homosexual marriage

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Murder is the morally unjustified taking of a human life...

See... "The irrational intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself, particularly where those differing opinions are rooted in sound reasoning." (Bigotry) ON PARADE!

Pointing out the fact that you're lying and making insane, unfounded statements is not being 'intolerant.'

It's pointing out the fact that you're lying and making insane, unfounded statements.

Irony!

LOL! I love it... I truly can't get my fill of it. And nothing is more delicious than the ironies of the sweet variety.

What 'lies' did I tell... SPECIFICALLY?

Now, a "lie" is a deceit, advanced as a truth, where the purveyor KNOWS that such is false. This because the intention: is to DECEIVE.

So far, on this thread, we have the cult (of which, you're a member) is claiming that homosexuality is normal human sexuality. This despite the irrefutable certainty that homosexuality deviates from the standard established by the intrinsic human biological design.

Now that's not even a debatable point, yet, you and the other members of the cult, demand that that indisputable fact be set aside, as a means to satisfy you own subjective needs for legitimacy, thus to 'be considered NORMAL'.

Now... THAT is you advancing deceit, through fraudulent reasoning, as a means to influence the ignorant.

See how that works? As a means to help you understand what it looks like when liars lie, I offered up that example, for you edification.

Now, here's the hard part... Produce an example of my having lied, or concede that you're demonstrating yourself to be a LIAR, through your failure to do so.

FTR: Not a single one of the cult has managed to sustain so much as a single one of their feckless professions... and from that history, we can be all but certain that this clown will come up short as well and, for precisely the same reasons.

 

[Derideo_Te]

What 'lies' did I tell... SPECIFICALLY?

To be precise, all of your posts are lies!

That you believe your own lies is why you are

But that is your problem.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

LOL- here is a clue- infertile means infertile.

An infertile couple will have no more natural children than an infertile couple that happens to be infertile and same gender.

Why you keep asking for a child produced by same sex coupling I have no idea.

Just as two 80 year olds are not having children together, just as an infertile couple are not having children together, a same gender couple will not be having natural children together.

And so what?

Wisconsin will not even allow some couples to marry unless they prove that they are unable to procreate.

And so what?

And here's your silly argument in a nutshell

Your bicycle is exactly the same as my motorcycle because some motorcycles have blown engines and still others are old, rusty and can no longer run. Therefor, your bicycle must be the same.

Preposterous

It shows how delusional you are

Get this, 50 years ago those "infertile" couples could never hope to create a child. Now many can

No (that is an absolute and not debate able) same sex coupling has ever or will ever produce a child.

Claim your bike the equal to my motorcycle all you want. Crying and stomping your feet will not make it so no matter how many enablers you might convince.

Sorry, facts is facts.

so you can't tell the differences between motorcycles and people?

LOL- here is a clue- infertile means infertile.

An infertile couple will have no more natural children than an infertile couple that happens to be infertile and same gender.

Why you keep asking for a child produced by same sex coupling I have no idea.

Just as two 80 year olds are not having children together, just as an infertile couple are not having children together, a same gender couple will not be having natural children together.

And so what?

Wisconsin will not even allow some couples to marry unless they prove that they are unable to procreate.

And so what?

Syriusly, you can't reason with an anti gay bigot.

There's no such thing as an Anti-Advocacy for Normalization of Sexual Abnormality Bigot.

To wit:

Bigotry: the irrational intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself, particularly where those differing opinions are rooted in sound reasoning.

Opposing the cultural normalization of harbingers is founded in the sound rationale that to do so, subjects the culture to the predictable, catastrophic consequences, common to such.

It's akin to normalizing the warning sirens of an impending tsunami. It seems like a fair way to go, right up until one is crushed by a wall of high speed, debris laden water.

But its perfectly understandable, given your bigoted perspective.

You're a relativist. Which means that you've little means to reason objectively. Therefore your every instinct is set around the template of YOU and what "FEEL" YOU NEED!

It's the classic template of the female psyche. And as such represents the traits of all female endeavors.

In politics, it's typically socialism and I know.. you prefer "Progressive" today, but that's only because you've convinced sufficient people that socialism is bad, so you've changed the name AGAIN, to avoid being held accountable for the otherwise inevitable consequences of such. No biggy, I get it.

