This LGBTQ pronoun video will boil your blood LOL

[tyroneweaver]

U R either XX or XY. No way around it

tyroneweaver
What about people with an extra chromosome?

you seam to be the authority on it.

 

[Montrovant]

U R either XX or XY. No way around it

tyroneweaver
What about people with an extra chromosome?

you seam to be the authority on it.

Bringing it up makes her the authority?

 

[emilynghiem]

U R either XX or XY. No way around it

tyroneweaver
What about people with an extra chromosome?

you seam to be the authority on it.

Bringing it up makes her the authority?

Dear Montrovant
I think tyroneweaver was trying to say I must be one of the retards on here.
So I guess that makes tyroneweaver the authority on the subject.
Takes one to know one???

 

[bodecea]

This isn't what makes people like the OP so upset? Pronouns?

Homophobes seem to love playing the victim card. Otherwise why would they even care and comment?

And they call US snowflakes.......pronouns terrify them....

 

[bodecea]

Homosexuals need special rights to marry someone of the same sex. Because liberal intellectuals say so. Oh yeah, it's special rights. What is next? Polygamy? Pedophilia? Sure you think this is paranoia.Were do we draw the line NEXT time? And who's to say?

What are those "special rights" you are referring to?

 

[emilynghiem]

Homosexuals need special rights to marry someone of the same sex. Because liberal intellectuals say so. Oh yeah, it's special rights. What is next? Polygamy? Pedophilia? Sure you think this is paranoia.Were do we draw the line NEXT time? And who's to say?

What are those "special rights" you are referring to?

Hi bodecea:
Some special exceptions I notice
1. Since LGBT beliefs are faith based and not proven by science , imposing one side's beliefs and biases through govt while penalizing others for their beliefs that are equally faith based shows favoritism, in violation of equal protections from discrimination by Creed and first and Fourteenth amendment rights. It is equally wrong to discriminate against ppl regardless of beliefs regarding LGBT expression and practice including marriage beliefs.
2. Establishing a political belief such as belief in marriage as a right (as opposed to a belief under free exercise of religion) through "judicial ruling" as opposed to passing laws through legislative or Constitutional process of amendment ALSO shows bias or favoritism toward BELIEFS instead of govt being neutral and relegating matters to the people to decide as a personal matter outside govt jurisdiction
3. In general demanding that govt endorse the Creed or belief in treating LGBT as a "protected class", instead of recognizing beliefs on both sides equally as the free choice of individuals to accept or reject without harassment judgment or penalty SHOWS a faith based bias. That's fine for any person or group to have their own faith based bias, but wrongful and abusive to impose their bias through govt at the expense of equal free choice of others to believe what they believe as well.

What's wrong for Christian's to do by imposing their beliefs and biases through govt is equally wrong for liberal activists to do with LGBT beliefs that are also faith based. Otherwise if govt endorses one side, in this case defending LGBT beliefs above others instead of protecting them equally from imposition or infringement , that's discriminating by Creed and no longer neutral. All beliefs should be defended equally under law instead of govt endorsing one belief as a right while penalizing other beliefs .

 

[Montrovant]

Homosexuals need special rights to marry someone of the same sex. Because liberal intellectuals say so. Oh yeah, it's special rights. What is next? Polygamy? Pedophilia? Sure you think this is paranoia.Were do we draw the line NEXT time? And who's to say?

What are those "special rights" you are referring to?

Hi bodecea:
Some special exceptions I notice
1. Since LGBT beliefs are faith based and not proven by science , imposing one side's beliefs and biases through govt while penalizing others for their beliefs that are equally faith based shows favoritism, in violation of equal protections from discrimination by Creed and first and Fourteenth amendment rights. It is equally wrong to discriminate against ppl regardless of beliefs regarding LGBT expression and practice including marriage beliefs.
2. Establishing a political belief such as belief in marriage as a right (as opposed to a belief under free exercise of religion) through "judicial ruling" as opposed to passing laws through legislative or Constitutional process of amendment ALSO shows bias or favoritism toward BELIEFS instead of govt being neutral and relegating matters to the people to decide as a personal matter outside govt jurisdiction
3. In general demanding that govt endorse the Creed or belief in treating LGBT as a "protected class", instead of recognizing beliefs on both sides equally as the free choice of individuals to accept or reject without harassment judgment or penalty SHOWS a faith based bias. That's fine for any person or group to have their own faith based bias, but wrongful and abusive to impose their bias through govt at the expense of equal free choice of others to believe what they believe as well.

What's wrong for Christian's to do by imposing their beliefs and biases through govt is equally wrong for liberal activists to do with LGBT beliefs that are also faith based. Otherwise if govt endorses one side, in this case defending LGBT beliefs above others instead of protecting them equally from imposition or infringement , that's discriminating by Creed and no longer neutral. All beliefs should be defended equally under law instead of govt endorsing one belief as a right while penalizing other beliefs .

