What is wrong with being gay exactly?

[NYcarbineer]

The Framers felt the need to expressly make it clear that the Government was not to infringe on the right of the people's right to practice their Religion.......and yet the Left screams that Gay people's "rights" are superior to Religious people's "rights".

So you think a revival of the religion of the Aztecs could legalize human sacrifice in the US?

Prove it.

 

[Jeremiah Johnson]

You have an odd delusion that you can bully me.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted Gilligan.

As always, you did the very best you can... .

Cite ONE harm to society that occurs when two women have sex.

There is no harm involved.

Why does their sex life warrant special rights?

Rights that they feel must be super imposed the rights of others.....

They don't want special rights.

Of course they do.

They demand that their "rights" supercede the "rights" of those who disagree with them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They don't want special rights.

Nonsense... the Advocacy to Normalize the Mental Disorder that presents as Sexual Deviancy, is demanding the right to participate in institutions for which they are entirely unsuited.

That is the definition of special... .

Deviancy is actually a constitutional right so long as it doesn't harm others.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Framers felt the need to expressly make it clear that the Government was not to infringe on the right of the people's right to practice their Religion.......and yet the Left screams that Gay people's "rights" are superior to Religious people's "rights".

So you think a revival of the religion of the Aztecs could legalize human sacrifice in the US?

Prove it.

ROFLMNAO!

More straw reasoning from this board's most profound fool.

LOL! You can NOT make this crap up.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

They don't want special rights.

Nonsense... the Advocacy to Normalize the Mental Disorder that presents as Sexual Deviancy, is demanding the right to participate in institutions for which they are entirely unsuited.

That is the definition of special... .

Deviancy is actually a constitutional right so long as it doesn't harm others.

The Constitution does not protect deviancy Gilligan.

As deviancy is inherently harmful to everyone.

 

[Jeremiah Johnson]

The Framers felt the need to expressly make it clear that the Government was not to infringe on the right of the people's right to practice their Religion.......and yet the Left screams that Gay people's "rights" are superior to Religious people's "rights".

So you think a revival of the religion of the Aztecs could legalize human sacrifice in the US?

Prove it.

Do you always go to the illogical extreme?

Does that usually work or you?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Framers felt the need to expressly make it clear that the Government was not to infringe on the right of the people's right to practice their Religion.......and yet the Left screams that Gay people's "rights" are superior to Religious people's "rights".

So you think a revival of the religion of the Aztecs could legalize human sacrifice in the US?

Prove it.

Do you always go to the illogical extreme?

Does that usually work or you?

That's not the illogical extreme... that's just a common garden variety demonstration of the mental disorder that presents as sexual deviancy.

And its never 'worked' for anyone.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You have an odd delusion that you can bully me.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted Gilligan.

As always, you did the very best you can... .

Cite ONE harm to society that occurs when two women have sex.

There is no harm involved.

Why does their sex life warrant special rights?

Rights that they feel must be super imposed the rights of others.....

They don't want special rights.

Of course they do.

They demand that their "rights" supercede the "rights" of those who disagree with them.

So when the slaves were freed they were given 'special' rights that 'superseded' those who disagreed with them?

Goddam, you've caught Where are my Keys disease.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So when the slaves were freed they were given 'special' rights that 'superseded' those who disagreed with them?

Goddam, you've caught Where are my Keys disease.

Slaves were not exhibiting DEVIANT BEHAVIOR Gilligan.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Framers felt the need to expressly make it clear that the Government was not to infringe on the right of the people's right to practice their Religion.......and yet the Left screams that Gay people's "rights" are superior to Religious people's "rights".

So you think a revival of the religion of the Aztecs could legalize human sacrifice in the US?

Prove it.

Do you always go to the illogical extreme?

Does that usually work or you?

That's not illogical. You're the one who claimed, unequivocally without reservation, that religious rights were superior.

So defend your claim.

Why is there no chance a religious practice of human sacrifice could ever use the 1st amendment to establish itself as a RIGHT?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So when the slaves were freed they were given 'special' rights that 'superseded' those who disagreed with them?

Goddam, you've caught Where are my Keys disease.

Slaves were not exhibiting DEVIANT BEHAVIOR Gilligan.