So... as a relativist, incapable of objectivity, you lack the means to discern truth... which explains your trust issues... (Explain this to Daddy... it might help heal that long festering wound). It's also why you reject America's intrinsic, foundational principles, which provide for it's soundly reasoned morality and why, without exception, your cult, inclusive of both females and it's feminized males... reject the notion that the only legitimate purpose of Law, is to serve justice. (Here's a link to a classic example of that: #391)

It's why you only publicly object to the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification on issues of legality and not morality.

It's YOU! You're a relativist... OKA: a sociopath.

Pretty cool, huh?

And the crazy gets even crazier....proving my statement.

Just to provide another example of another member of the cult who advanced baseless implications (A liar that lied...) and failed miserably to sustain her 'feelings'. This was posted some time back and as predicted it would, it never got a response, for what are obvious reasons... .

Now here is my favorite thing to do in these little 'discussions'.

What you see in Seawytch's profession above, is what is OKA: a baseless implication.

This is a device which the relativist uses, as a means to imply 'truth', where there is in reality, nothing even remotely affiliated with the truth.

She's telling us, the reader, that my statement, to which she replied above, is a demonstration of some unstated psychosis; meaning she is claiming, through the implication, that she thinks I'm crazy and my statement proved it.

The reason she does this, is she NEEDS for her position to be true. (Understand, it doesn't matter if in reality, the facts actually prove it to be true, she simply NEEDS it to be true and for her... as long as someone else also 'feels' that it's true, then it is. That's what relativism is... the truth is whatever one's relative circumstances require it to be. Capiche? )

So, knowing this... all it takes to prove it, is to simply ask the subject to state their reasoning through which they felt the authorization to advance the profession. When they fail to do so, ya know that they're either lying, in an intentional attempt to deceive you, or they're clinically ill, delusional, believing that which has no bearing on reality, is real and true. Doesn't matter which, because the net effect is the same for our purposes here, which is that such demonstrates that the member is unworthy of trust.... which is again... a key trait of relativism and why it is the height of lunacy to allow such people anywhere near a voting booth, let alone sufficient freedom to form a political faction, which hold significant influence over one of your two political parties.

So... here we go!

Seabiscuitch, you've implied that you have evidence to believe that I, your opposition in this here discussion is mentally ill. And further than the statement to which you replied above, provided specific evidence of that psychosis. What is the evidence to which you referred you possessed prior to the statement to which you replied above, was made and what specific evidence was there in the relevant statement which 'proved your statement right'?

Now folks, please sit back and enjoy the silence, as Seabiscuitch fails to offer any sustaining facts or any viable reasoning which in ANYWAY supports a dam' thing she's said.

Enjoy...

(OH! And enjoy the looming effort to pretend this never happened and, where such is otherwise unavoidable, that the entire affair rests in sarcasm, which naturally, I am simply not bright enough to detect... or any of a host of deflections designed to avoid her being held accountable for her irrational and all too differing opinions with which I've so little tolerance, as indicated by my opposition to such.)

 

[Syriusly]

And here's your silly argument in a nutshell

Your bicycle is exactly the same as my motorcycle because some motorcycles have blown engines and still others are old, rusty and can no longer run. Therefor, your bicycle must be the same.

Preposterous

It shows how delusional you are

Get this, 50 years ago those "infertile" couples could never hope to create a child. Now many can

No (that is an absolute and not debate able) same sex coupling has ever or will ever produce a child.

Claim your bike the equal to my motorcycle all you want. Crying and stomping your feet will not make it so no matter how many enablers you might convince.

Sorry, facts is facts.

so you can't tell the differences between motorcycles and people?

LOL- here is a clue- infertile means infertile.

An infertile couple will have no more natural children than an infertile couple that happens to be infertile and same gender.

Why you keep asking for a child produced by same sex coupling I have no idea.

Just as two 80 year olds are not having children together, just as an infertile couple are not having children together, a same gender couple will not be having natural children together.

And so what?

Wisconsin will not even allow some couples to marry unless they prove that they are unable to procreate.

And so what?

Syriusly, you can't reason with an anti gay bigot.

There's no such thing as an Anti-Advocacy for Normalization of Sexual Abnormality Bigot.

To wit:

Bigotry: the irrational intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself, particularly where those differing opinions are rooted in sound reasoning.

Opposing the cultural normalization of harbingers is founded in the sound rationale that to do so, subjects the culture to the predictable, catastrophic consequences, common to such.

It's akin to normalizing the warning sirens of an impending tsunami. It seems like a fair way to go, right up until one is crushed by a wall of high speed, debris laden water.

