Gay Judges Are Incapable Of Giving Christians ‘A Fair Shake’ In Court

[TheProgressivePatriot]

"Having Children" can mean birthing them ( which gay people do) or parenting them ( which gay people also do) I think the ass hat means both.

Having children usually refers to procreation, and if you think harmonica meant otherwise and that gays can’t be parents - you clearly have comprehension problems as s/he has made it abundantly clear what s/he was referring to and what s/he was not referring to.

Well, we haven't heard back from s/he on that , have we. I don't have a comprehension problem but someone has a communication problem.

Yes we have. Go read the replies again.

Sorry. I don't have time to go hunting for it. Unlike others here I have a life and this is not it. I will assume that it claims that the statement refers only to the ability to conceive and birth children. My reply is that to emphasis that is just plain stupid because no one singles out hetero couples who can't conceive and birth children in the "normal " or usual way" It is just used as another way to disparage and marginalize gay people. The courts, all through the debate on gay marriage, rejected the idea that the ability to procreate has any bearing on gay rights. Quite frankly, I'm tired of the stupidity and pathetic attempts to malign gays.

I’ve never heard of people pretending that those who require medical intervention to have children are doing it naturally.

Is there a difference between gay and straight couples who require medical intervention and should they be regarded or treated differently and why?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tilly]

Why are you [TheRegressivePervert] soooooo obsessed with all things gay? Why do you only make threads about gay stuff?

I recently stumbled across a thread that he started nearly two years ago, that wasn't about gay stuff. But it's almost as disturbing as—if not more so than—his obsessive pro-pervert threads. In it, he describes his idea of a Utopia in which space aliens take over the Earth and use drugs to brainwash the people to eliminate religious faith. It shows TheRegressivePervert to be seriously f•••ed-up in the head and f•••ed-up in the soul, in a different way in which we already otherwise knew him to be.

What Price Peace and Prosperity for All...........

The conditions:
1.All religious expression and thought of religion-yes thought- will be abolished. They have developed a drug to cleanse the mind of all such primitive thought patterns which, they know, causes so much strife in our world. Houses of worship will become centers for performing arts, or museums funded by the government. Some will be converted to housing.

OMG
Sounds a bit like a commie too.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Having children usually refers to procreation, and if you think harmonica meant otherwise and that gays can’t be parents - you clearly have comprehension problems as s/he has made it abundantly clear what s/he was referring to and what s/he was not referring to.

Well, we haven't heard back from s/he on that , have we. I don't have a comprehension problem but someone has a communication problem.

Yes we have. Go read the replies again.

Sorry. I don't have time to go hunting for it. Unlike others here I have a life and this is not it. I will assume that it claims that the statement refers only to the ability to conceive and birth children. My reply is that to emphasis that is just plain stupid because no one singles out hetero couples who can't conceive and birth children in the "normal " or usual way" It is just used as another way to disparage and marginalize gay people. The courts, all through the debate on gay marriage, rejected the idea that the ability to procreate has any bearing on gay rights. Quite frankly, I'm tired of the stupidity and pathetic attempts to malign gays.

I’ve never heard of people pretending that those who require medical intervention to have children are doing it naturally.

Is there a difference between gay and straight couples who require medical intervention and should they be regarded or treated differently and why?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because homos need some form of hetero biological interference to procreate. They are no longer homos, they become heteros for the time it takes to procreate.

It's like they're wannabe heteros. The hetero envy is palpable.

#HeteroPride.

 

[Tilly]

Having children usually refers to procreation, and if you think harmonica meant otherwise and that gays can’t be parents - you clearly have comprehension problems as s/he has made it abundantly clear what s/he was referring to and what s/he was not referring to.

Well, we haven't heard back from s/he on that , have we. I don't have a comprehension problem but someone has a communication problem.

Yes we have. Go read the replies again.

Sorry. I don't have time to go hunting for it. Unlike others here I have a life and this is not it. I will assume that it claims that the statement refers only to the ability to conceive and birth children. My reply is that to emphasis that is just plain stupid because no one singles out hetero couples who can't conceive and birth children in the "normal " or usual way" It is just used as another way to disparage and marginalize gay people. The courts, all through the debate on gay marriage, rejected the idea that the ability to procreate has any bearing on gay rights. Quite frankly, I'm tired of the stupidity and pathetic attempts to malign gays.

I’ve never heard of people pretending that those who require medical intervention to have children are doing it naturally.

Is there a difference between gay and straight couples who require medical intervention and should they be regarded or treated differently and why?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course there’s a difference. Where would you implant eggs in a gay male couple /pseudo lady?

 

[Pete7469]

OMG
Sounds a bit like a commie too.

