J.D Hayworth: Gay Marriage will lead to Men Marrying Horses

[☭proletarian☭]

why bother Martin, I'm sure it was Fair and Balanced coming from Pmsnbc and that Progressive talking head with her high edumacation in politics, Rachel Maddow.

What does it say about you, that you attack people for being educated?

LOL, so that is what you call an "attack" making a comment on her "supposed high education" whooboy

'Supposed high education'? She's a doctor. Are you a doctor?

Dr. Rachel Maddow or Stephanie the partisan hack? Who's more credible?

How about actually proving her wrong on something instead of simply attacking your superiors?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Here's the thing though, they're lying when they're talking about 'mutually consensual relationships'. And since that's easy to spot they most likely won't be given marriage or legalization.

I know they're lying. However, you're deluded if you really think, "But this is so clear, no one will ever fall for it." They adopted this rhetoric for the exact same reason the gay lobby adopted it from the civil rights movement: it works. Especially in a society that, more and more, actually prides itself on NOT having a strong moral compass.

 

[Stephanie]

What does it say about you, that you attack people for being educated?

LOL, so that is what you call an "attack" making a comment on her "supposed high education" whooboy

'Supposed high education'? She's a doctor. Are you a doctor?

Dr. Rachel Maddow or Stephanie the partisan hack? Who's more credible?

How about actually proving her wrong on something instead of simply attacking your superiors?

Oh my, that Doctor in front of her name surly make her more Impotent. I mean important.

 

[Father Time]

Here's the thing though, they're lying when they're talking about 'mutually consensual relationships'. And since that's easy to spot they most likely won't be given marriage or legalization.

I know they're lying. However, you're deluded if you really think, "But this is so clear, no one will ever fall for it." They adopted this rhetoric for the exact same reason the gay lobby adopted it from the civil rights movement: it works. Especially in a society that, more and more, actually prides itself on NOT having a strong moral compass.

It works because it's accurate. You really think people will all of a sudden forget that pedo relationships aren't consensual and can't be?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

LOL, so that is what you call an "attack" making a comment on her "supposed high education" whooboy

'Supposed high education'? She's a doctor. Are you a doctor?

Dr. Rachel Maddow or Stephanie the partisan hack? Who's more credible?

How about actually proving her wrong on something instead of simply attacking your superiors?

Oh my, that Doctor in front of her name surly make her more Impotent. I mean important.

Case in point: you can't prove her wrong about anything and your only recourse is to attack your superiors in order to feel better about yourself. People like you, who wear your ignorance with pride, are what's wrong with this country.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Here's the thing though, they're lying when they're talking about 'mutually consensual relationships'. And since that's easy to spot they most likely won't be given marriage or legalization.

I know they're lying. However, you're deluded if you really think, "But this is so clear, no one will ever fall for it." They adopted this rhetoric for the exact same reason the gay lobby adopted it from the civil rights movement: it works. Especially in a society that, more and more, actually prides itself on NOT having a strong moral compass.

It works because it's accurate. You really think people will all of a sudden forget that pedo relationships aren't consensual and can't be?

Sure. They forgot that the homosexual community isn't just like the hetero one. They forgot that abortion is the killing of a living baby. People can be persuaded to forget all sorts of things if you just phrase it right. Take a marketing class sometime. It's absolutely frightening, how easily manipulated people are by the right words.

Anyway, dear, the point was that Gadawg was oblivious to the fact that the pedophile fringe uses the same language the homosexual activists do, and needed it demonstrated to him. Whether or not I think it will work for him is irrelevant to the point.

 

[Stephanie]

'Supposed high education'? She's a doctor. Are you a doctor?

Dr. Rachel Maddow or Stephanie the partisan hack? Who's more credible?

How about actually proving her wrong on something instead of simply attacking your superiors?

Oh my, that Doctor in front of her name surly make her more Impotent. I mean important.