But its perfectly understandable, given your bigoted perspective.

You're a relativist. Which means that you've little means to reason objectively. Therefore your every instinct is set around the template of YOU and what "FEEL" YOU NEED!

It's the classic template of the female psyche. And as such represents the traits of all female endeavors.

In politics, it's typically socialism and I know.. you prefer "Progressive" today, but that's only because you've convinced sufficient people that socialism is bad, so you've changed the name AGAIN, to avoid being held accountable for the otherwise inevitable consequences of such. No biggy, I get it.

So... as a relativist, incapable of objectivity, you lack the means to discern truth... which explains your trust issues... (Explain this to Daddy... it might help heal that long festering wound). It's also why you reject America's intrinsic, foundational principles, which provide for it's soundly reasoned morality and why, without exception, your cult, inclusive of both females and it's feminized males... reject the notion that the only legitimate purpose of Law, is to serve justice. (Here's a link to a classic example of that: #391)

It's why you only publicly object to the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification on issues of legality and not morality.

It's YOU! You're a relativist... OKA: a sociopath.

Pretty cool, huh?

And the crazy gets even crazier....proving my statement.

Just to provide another example of another member of the cult who advanced baseless implications (A liar that lied...) and failed miserably to sustain her 'feelings'. This was posted some time back and as predicted it would, it never got a response, for what are obvious reasons... .

Now here is my favorite thing to do in these little 'discussions'.

What you see in Seawytch's profession above, is what is OKA: a baseless implication.

This is a device which the relativist uses, as a means to imply 'truth', where there is in reality, nothing even remotely affiliated with the truth.

She's telling us, the reader, that my statement, to which she replied above, is a demonstration of some unstated psychosis; meaning she is claiming, through the implication, that she thinks I'm crazy and my statement proved it.

The reason she does this, is she NEEDS for her position to be true. (Understand, it doesn't matter if in reality, the facts actually prove it to be true, she simply NEEDS it to be true and for her... as long as someone else also 'feels' that it's true, then it is. That's what relativism is... the truth is whatever one's relative circumstances require it to be. Capiche? )

So, knowing this... all it takes to prove it, is to simply ask the subject to state their reasoning through which they felt the authorization to advance the profession. When they fail to do so, ya know that they're either lying, in an intentional attempt to deceive you, or they're clinically ill, delusional, believing that which has no bearing on reality, is real and true. Doesn't matter which, because the net effect is the same for our purposes here, which is that such demonstrates that the member is unworthy of trust.... which is again... a key trait of relativism and why it is the height of lunacy to allow such people anywhere near a voting booth, let alone sufficient freedom to form a political faction, which hold significant influence over one of your two political parties.

So... here we go!

Seabiscuitch, you've implied that you have evidence to believe that I, your opposition in this here discussion is mentally ill. And further than the statement to which you replied above, provided specific evidence of that psychosis. What is the evidence to which you referred you possessed prior to the statement to which you replied above, was made and what specific evidence was there in the relevant statement which 'proved your statement right'?

Now folks, please sit back and enjoy the silence, as Seabiscuitch fails to offer any sustaining facts or any viable reasoning which in ANYWAY supports a dam' thing she's said.

Enjoy...

(OH! And enjoy the looming effort to pretend this never happened and, where such is otherwise unavoidable, that the entire affair rests in sarcasm, which naturally, I am simply not bright enough to detect... or any of a host of deflections designed to avoid her being held accountable for her irrational and all too differing opinions with which I've so little tolerance, as indicated by my opposition to such.)

The irony is thick in your post.

Since this was your claim about Sea

It's YOU! You're a relativist... OKA: a sociopath.

Since you have stated you think that she is crazy.....rather ironic to whine about her pointing out your craziness.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What 'lies' did I tell... SPECIFICALLY?

To be precise, all of your posts are lies!

That you believe your own lies is why you are

But that is your problem.

Struggling with a weak vocabulary? Key word here: "SPECIFIC".

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted. But let's rub that in a little, by giving you another chance, shall we?

So, when I stated that Homosexuality deviates from the human biological standard, that was a lie?

When I said that marriage is the joining of one man and one wo-man, analogous to the sustainable coupling of the two complimenting genders; providing for the wellbeing of the female during gestation and a secure environment for the nurturing and training of offspring until they can be established as viable adults, having received a blue-print by which they can repeat the process, designed by nature as the means by which the species is propagated... THAT was a lie?

