE OF THE WORST KIND!!PERIOD!!!
God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against God’s natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.

28 So it was that when they gave God up and would not even acknowledge him, God gave them up to doing everything their evil minds could think of. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness and sin, of greed and hate, envy, murder, fighting, lying, bitterness, and gossip.

30 They were backbiters, haters of God, insolent, proud, braggarts, always thinking of new ways of sinning and continually being disobedient to their parents. 31 They tried to misunderstand, broke their promises, and were heartless—without pity. 32 They were fully aware of God’s death penalty for these crimes, yet they went right ahead and did them anyway and encouraged others to do them, too.
Romans 132

So you find people who are "sick minded perverts" you get them in front of a court which proves this, based on a law that exists, and then you can lock them up. Okay? Or not?

ALMIGHTY GOD'S law trumps any law made by little man and GOD says sick sexual perversion is an ABOMINATION!!!

Good luck with that one in court. You bring God, I'll bring a lawyer. One of them can actually do something for you.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes, 14th Amendment. Loving v Virginia, Turner v Salfey and Zalblocki v Wisconsin. All rulings were based on what? 14th Amendment.

The right to due process before they can legally take away your rights and the right to equal protection under the law, are not a right to access marriage.

The rulings were to the fact that the states did not establish due process and provide equal protection in their laws against marriage by certain types of individuals. If they had established due process and provided equal protection the laws may have been ruled constitutional.

The term "marriage" is completely absent from our constitution. Thus it is not an explicit right. Your promotion of it to an explicit right violated proper use of English.

Privacy also isn't in the Constitution. Go figure.

Yes it is. As a matter of fact, it's explicitly defined. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

 

[Seawytch]

14th Amendment right to access marriage law?

Huh?

Yes, 14th Amendment. Loving v Virginia, Turner v Salfey and Zalblocki v Wisconsin. All rulings were based on what? 14th Amendment.

The right to due process before they can legally take away your rights and the right to equal protection under the law, are not a right to access marriage.

The rulings were to the fact that the states did not establish due process and provide equal protection in their laws against marriage by certain types of individuals. If they had established due process and provided equal protection the laws may have been ruled constitutional.

The term "marriage" is completely absent from our constitution. Thus it is not an explicit right. Your promotion of it to an explicit right violated proper use of English.

Where is your right to procreate or interstate travel in the Constitution?

Hint: look up fundamental rights

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, 14th Amendment. Loving v Virginia, Turner v Salfey and Zalblocki v Wisconsin. All rulings were based on what? 14th Amendment.

The right to due process before they can legally take away your rights and the right to equal protection under the law, are not a right to access marriage.

The rulings were to the fact that the states did not establish due process and provide equal protection in their laws against marriage by certain types of individuals. If they had established due process and provided equal protection the laws may have been ruled constitutional.

The term "marriage" is completely absent from our constitution. Thus it is not an explicit right. Your promotion of it to an explicit right violated proper use of English.

Where is your right to procreate or interstate travel in the Constitution?

Hint: look up fundamental rights

Marriage of any person to any other person is not a fundamental right. You have to be

1. Of age

2. Not related by blood too closely

3. Only two people and

4. A man and a woman.

Once you meet all four of those qualifications, you may marry. It's set up that way for good and concrete reasons. Utah's appeal addresses # 4 quite nicely. #1 exists so that stupid kids don't enter a situation in immature haste. #2 exists so that inbred children aren't causing a burden to the country. #3 exists because it was a requirement of Utah to enter statehood and the populace decided a woman with six husbands or a man with 15 wives isn't the best situation for the children who are so numerous often in the second situation that they cannot get good individual attention...grappling from the wives, husbands etc. for favoritism from the "one" of the dominant gender in the situation.

 

[Pop23]

Yes, 14th Amendment. Loving v Virginia, Turner v Salfey and Zalblocki v Wisconsin. All rulings were based on what? 14th Amendment.

The right to due process before they can legally take away your rights and the right to equal protection under the law, are not a right to access marriage.

The rulings were to the fact that the states did not establish due process and provide equal protection in their laws against marriage by certain types of individuals. If they had established due process and provided equal protection the laws may have been ruled constitutional.

The term "marriage" is completely absent from our constitution. Thus it is not an explicit right. Your promotion of it to an explicit right violated proper use of English.

Where is your right to procreate or interstate travel in the Constitution?

Hint: look up fundamental rights

Seems odd. Same sex couples can't procreate, does that mean a fundamental right is being abridged?

 

[Seawytch]

The right to due process before they can legally take away your rights and the right to equal protection under the law, are not a right to access marriage.



The rulings were to the fact that the states did not establish due process and provide equal protection in their laws against marriage by certain types of individuals. If they had established due process and provided equal protection the laws may have been ruled constitutional.



The term "marriage" is completely absent from our constitution. Thus it is not an explicit right. Your promotion of it to an explicit right violated proper use of English.

Where is your right to procreate or interstate travel in the Constitution?



Hint: look up fundamental rights

Seems odd. Same sex couples can't procreate, does that mean a fundamental right is being abridged?

Yes we can. Nothing is or does stop us from procreating just fine.

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/category/research/census-lgbt-demographics-studies/