He is a complete and total lunatic. I call him RegressiveParasite, he's worse than just a commie perv, he is weapons grade stupid. Everyone of his pathetic threads are full of ridiculous leftist drivel with a few of his insipid opinions in a long drawn out bullshit rant about about how the people he is programmed to hate are losing the cultural battle and will eventually goose step to the soviet national anthem.

He is the sort of stupid they have in mind when they print "Not For Human Consumption" on jars of fish eggs in the bait section.

 

[bodecea]

Well, we haven't heard back from s/he on that , have we. I don't have a comprehension problem but someone has a communication problem.

Yes we have. Go read the replies again.

Sorry. I don't have time to go hunting for it. Unlike others here I have a life and this is not it. I will assume that it claims that the statement refers only to the ability to conceive and birth children. My reply is that to emphasis that is just plain stupid because no one singles out hetero couples who can't conceive and birth children in the "normal " or usual way" It is just used as another way to disparage and marginalize gay people. The courts, all through the debate on gay marriage, rejected the idea that the ability to procreate has any bearing on gay rights. Quite frankly, I'm tired of the stupidity and pathetic attempts to malign gays.

I’ve never heard of people pretending that those who require medical intervention to have children are doing it naturally.

Is there a difference between gay and straight couples who require medical intervention and should they be regarded or treated differently and why?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because homos need some form of hetero biological interference to procreate. They are no longer homos, they become heteros for the time it takes to procreate.

It's like they're wannabe heteros. The hetero envy is palpable.

#HeteroPride.

As do many hetero couples...in fact, any artificial ways that gays use to have children were originally researched for infertile heteros.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Yes we have. Go read the replies again.

Sorry. I don't have time to go hunting for it. Unlike others here I have a life and this is not it. I will assume that it claims that the statement refers only to the ability to conceive and birth children. My reply is that to emphasis that is just plain stupid because no one singles out hetero couples who can't conceive and birth children in the "normal " or usual way" It is just used as another way to disparage and marginalize gay people. The courts, all through the debate on gay marriage, rejected the idea that the ability to procreate has any bearing on gay rights. Quite frankly, I'm tired of the stupidity and pathetic attempts to malign gays.

I’ve never heard of people pretending that those who require medical intervention to have children are doing it naturally.

Is there a difference between gay and straight couples who require medical intervention and should they be regarded or treated differently and why?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because homos need some form of hetero biological interference to procreate. They are no longer homos, they become heteros for the time it takes to procreate.

It's like they're wannabe heteros. The hetero envy is palpable.

#HeteroPride.

As do many hetero couples...in fact, any artificial ways that gays use to have children were originally researched for infertile heteros.

Yes! All artificial ways require a hetero inspired reenactment. An egg and a seed. Heteros lead the way once again. They should teach a class about them.

#HeteroPride.

 

[bodecea]

Of course where is the connect between fertility and being a judge?

 

[emilynghiem]

"Having Children" can mean birthing them ( which gay people do) or parenting them ( which gay people also do) I think the ass hat means both.

Having children usually refers to procreation, and if you think harmonica meant otherwise and that gays can’t be parents - you clearly have comprehension problems as s/he has made it abundantly clear what s/he was referring to and what s/he was not referring to.

Well, we haven't heard back from s/he on that , have we. I don't have a comprehension problem but someone has a communication problem.

Yes we have. Go read the replies again.

Sorry. I don't have time to go hunting for it. Unlike others here I have a life and this is not it. I will assume that it claims that the statement refers only to the ability to conceive and birth children. My reply is that to emphasis that is just plain stupid because no one singles out hetero couples who can't conceive and birth children in the "normal " or usual way" It is just used as another way to disparage and marginalize gay people. The courts, all through the debate on gay marriage, rejected the idea that the ability to procreate has any bearing on gay rights. Quite frankly, I'm tired of the stupidity and pathetic attempts to malign gays.

I’ve never heard of people pretending that those who require medical intervention to have children are doing it naturally.

Dear Tilly TheProgressivePatriot
Regardless of which person has which belief about marriage or childbearing,
it is clearly NOT the role of Federal Govt to decide social beliefs and practices for people.

That's like arguing over communion or baptisms, then asking the Feds to step in and settle the dispute!

If people can't agree on beliefs, and clearly there is no desire to resolve these differences,
that's just more proof why Govt is not given authorization to decide issues of personal values, beliefs and choices.

This is why I argue to separate taxes and benefits programs, and letting taxpayers choose what terms to support.
There is no rule that says all people have to be under the same benefits programs and terms,
any more than we need all people to be under one religion or all buy their life insurance from the same company.
There is nothing wrong with members of different parties all creating and choosing their own specially designed
programs, that correspond with their respective beliefs about marriage, social benefits and health care.
The Catholics and Baptists manage their own programs; the Hindus and Muslims organize separately.
Why not allow equal free choice for citizens, and quit fighting and forcing everyone to be under one policy?
Isn't that in violation of the First Amendment to establish one belief through govt and coerce everyone to comply with it?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Well, we haven't heard back from s/he on that , have we. I don't have a comprehension problem but someone has a communication problem.