Where I said that the highest known instances of homosexuality are found in environments under the greatest stress... likely a reaction to the more intense competition for a mate, thus serving as a harbinger of societal stress. THAT WAS A LIE?

Now... that is fascinating.

Take each one and >specifically< define the edges of where the respective point of view crosses into deceit, then share with the room, the evidence within you knowledge resource, that ya used to conclude that I KNEW the information to be fraudulent, but advanced such as truth, in an attempt to deceive the readers of this board.

OR... pretend this didn't happen and concede that you're a liar, through your failure to do so.


THREE PITCHES IN THE AIR KIDS! Highest probability requires we're about to witness three WHIFFS!

And won't that be HYSTERICAL! (In every sense of the word... )

 

[BULLDOG]

Murder is the morally unjustified taking of a human life...

See... "The irrational intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself, particularly where those differing opinions are rooted in sound reasoning." (Bigotry) ON PARADE!

Pointing out the fact that you're lying and making insane, unfounded statements is not being 'intolerant.'

It's pointing out the fact that you're lying and making insane, unfounded statements.

Irony!

LOL! I love it... I truly can't get my fill of it. And nothing is more delicious than the ironies of the sweet variety.

What 'lies' did I tell... SPECIFICALLY?

Now, a "lie" is a deceit, advanced as a truth, where the purveyor KNOWING that such is false. This because the intention is to DECEIVE.

So far, on this thread, we have the cult (of which, you're a member) is claiming that homosexuality is normal human sexuality. This despite the irrefutable certainty that homosexuality deviates from the standard established by the intrinsic human biological design.

Now that's not even a debatable point, yet, you and the other members of the cult, demand that that indisputable fact be set aside, as a means to satisfy you own subjective needs.

Now... THAT is you advancing deceit, through fraudulent reasoning, as a means to influence the ignorant.

See how that works? As a means to help you understand what it looks like when liars and their subsequent lie, I offered up that example...

Now, here's the hard part... Produce an example of my having lied, or concede that you're demonstrating yourself lying AGAIN... through your failure to do so.

Ftr: Not a single one of the cult has managed to sustain so much as a single one of their feckless professions... and from that history, we can be all but certain that this clown will come up short as well and, for precisely the same reasons.

Well hello again there keys. I greatly appreciate all the laughter you provide on this board. Do you have some new crazy crap for me to laugh at today, or are you still on about the same crazy crap as before? I think your arguments would be much more convincing if you jumped up and down to make your jowls bounce while you type......You know.....like rush does.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... I think ...

Do you?


Well, now that is fascinatin'.

Tell me, how do you manage to so consistently leave absolutely no trace of such, in terms of evidence, that you've the slightest propensity for such?

Truly, this must be your gift... .

 

[BULLDOG]

... I think ...

Do you?


Well, now that is fascinatin'.

Tell me, how do you manage to so consistently leave absolutely no trace of such, in terms of evidence, that you've the slightest propensity for such?

Truly, this must be your gift... .

I'm impressed. You erased all my post except for two words which you then take out of context. Hannity would be proud. As you well know, I don't directly interact with crazies much more than a polite "hello" or the occasional "go away" when necessary, but by all means carry on, and I will just be over here in the corner laughing at you.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... I think ...

Do you?


Well, now that is fascinatin'.

Tell me, how do you manage to so consistently leave absolutely no trace of such, in terms of evidence, that you've the slightest propensity for such?

Truly, this must be your gift... .

I'm impressed. You erased all my post except for two words which you then take out of context. Hannity would be proud. As you well know, I don't directly interact with crazies much more than a polite "hello" or the occasional "go away" when necessary, but by all means carry on, and I will just be over here in the corner laughing at you.

ROFL!

Amazing!

How Do you do it? Not a TRACE... .

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Isn't the consistency of the Left to NEVER find the means to support a dam' thing they say, remarkable?

Lies and the liars that tell them: The Story of Relativism.

 

[Syriusly]

What 'lies' did I tell... SPECIFICALLY?

To be precise, all of your posts are lies!

That you believe your own lies is why you are

But that is your problem.

Struggling with a weak vocabulary? Key word here: "SPECIFIC".

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted. But let's rub that in a little, by giving you another chance, shall we?

So, when I stated that Homosexuality deviates from the human biological standard, that was a lie?