Deviant behavior - as you call it - is constitutional.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Framers felt the need to expressly make it clear that the Government was not to infringe on the right of the people's right to practice their Religion.......and yet the Left screams that Gay people's "rights" are superior to Religious people's "rights".

So you think a revival of the religion of the Aztecs could legalize human sacrifice in the US?

Prove it.

Do you always go to the illogical extreme?

Does that usually work or you?

That's not the illogical extreme... that's just a common garden variety demonstration of the mental disorder that presents as sexual deviancy.

And its never 'worked' for anyone.

So you concede that the 1st amendment does not protect the actions of a religion that infringe on the rights of others?

Good.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Framers felt the need to expressly make it clear that the Government was not to infringe on the right of the people's right to practice their Religion.......and yet the Left screams that Gay people's "rights" are superior to Religious people's "rights".

So you think a revival of the religion of the Aztecs could legalize human sacrifice in the US?

Prove it.

Do you always go to the illogical extreme?

Does that usually work or you?

That's not illogical.

It's straw reasoning Gilligan and it's been designated as 'illogical' for 3000 years, as a result of the human observation of the laws of nature that govern human reasoning.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So when the slaves were freed they were given 'special' rights that 'superseded' those who disagreed with them?

Goddam, you've caught Where are my Keys disease.

Slaves were not exhibiting DEVIANT BEHAVIOR Gilligan.

Deviant behavior - as you call it - is constitutional.

No Gilligan, it's not. You 'feel' strongly that it is... but you've no means to sustain your 'feelings', thus such is merely a manifestation of the same mental disorder that presents as sexual deviancy.

You see you demand that such is true, where such is literally and inarguably false.

Where you are able to convince someone else of that drivel, you take the injury to yourself... and transmit it to another, proving that such is destructive.

Where such is transmitted to sufficient members of the culture, this makes it entirely unlikely that the culture will be capable of sustaining itself, and this by virtue of the culture's collective inability to discern the distinction between right and wrong. Thus their collective decisions, are likely to be flawed and where one strings together sufficient numbers of flawed decisions, one destroys their viability.

Such is as true for individuals as it is for the sum of individuals, OKA: The Culture, Society, Civilization.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So you concede that the 1st amendment does not protect the actions of a religion that infringe on the rights of others?

Good.

More straw reasoning, despite being informed that such is not real...

Now what THAT demonstrates Gilligan is an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder, which is otherwise known as DELUSION.

It is THAT mental disorder that manifests as sexual deviancy... among other things, Left-think being among the more notable irrational notions.

Understand Gilligan, there is nothing in the first amendment which provides a right to mislead other people.

As you've been repeatedly informed, for a right to exist, there MUST BE correlating RESPONSIBILITIES... not the least of which is that the right must be recognized in everyone and that one not exercise the right to the detriment of another's means to exercise their own right.

When you sell this straw drivel, you are representing what is FALSE as TRUTH. Where it lands on someone who is incapable of knowing that it is false, you injure that individual through your own delusion, being accepted as truth.

This damages their means to make sound decisions and you have no right to so damage anyone.

And this without regard to what you 'believe', or how vehemently you believe it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Framers felt the need to expressly make it clear that the Government was not to infringe on the right of the people's right to practice their Religion.......and yet the Left screams that Gay people's "rights" are superior to Religious people's "rights".

So you think a revival of the religion of the Aztecs could legalize human sacrifice in the US?

Prove it.

Do you always go to the illogical extreme?

Does that usually work or you?

That's not the illogical extreme... that's just a common garden variety demonstration of the mental disorder that presents as sexual deviancy.

And its never 'worked' for anyone.

So you concede that the 1st amendment does not protect the actions of a religion that infringe on the rights of others?

Good.

There is nothing in the first amendment which provides a right to mislead other people.

.

Oh actually there is. Freedom of press protects the right to propagandize, which by definition is an action often intended to mislead.

Freedom of speech in the 1st amendment protects your right to mislead, which you do practically every day.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So when the slaves were freed they were given 'special' rights that 'superseded' those who disagreed with them?

Goddam, you've caught Where are my Keys disease.

Slaves were not exhibiting DEVIANT BEHAVIOR Gilligan.

Deviant behavior - as you call it - is constitutional.

