Christian bakers who refused to make cake for homosexual "wedding" break gag order

[Skylar]

Doesn't stop conservatives from whacking off to lesbian porn though.

And yet, you're the only one who keeps mentioning lesbian porn.

Psychological projection, perhaps?

Nah, its just the most common search term on porn websites in conservative states.

 

[Silhouette]

...Ah Skylar's old "if it's partially broke, smash it completely" argument. ^^ It's a non sequitur of course. The question of law at hand with the Kleins is:

1. Are homosexuals just one of many sexual orientations the majority finds repugnant, behaviors (not race) that want access to marriage and

2. If "yes", then are the Klein's or anyone else for that matter required to condone those behaviors they object to morally, taking over a description of marriage (the core of society itself) they and countless others have found sacred over time immemorial?

I will say this again. I know of two identical twins, raised in the same womb, with the same DNA, raised by two lesbians. One went butch and lesbian like the "dad" mom and the other was normal. That is the only study you need to show that homosexuality is not innate. It is in fact a behavior.

And, there's this..

...there are over 300 peer-reviewed studies supporting this analysis: http://www-psychology.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf (see the last several pages of citations as well as the study's title they support)

Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review
James G. Pfaus,Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montreal, Quebec, H3G 1M8 Canada

Interestingly, the study shows that not only do sexual behaviors arise from conditioning after birth, but that they are also molded by social cues individuals pick up from others. So, fast forward 50 years where gay is accepted everywhere socially through the paramount vehicle of such acceptance (marriage) and ...well...just use logic. And then understand that when boys "try out gay" and imprint (condition) themselves, this happens:

From 2008 to 2010, new HIV infections increased 22% among young (aged 13-24) gay and bisexual men and 12% among gay and bisexual men overall. Gay and Bisexual Men | HIV by Group | HIV/AIDS | CDC

I don't consider it a coincidence either that the gay manifesto from the 1980s 1987's Gay Manifesto Then & Now. How Much of it Rings True Today? discusses how young boys will be gotten ahold of by older men and imprinted gay, and how this will be done both one on one and via social pressures. First you must legitimize homosexuality (gay marriage/core of society) and then once it's "normal" you mainstream it.

It's a recruitment drive. Increasing the number of fresh meat for homosexuals over time. Read the science and the manifesto and tell me I'm wrong. No wonder the Klein's and others object. No wonder.. Skylar celebrates the fact that lesbian porn gets hits online. This is but one facet of a much larger Agenda that has been going on for decades now...insertion and normalization of homosexuality into the mainstream.. And with the Kleins, the Agenda wants to make "playing along" an "or else" legal bind..

 

[Skylar]

...Ah Skylar's old "if it's partially broke, smash it completely" argument. ^^ It's a non sequitur of course. The question of law at hand with the Kleins is:

Except that same sex marriage doesn't' 'smash marriage completely'. But instead extends the same privledges rights and obligations to same sex couples that it has for opposite sex couples.

Next fallacy, please.

1. Are homosexuals just one of many sexual orientations the majority finds repugnant, behaviors (not race) that want access to marriage and

2. If "yes", then are the Klein's or anyone else for that matter required to condone those behaviors they object to morally, taking over a description of marriage they and countless others have found sacred over time immemorial?

The Klein's never made any polygamy or incest marriage argument in their defense of their actions in Oregon.

That's you. Citing yourself. And you're nobody in their case.