When I said that marriage is the joining of one man and one wo-man, analogous to the sustainable coupling of the two complimenting genders; providing for the wellbeing of the female during gestation and a secure environment for the nurturing and training of offspring until they can be established as viable adults, having received a blue-print by which they can repeat the process, designed by nature as the means by which the species is propagated... THAT was a lie?

Where I said that the highest known instances of homosexuality are found in environments under the greatest stress... likely a reaction to the more intense competition for a mate, thus serving as a harbinger of societal stress. THAT WAS A LIE?

Now... that is fascinating.

Take each one and >specifically< define the edges of where the respective point of view crosses into deceit, then share with the room, the evidence within you knowledge resource, that ya used to conclude that I KNEW the information to be fraudulent, but advanced such as truth, in an attempt to deceive the readers of this board.

OR... pretend this didn't happen and concede that you're a liar, through your failure to do so.


THREE PITCHES IN THE AIR KIDS! Highest probability requires we're about to witness three WHIFFS!

And won't that be HYSTERICAL! (In every sense of the word... )

More bat guano crazy talk.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well ... Once again... when the inevitable question comes: "Does anyone ever win one of these debates?", be sure to bookmark the link to this thread, so that you can show them what it looks like when it happens.

What you see above is what happens EVERY TIME good people stand up to evil.

 

[Syriusly]

What you see above is what happens EVERY TIME good people stand up to evil.

Thank you- I am glad you recognize that we are standing up to your evil.

 

[Seawytch]

What you see above is what happens EVERY TIME good people stand up to evil.

Thank you- I am glad you recognize that we are standing up to your evil.

Evil cannot be that ignorant.

 

[Noomi]

A magistrate in the state I live in refused to marry a gay couple even though homosexual marriage was just declared legal by the courts. So a couple of questions.
1 If a gay couple ask a conservative preacher to marry them can he site his religious beliefs and say no?
2 If the answer to question 1 is yes should a magistrate be able to say no because of his beliefs?
My only fear now that it is legal is that preachers are going to be forced into marrying them even though it is against his beliefs.

Your beliefs don't matter. You don't have the right to force your opinion on others.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What you see above is what happens EVERY TIME good people stand up to evil.

Thank you- I am glad you recognize that we are standing up to your evil.

Evil cannot be that ignorant.

Well you suggest otherwise, given you're inability to sustain your own public professions... .

Few things in humanity more adequately demonstrate ignorance, than that. And given that your professions demonstrate manifest evil... it turns out that evil is precisely 'that' ignorant.

But hey... absent ignorance and the deceit and fraud it takes to truly exploit it, where would evil be? Right?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

A magistrate in the state I live in refused to marry a gay couple even though homosexual marriage was just declared legal by the courts. So a couple of questions.
1 If a gay couple ask a conservative preacher to marry them can he site his religious beliefs and say no?
2 If the answer to question 1 is yes should a magistrate be able to say no because of his beliefs?
My only fear now that it is legal is that preachers are going to be forced into marrying them even though it is against his beliefs.

Your beliefs don't matter. You don't have the right to force your opinion on others.

LOL! Irony... ya gotta love it.

 

[LittleNipper]

The Bill of Rights recognizes God-given rights and limits the power of government from usurping the means of individuals to exercise their rights.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman...

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Marriage is one man and one woman. Nor is there any Superior Court case which says our Right to marriage is limited to a man and a woman.

The Supreme Court had an opportunity to make that decision.

Instead they left stand the Federal Courts decision that the right of marriage applies equally to a couple consisting of two people of the same gender.

What your opinion is regarding what marriage is- or is not- ultimately is meaningless.

10 states and the District of Columbia have recognized that the right of marriage extends to same gender couples.
Some additional 20 states have had courts recognize that the right of marriage extends to same gender couples.

But don't worry- no one will force you to 'gay marry'- or even force you to attend a wedding you don't approve of.

Of course "Gay Marriage" might well harm your marriage...........

Gay marriage does more than harm other marriages. It injects a poison into the entire culture.

What harm do other marriages cause?
Who has died because of gay marriage?
How have you been personally harmed by two persons of the same gender marrying?

It seems to me that Sodom, Gomorrah, and a few other cities were eventually destroyed as a result of their view of sex and marriage. And it seems to me that when the Nazis began running for office, not just a few Jews imagined that everything would be okay and that they had nothing to fear --- given the fact of their heroics during the Great World War and nationalism. And I have not been personally harmed by the institution of gay marriage, but who is to say how those who disagree will be treated in the near future simply for their beliefs...