Yes we have. Go read the replies again.

Sorry. I don't have time to go hunting for it. Unlike others here I have a life and this is not it. I will assume that it claims that the statement refers only to the ability to conceive and birth children. My reply is that to emphasis that is just plain stupid because no one singles out hetero couples who can't conceive and birth children in the "normal " or usual way" It is just used as another way to disparage and marginalize gay people. The courts, all through the debate on gay marriage, rejected the idea that the ability to procreate has any bearing on gay rights. Quite frankly, I'm tired of the stupidity and pathetic attempts to malign gays.

I’ve never heard of people pretending that those who require medical intervention to have children are doing it naturally.

Is there a difference between gay and straight couples who require medical intervention and should they be regarded or treated differently and why?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course there’s a difference. Where would you implant eggs in a gay male couple /pseudo lady?

Are you just being a smart ass, or, is it possible that your actually unable to comprehend the point that I'm making?? I suspect the latter which is rather pathetic.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Of course where is the connect between fertility and being a judge?

Without fertility there were be no judges.

#HeteroPride.

 

[Silhouette]

For someone who claims to not be gay, you sure do expend a lot of energy defending and supporting it.

You'd be surprised how many pay-per-post gay bloggers the cult of LGBT has posting & posing on online as "regular hetero people fighting for the gay". Quite a few here at USMB in fact. And yes, you've correctly nailed one of them (PP).

After all, when literally remaking reality, smoke and mirrors is all part of the "fake it till you make it" strategy. In other words, crafted lying to skew search engine and polling data to make a mirage into reality.

Election 2016 and Prop 8 in California's looney left state proved up just exactly how many normal people support the LGBT cult INSANITY. Apparently pragmatists are still in the majority, Even in CA lala land. PP's ruse is slipping. Badly. The transgender kid thing (blatant child abuse) is going to be the straw that broke the camel's back in the DNC-LGBT.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

For someone who claims to not be gay, you sure do expend a lot of energy defending and supporting it.

You'd be surprised how many pay-per-post gay bloggers the cult of LGBT has posting & posing on online as "regular hetero people fighting for the gay". Quite a few here at USMB in fact. And yes, you've correctly nailed one of them (PP).

After all, when literally remaking reality, smoke and mirrors is all part of the "fake it till you make it" strategy. In other words, crafted lying to skew search engine and polling data to make a mirage into reality.

Election 2016 and Prop 8 in California's looney left state proved up just exactly how many normal people support the LGBT cult INSANITY. Apparently pragmatists are still in the majority, Even in CA lala land. PP's ruse is slipping. Badly. The transgender kid thing (blatant child abuse) is going to be the straw that broke the camel's back in the DNC-LGBT.

Perhaps you could list them ?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You'd be surprised how many pay-per-post gay bloggers the cult of LGBT has posting & posing on online as "regular hetero people fighting for the gay". Quite a few here at USMB in fact. And yes, you've correctly nailed one of them (PP).

The fact that you both have deluded yourselves into thinking that you know me, or that I give a half of a fuck about what you think speaks volumes about your mental illness

 

[Aba Incieni]

Gay judges require very costly dildo chairs.

#HeteroPride.

 

[Silhouette]

For someone who claims to not be gay, you sure do expend a lot of energy defending and supporting it.

You'd be surprised how many pay-per-post gay bloggers the cult of LGBT has posting & posing on online as "regular hetero people fighting for the gay". Quite a few here at USMB in fact. And yes, you've correctly nailed one of them (PP).

After all, when literally remaking reality, smoke and mirrors is all part of the "fake it till you make it" strategy. In other words, crafted lying to skew search engine and polling data to make a mirage into reality.

Election 2016 and Prop 8 in California's looney left state proved up just exactly how many normal people support the LGBT cult INSANITY. Apparently pragmatists are still in the majority, Even in CA lala land. PP's ruse is slipping. Badly. The transgender kid thing (blatant child abuse) is going to be the straw that broke the camel's back in the DNC-LGBT.

Perhaps you could list them ?

Ironic.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

For someone who claims to not be gay, you sure do expend a lot of energy defending and supporting it.

You'd be surprised how many pay-per-post gay bloggers the cult of LGBT has posting & posing on online as "regular hetero people fighting for the gay". Quite a few here at USMB in fact. And yes, you've correctly nailed one of them (PP).

After all, when literally remaking reality, smoke and mirrors is all part of the "fake it till you make it" strategy. In other words, crafted lying to skew search engine and polling data to make a mirage into reality.