Case in point: you can't prove her wrong about anything and your only recourse is to attack your superiors in order to feel better about yourself. People like you, who wear your ignorance with pride, are what's wrong with this country.

I have no SUPERIORS. Too old for that one..
MAYBE YOU DO. but that is ok too.

 

[The Rabbi]

Here's the thing though, they're lying when they're talking about 'mutually consensual relationships'. And since that's easy to spot they most likely won't be given marriage or legalization.

Why are they lying?
And when you say they most likely won't be given marriage or legalization, you realize people used to say the same about gay marriage and sodomy.
Currently the age of consent is 18. But why 18? In other countries it's different. Why pick some random number when everyone knows people mature at different ages.
There are any number of arguments that can be used to justify almost anything. Gay marriage is just another example.

 

[bodecea]

LOL, so that is what you call an "attack" making a comment on her "supposed high education" whooboy

'Supposed high education'? She's a doctor. Are you a doctor?

Dr. Rachel Maddow or Stephanie the partisan hack? Who's more credible?

How about actually proving her wrong on something instead of simply attacking your superiors?

Oh my, that Doctor in front of her name surly make her more Impotent. I mean important.

You probably hate that Rhodes Scholar thing too. I'm always amused at the sniping of the uninformed and intentionally ignorant at those who use their brains to succeed in life.

 

[bodecea]

I know they're lying. However, you're deluded if you really think, "But this is so clear, no one will ever fall for it." They adopted this rhetoric for the exact same reason the gay lobby adopted it from the civil rights movement: it works. Especially in a society that, more and more, actually prides itself on NOT having a strong moral compass.

It works because it's accurate. You really think people will all of a sudden forget that pedo relationships aren't consensual and can't be?

Sure. They forgot that the homosexual community isn't just like the hetero one. They forgot that abortion is the killing of a living baby. People can be persuaded to forget all sorts of things if you just phrase it right. Take a marketing class sometime. It's absolutely frightening, how easily manipulated people are by the right words.

Anyway, dear, the point was that Gadawg was oblivious to the fact that the pedophile fringe uses the same language the homosexual activists do, and needed it demonstrated to him. Whether or not I think it will work for him is irrelevant to the point.

The pedophiles are owned lock stock and barrel by the heterosexual community. But I can understand you're wanting to ignore that FACT.

 

[bodecea]

Here's the thing though, they're lying when they're talking about 'mutually consensual relationships'. And since that's easy to spot they most likely won't be given marriage or legalization.

Why are they lying?
And when you say they most likely won't be given marriage or legalization, you realize people used to say the same about gay marriage and sodomy.
Currently the age of consent is 18. But why 18? In other countries it's different. Why pick some random number when everyone knows people mature at different ages.
There are any number of arguments that can be used to justify almost anything. Gay marriage is just another example.

Most states, the age of consent is 16....tho I agree it should be 18.

Ages of consent in North America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Stephanie]

'Supposed high education'? She's a doctor. Are you a doctor?

Dr. Rachel Maddow or Stephanie the partisan hack? Who's more credible?

How about actually proving her wrong on something instead of simply attacking your superiors?

Oh my, that Doctor in front of her name surly make her more Impotent. I mean important.

You probably hate that Rhodes Scholar thing too. I'm always amused at the sniping of the uninformed and intentionally ignorant at those who use their brains to succeed in life.

LOL, we see where being a Rhodes Scholar got Billy boy Clinton I didn't have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky, didn't we.
So no, it doesn't "impress" me a whole lot.

 

[beowolfe]

God these people are stupid!!!

 

[AvgGuyIA]

YouTube - J.D. Hayworth Compares Gay Marriage To Bestiality

And to top it all off, a "Conservative" is supporting a Federal Amendment in taking a personal freedom away from others. Oh, the irony.

He was simply making an analogy pertaining to the ambiguity of the law in question, and how some people could go to extremes, as to their interpretation of the law. He was not personally saying it would lead to such. The 40 second soundbyte is really easy to understand in proper context, if one cares about context.