Great that you mentioned the Nazi's- who specifically selected homosexuals for discrimination and concentration camps.

Feel free to prove that ANY city, ever, has been destroyed as a result of their view of sex and marriage.

Personally I have never been harmed by Christians, but that doesn't mean I should assume that I will be mistreated by Christians in the future- simply because of my beliefs.

The story concerning Lot is found in the Bible. Feel free to prove that the histories found in other historic books is not fiction . As for the Nazis, it has been recorded that the Gestapo had not just a few who practiced sadism and homosexual acts on prisoners. Being labeled a homosexual in a concentration camp did not necessary mean that one was. It was just as likely to make that one a target of those who where. I do believe that such a time will come again as deviants gain an upper hand in society.

 

[Syriusly]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Marriage is one man and one woman. Nor is there any Superior Court case which says our Right to marriage is limited to a man and a woman.

The Supreme Court had an opportunity to make that decision.

Instead they left stand the Federal Courts decision that the right of marriage applies equally to a couple consisting of two people of the same gender.

What your opinion is regarding what marriage is- or is not- ultimately is meaningless.

10 states and the District of Columbia have recognized that the right of marriage extends to same gender couples.
Some additional 20 states have had courts recognize that the right of marriage extends to same gender couples.

But don't worry- no one will force you to 'gay marry'- or even force you to attend a wedding you don't approve of.

Of course "Gay Marriage" might well harm your marriage...........

Gay marriage does more than harm other marriages. It injects a poison into the entire culture.

What harm do other marriages cause?
Who has died because of gay marriage?
How have you been personally harmed by two persons of the same gender marrying?

It seems to me that Sodom, Gomorrah, and a few other cities were eventually destroyed as a result of their view of sex and marriage. And it seems to me that when the Nazis began running for office, not just a few Jews imagined that everything would be okay and that they had nothing to fear --- given the fact of their heroics during the Great World War and nationalism. And I have not been personally harmed by the institution of gay marriage, but who is to say how those who disagree will be treated in the near future simply for their beliefs...

Great that you mentioned the Nazi's- who specifically selected homosexuals for discrimination and concentration camps.

Feel free to prove that ANY city, ever, has been destroyed as a result of their view of sex and marriage.

Personally I have never been harmed by Christians, but that doesn't mean I should assume that I will be mistreated by Christians in the future- simply because of my beliefs.

The story concerning Lot is found in the Bible. Feel free to prove that the histories found in other historic books is not fiction . As for the Nazis, it has been recorded that the Gestapo had not just a few who practiced sadism and homosexual acts on prisoners. Being labeled a homosexual in a concentration camp did not necessary mean that one was. It was just as likely to make that one a target of those who where. I do believe that such a time will come again as deviants gain an upper hand in society.

The Bible is not a history book.

The Gestapo had quite a few sadists who raped women.

The Nazi's targeted homosexuals for imprisonment- and death.

If the homophobic deviants gain an upper hand in society, I am sure that the homophobic deviants would be rounding up homosexuals and jews again, for 'special treatment'.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Marriage is one man and one woman. Nor is there any Superior Court case which says our Right to marriage is limited to a man and a woman.

The Supreme Court had an opportunity to make that decision.

Instead they left stand the Federal Courts decision that the right of marriage applies equally to a couple consisting of two people of the same gender.

What your opinion is regarding what marriage is- or is not- ultimately is meaningless.

10 states and the District of Columbia have recognized that the right of marriage extends to same gender couples.
Some additional 20 states have had courts recognize that the right of marriage extends to same gender couples.

But don't worry- no one will force you to 'gay marry'- or even force you to attend a wedding you don't approve of.

Of course "Gay Marriage" might well harm your marriage...........

Gay marriage does more than harm other marriages. It injects a poison into the entire culture.

What harm do other marriages cause?
Who has died because of gay marriage?
How have you been personally harmed by two persons of the same gender marrying?

It seems to me that Sodom, Gomorrah, and a few other cities were eventually destroyed as a result of their view of sex and marriage. And it seems to me that when the Nazis began running for office, not just a few Jews imagined that everything would be okay and that they had nothing to fear --- given the fact of their heroics during the Great World War and nationalism. And I have not been personally harmed by the institution of gay marriage, but who is to say how those who disagree will be treated in the near future simply for their beliefs...

Great that you mentioned the Nazi's- who specifically selected homosexuals for discrimination and concentration camps.