What beliefs are you talking about?

 

[jillian]

Homosexuals need special rights to marry someone of the same sex. Because liberal intellectuals say so. Oh yeah, it's special rights. What is next? Polygamy? Pedophilia? Sure you think this is paranoia.Were do we draw the line NEXT time? And who's to say?

What are those "special rights" you are referring to?

Hi bodecea:
Some special exceptions I notice
1. Since LGBT beliefs are faith based and not proven by science , imposing one side's beliefs and biases through govt while penalizing others for their beliefs that are equally faith based shows favoritism, in violation of equal protections from discrimination by Creed and first and Fourteenth amendment rights. It is equally wrong to discriminate against ppl regardless of beliefs regarding LGBT expression and practice including marriage beliefs.
2. Establishing a political belief such as belief in marriage as a right (as opposed to a belief under free exercise of religion) through "judicial ruling" as opposed to passing laws through legislative or Constitutional process of amendment ALSO shows bias or favoritism toward BELIEFS instead of govt being neutral and relegating matters to the people to decide as a personal matter outside govt jurisdiction
3. In general demanding that govt endorse the Creed or belief in treating LGBT as a "protected class", instead of recognizing beliefs on both sides equally as the free choice of individuals to accept or reject without harassment judgment or penalty SHOWS a faith based bias. That's fine for any person or group to have their own faith based bias, but wrongful and abusive to impose their bias through govt at the expense of equal free choice of others to believe what they believe as well.

What's wrong for Christian's to do by imposing their beliefs and biases through govt is equally wrong for liberal activists to do with LGBT beliefs that are also faith based. Otherwise if govt endorses one side, in this case defending LGBT beliefs above others instead of protecting them equally from imposition or infringement , that's discriminating by Creed and no longer neutral. All beliefs should be defended equally under law instead of govt endorsing one belief as a right while penalizing other beliefs .

this is a secular country and the first amendment prevents you from imposing your religious beliefs on the rest of us. My beliefs can't be defended if you and your fellow religious zealots keep shoving your beliefs down our throat.

how about you just follow your own belief system and leave everyone else alone.

 

[MaryL]

I AM A

God I hate being a liberal sometimes, but then homosexuality is a glorified sexual dysfunction that I recognize. Yep. Right up there with schizophrenia, it's real too. Doesn't mean we have to validate their delusions, either. Sorry kiddos.

Do you think schizophrenia is a glorified sexual dysfunction?

Homosexuals need special rights to marry someone of the same sex. Because liberal intellectuals say so. Oh yeah, it's special rights. What is next? Polygamy? Pedophilia? Sure you think this is paranoia.Were do we draw the line NEXT time? And who's to say?

What are those "special rights" you are referring to?

We as Americans all had the same rights. BUT...Nothing in the constitution guarantees homosexuals the right to marry. Those are "special rights" above and beyond anything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution . And no mention of sexual preference. We all have the same rights, but that wasn't enough. I think it was.

 

[Montrovant]

I AM A

God I hate being a liberal sometimes, but then homosexuality is a glorified sexual dysfunction that I recognize. Yep. Right up there with schizophrenia, it's real too. Doesn't mean we have to validate their delusions, either. Sorry kiddos.

Do you think schizophrenia is a glorified sexual dysfunction?

Homosexuals need special rights to marry someone of the same sex. Because liberal intellectuals say so. Oh yeah, it's special rights. What is next? Polygamy? Pedophilia? Sure you think this is paranoia.Were do we draw the line NEXT time? And who's to say?

What are those "special rights" you are referring to?

We as Americans all had the same rights. BUT...Nothing in the constitution guarantees homosexuals the right to marry. Those are "special rights" above and beyond anything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution . And no mention of sexual preference. We all have the same rights, but that wasn't enough. I think it was.

Is anyone specifically guaranteed the right to marriage in the Constitution?

 

[MaryL]

Well, jolly good, the Constitution implies heterosexually given the times it was created. Gays then as now have the right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness . Marriage, not guaranteed. That's matter of interpretation some of us don't share.

 

[Montrovant]

Well, jolly good, the Constitution implies heterosexually given the times it was created. Gays then as now have the right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness . Marriage, not guaranteed. That's matter of interpretation some of us don't share.

You sure went quickly from things "specifically mentioned in the Constitution" to "the Constitution implies."

 

[MaryL]

Then correct me, then. We all have constitutional rights,but someone is fine tuning that to fit their needs. Homosexuality and gay marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution specifically, anymore than is polygamy or bestiality.

 

[Montrovant]

Then correct me, then. We all have constitutional rights,but someone is fine tuning that to fit their needs. Homosexuality and gay marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution specifically, anymore than is polygamy or bestiality.

Heterosexual marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution specifically, either.

However, the Supreme Court has described marriage as being a fundamental right. 14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

What do you know? Things can be Constitutionally protected without being explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.