Another STUPID moron gullible enough to swallow the assumption that JD Hayseed or any other CON$ervaTard would ever under any circumstances quote anything accurately.

When a CON$ervoFascist says something is "ambiguous" you can be certain it is quite specific. The law clearly says intimacy between one person and "another" person of the same sex.

Goodridge v. Mass. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003). Massachusetts' "gay marriage" decision. "Barred access to the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions. That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law."

Isn't a bull elephant, a bull and a human man all the same sex? Male? The law seems to suggest that only one needs to be a person. Massachusetts should not try to write a law that specifically gives the right to marry to homosexuals. Why don't they write an amendment that says their Massachusetts citizens must be treated equally under the laws of the Commonwealth like Iowa has?

 

[AllieBaba]

'Supposed high education'? She's a doctor. Are you a doctor?

Dr. Rachel Maddow or Stephanie the partisan hack? Who's more credible?

How about actually proving her wrong on something instead of simply attacking your superiors?

Oh my, that Doctor in front of her name surly make her more Impotent. I mean important.

You probably hate that Rhodes Scholar thing too. I'm always amused at the sniping of the uninformed and intentionally ignorant at those who use their brains to succeed in life.

Oh yawn. My ex is a Rhodes scholar and I wouldn't call him a success.

 

[AllieBaba]

Not only that, he was chosen as a Rhodes scholar 40 some years ago....and it was the last really phenomenol thing he did, other than developing his mother's land inheritance and selling it off.

 

[Ravi]

yes, cause adults never mess with children or animals do they?

What the fuck are you babbling about?

I think she means that allowing gays to marry will increase the likelihood of conservatives acting out their bestial fantasies.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

why bother Martin, I'm sure it was Fair and Balanced coming from Pmsnbc and that Progressive talking head with her high edumacation in politics, Rachel Maddow.

What does it say about you, that you attack people for being educated?

They love ignorance, and wear it like a badge of honor. They support Palin who is as stupid as a box of rocks, and has said that dinosaurs and men walked the earth together a few thousand years ago.

Got a link? Better still make it a video clip; anyone can make up a statement in a blog.

 

[The Rabbi]

Oh my, that Doctor in front of her name surly make her more Impotent. I mean important.

You probably hate that Rhodes Scholar thing too. I'm always amused at the sniping of the uninformed and intentionally ignorant at those who use their brains to succeed in life.

Oh yawn. My ex is a Rhodes scholar and I wouldn't call him a success.

When I was at Oxford I met several Rhodes Scholars. They were singularly unimpressive. The Fulbright Scholars though were pretty smart guys and gals.

 

[del]

He was simply making an analogy pertaining to the ambiguity of the law in question, and how some people could go to extremes, as to their interpretation of the law. He was not personally saying it would lead to such. The 40 second soundbyte is really easy to understand in proper context, if one cares about context.

Another STUPID moron gullible enough to swallow the assumption that JD Hayseed or any other CON$ervaTard would ever under any circumstances quote anything accurately.

When a CON$ervoFascist says something is "ambiguous" you can be certain it is quite specific. The law clearly says intimacy between one person and "another" person of the same sex.

Goodridge v. Mass. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003). Massachusetts' "gay marriage" decision. "Barred access to the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions. That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law."

Isn't a bull elephant, a bull and a human man all the same sex? Male? The law seems to suggest that only one needs to be a person. Massachusetts should not try to write a law that specifically gives the right to marry to homosexuals. Why don't they write an amendment that says their Massachusetts citizens must be treated equally under the laws of the Commonwealth like Iowa has?

because it was already in the mass constitution.
Massachusetts Constitution

Article CVI. Article I of Part the First of the Constitution is hereby annulled and the following is adopted:-

All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin


are you intentionally obtuse or just not particularly bright?