Feel free to prove that ANY city, ever, has been destroyed as a result of their view of sex and marriage.

Personally I have never been harmed by Christians, but that doesn't mean I should assume that I will be mistreated by Christians in the future- simply because of my beliefs.

The story concerning Lot is found in the Bible. Feel free to prove that the histories found in other historic books is not fiction . As for the Nazis, it has been recorded that the Gestapo had not just a few who practiced sadism and homosexual acts on prisoners. Being labeled a homosexual in a concentration camp did not necessary mean that one was. It was just as likely to make that one a target of those who where. I do believe that such a time will come again as deviants gain an upper hand in society.

The Nazis were the manifestation of pure evil. Many of not most of the NAZIS hierarchy were homosexuals, including Histler himself. All of which serves reason in that homosexuality doesn't just deviate from the human physiological normality, it is the pure antithesis of normal human sexual physiology; meaning that it is impossible for a human being to stray farther from human sexual normality, than homosexuality; homosexuality is quite literally the INVERSE of human sexuality. This, of course, standing contrary to the current whimsy of western pop-culture, which holds that homosexuality is otherwise perfectly normal.

It is through this fact, and the mass-delusion that such represents, that we can know the 'evil' that such truly represents.

The human mind is designed to calculate for 'truth'. Where it comes to a state where it rejects that which is otherwise obviously true, we can be certain that the mind is infected with, or is otherwise experiencing a serious issue which represents nothing short of a defect, which prohibits it from working 'normally'.

Now while a function of semantics, we can either conclude that there is a natural force which rejects that which is good, this force we call 'evil', or we can conclude that such dissonance is environmental.

The net result is the same... as both will lead to no good, producing chaos, calamity and catastrophe.

In the book: The Population Bomb, the authors report the findings of their years of research, wherein mammals were placed within fixed environments. There was plenty of food, plenty of room and life was generally good for all subjects, who went about their lives as do all mammals, tending to their fundamental needs of food, shelter and procreation. Over time, as the population increased, the static environment became insufficient in terms of space and food.

In every one of their repeated experiments, as the environmental resources became less sufficient, three events came to pass.

The First:

A growing percentage of the study population came to develop a sense of entitlement to the property which had been otherwise secured by and readily attributable to other subject individuals.

The Second:

Instances of Homosexuality, exploded... .

The Third"

Mass-Insanity... wherein at a point, beyond the first two, as the collective angst grew, eventually causing the culture to split into opposing factions; wherein those experiencing the sense of entitlement, demonstrated through the open theft of the property of others, aligned with the homosexual faction... at some point, the joined factions, in one of the random attacks upon a member of the 'normal' faction, ignited an explosive free for all of mayhem and death, wherein the normal subject faction instantly turned on the abnormal group in unbridled carnage. Inexplicably, previously undocumented behaviors such a cannibalism, wherein the homosexual and socialist subjects were literally eaten alive... continuing unabated until the population was returned to that which provided for viability.


In the wake of the carnage was observed to be no presence of any sense of entitlement or homosexuality and such did not return until the angst of environmental stress returned.

Such traits eventually came to be understood as harbingers of a massive, albeit a wholly natural correction of the society, resetting such to a state of viability within its static environment.

From this, we can know that what we see in the insanity of large segments of people exhibiting the observed traits of the harbinger, through their otherwise inexplicable irrationality, is the indication that the World is about to again launch into the free for all which we have come to know as "World War".

(It should be noted here that Islam presents the entitlement sense... and such is born out through its inexplicable alliance with the Ideological Left, which is aligned with the homosexuals, who Islam has absolutely no tolerance... thus the alliances are exclusionary from reason, except where they both seek to dominate the normal faction...)

Such is obviously different in terms of its execution, than that demonstrated by lower-species, but in terms of the outlined, overriding traits, there appears to be little distinction.

What's more, in terms of efficacy, with the first WW and second WW, only having provided for 30 then 70 years of respective abated stress, my guess given the scope of the observed afflictions of such vast populations; being subject to such deep psychosis, this next one is going to be beyond the means of most, if not all of us, to imagine. My guess is that where the former corrections produced reductions in human population of only minor percentages, this next one, coming I believe within a few years, will be many orders of magnitude larger. Likely providing for the survival of only a minor percentage of the species... we're talking a massive correction, on a Biblical scale.

Which, also serves reason, given that what we are clearly seeing here is the return of "OLD TESTAMENT" evil...