Election 2016 and Prop 8 in California's looney left state proved up just exactly how many normal people support the LGBT cult INSANITY. Apparently pragmatists are still in the majority, Even in CA lala land. PP's ruse is slipping. Badly. The transgender kid thing (blatant child abuse) is going to be the straw that broke the camel's back in the DNC-LGBT.

Perhaps you could list them ?

Ironic.

On second thought

 

[IsaacNewton]

The stupidity and bigotry is astounding!! You cant make this shit up!! The idea that we should not have gay judges because they would hostile to Christians is absurd on the face of it since many gay people are Christian, and many Christians and Christian denominations embrace gay rights.

But beyond that , where does it end? Should we not have black judges because they won't be fair to whites? Should we not have white judges because they won't be fair to minorities? Should we not have Christian judges because they won't be fair to people of other faiths? I could go on but you get the idea?

Maybe we should develop drone bot judges that have no soul and program them to be completely without bias. Of course they would not have any compassion or empathy either, but we can't have it all, can we?

Mat Staver: Gay Judges Are Incapable Of Giving Christians ‘A Fair Shake’ In Court | Right Wing Watch

Anti-LGBTQ Religious Right activist Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel appeared on VCY America’s “Crosstalk” radio program yesterday, where he asserted that gay people should not be allowed to serve as judges because they are incapable of being objective and fair in cases involving religious liberty for Christians.

A

sked about Andrew McDonald, who was recently nominated to serve as chief justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court and, if confirmed, will be the first openly gay chief justice on any state court in the country, Staver was not shy about voicing his opposition.

“Here’s the problem with it beyond the issue of the morality of this,” Staver said. “Beyond the issue of other consequences is the fact that what we typically see is someone’s identity, their being, completely wrapped up in their sexual practices, meaning that—do you think that if you had an Aaron and Melissa Klein or a Jack Phillips bakery or anything else like that where you have the LGBT clash with religious freedom or freedom of expression come before this judge, do you think this judge is going to be open and fair irrespective of what he does to rule based on the Constitution and the rule of law? I don’t think so

.

Let me tell you folks something. I am straight and I would have a problem with someone who wields religion as a weapon to justify discrimination as well. Maybe we should not have liberal judges either. Judges should be selected on their ability to follow the law and to put their personal views aside.

The fake Kristians in the US have become a victim cult. The world is against them and them alone.

They need one of the real Christians that faced lions in the Colosseum to travel to the present. "You really think you are victims? 80% of the land you live in claim to be Christians and none of you suffers at all. Stop whining about cakes, I mean Jesus Christ."

 

[Aba Incieni]

The stupidity and bigotry is astounding!! You cant make this shit up!! The idea that we should not have gay judges because they would hostile to Christians is absurd on the face of it since many gay people are Christian, and many Christians and Christian denominations embrace gay rights.

But beyond that , where does it end? Should we not have black judges because they won't be fair to whites? Should we not have white judges because they won't be fair to minorities? Should we not have Christian judges because they won't be fair to people of other faiths? I could go on but you get the idea?

Maybe we should develop drone bot judges that have no soul and program them to be completely without bias. Of course they would not have any compassion or empathy either, but we can't have it all, can we?

Mat Staver: Gay Judges Are Incapable Of Giving Christians ‘A Fair Shake’ In Court | Right Wing Watch

Anti-LGBTQ Religious Right activist Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel appeared on VCY America’s “Crosstalk” radio program yesterday, where he asserted that gay people should not be allowed to serve as judges because they are incapable of being objective and fair in cases involving religious liberty for Christians.

A

sked about Andrew McDonald, who was recently nominated to serve as chief justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court and, if confirmed, will be the first openly gay chief justice on any state court in the country, Staver was not shy about voicing his opposition.

“Here’s the problem with it beyond the issue of the morality of this,” Staver said. “Beyond the issue of other consequences is the fact that what we typically see is someone’s identity, their being, completely wrapped up in their sexual practices, meaning that—do you think that if you had an Aaron and Melissa Klein or a Jack Phillips bakery or anything else like that where you have the LGBT clash with religious freedom or freedom of expression come before this judge, do you think this judge is going to be open and fair irrespective of what he does to rule based on the Constitution and the rule of law? I don’t think so

.

Let me tell you folks something. I am straight and I would have a problem with someone who wields religion as a weapon to justify discrimination as well. Maybe we should not have liberal judges either. Judges should be selected on their ability to follow the law and to put their personal views aside.

The fake Kristians in the US have become a victim cult. The world is against them and them alone.

They need one of the real Christians that faced lions in the Colosseum to travel to the present. "You really think you are victims? 80% of the land you live in claim to be Christians and none of you suffers at all. Stop whining about cakes, I mean Jesus Christ.

Whereas homos must suffer the daily humiliations of simply being homos.

Another reason for heterophobe envy.

#HeteroPride.

 

[tycho1572]

Gay people are inherently bad at making certain decisions.