No Gilligan, it's not. You 'feel' strongly that it is... but you've no means to sustain your 'feelings', thus such is merely a manifestation of the same mental disorder that presents as sexual deviancy.

You see you demand that such is true, where such is literally and inarguably false.

Where you are able to convince someone else of that drivel, you take the injury to yourself... and transmit it to another, proving that such is destructive.

Where such is transmitted to sufficient members of the culture, this makes it entirely unlikely that the culture will be capable of sustaining itself, and this by virtue of the culture's collective inability to discern the distinction between right and wrong. Thus their collective decisions, are likely to be flawed and where one strings together sufficient numbers of flawed decisions, one destroys their viability.

Such is as true for individuals as it is for the sum of individuals, OKA: The Culture, Society, Civilization.

Homosexual acts between consenting adults are constitutionally protected.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So when the slaves were freed they were given 'special' rights that 'superseded' those who disagreed with them?

Goddam, you've caught Where are my Keys disease.

Slaves were not exhibiting DEVIANT BEHAVIOR Gilligan.

Deviant behavior - as you call it - is constitutional.

No Gilligan, it's not. You 'feel' strongly that it is... but you've no means to sustain your 'feelings', thus such is merely a manifestation of the same mental disorder that presents as sexual deviancy.

You see you demand that such is true, where such is literally and inarguably false.

Where you are able to convince someone else of that drivel, you take the injury to yourself... and transmit it to another, proving that such is destructive.

Where such is transmitted to sufficient members of the culture, this makes it entirely unlikely that the culture will be capable of sustaining itself, and this by virtue of the culture's collective inability to discern the distinction between right and wrong. Thus their collective decisions, are likely to be flawed and where one strings together sufficient numbers of flawed decisions, one destroys their viability.

Such is as true for individuals as it is for the sum of individuals, OKA: The Culture, Society, Civilization.

Homosexual acts between consenting adults are constitutionally protected.

No Gilligan, it's not.

You 'feel' strongly that it is... but you've no means to sustain your 'feelings', thus such is merely a manifestation of the same mental disorder that presents as sexual deviancy.

You see you demand that such is true, where such is literally and inarguably false.

Where you are able to convince someone else of that drivel, you take the injury to yourself... and transmit it to another, proving that such is destructive.

Where such is transmitted to sufficient members of the culture, this makes it entirely unlikely that the culture will be capable of sustaining itself, and this by virtue of the culture's collective inability to discern the distinction between right and wrong. Thus their collective decisions, are likely to be flawed and where one strings together sufficient numbers of flawed decisions, one destroys their viability.

Such is as true for individuals as it is for the sum of individuals, OKA: The Culture, Society, Civilization.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Oh actually there is. Freedom of press protects the right to propagandize, which by definition is an action often intended to mislead.

No Gilligan, it does not.

You 'feel' strongly that it is... but you've no means to sustain your 'feelings', thus such is merely a manifestation of the same mental disorder that presents as sexual deviancy.

You see you demand that such is true, where such is literally and inarguably false.

Where you are able to convince someone else of that drivel, you take the injury to yourself... and transmit it to another, proving that such is destructive.

Where such is transmitted to sufficient members of the culture, this makes it entirely unlikely that the culture will be capable of sustaining itself, and this by virtue of the culture's collective inability to discern the distinction between right and wrong. Thus their collective decisions, are likely to be flawed and where one strings together sufficient numbers of flawed decisions, one destroys their viability.

Such is as true for individuals as it is for the sum of individuals, OKA: The Culture, Society, Civilization.

(Reader, Gilligan will now most likely make reference to what it likes to call 'precedent', wherein it links us to any number of errant decisions by the various Supreme Courts. On the premise that errant decisions which sustain its own subjective NEEDS.. are TRUTH. Demonstrating again, the profound delusion that such would-be 'people' are operating upon and the danger that they represent to their own viability, but also that of their culture.)

 

[Jeremiah Johnson]

So when the slaves were freed they were given 'special' rights that 'superseded' those who disagreed with them?

Goddam, you've caught Where are my Keys disease.

Slaves were not exhibiting DEVIANT BEHAVIOR Gilligan.

Deviant behavior - as you call it - is constitutional.

No Gilligan, it's not. You 'feel' strongly that it is... but you've no means to sustain your 'feelings', thus such is merely a manifestation of the same mental disorder that presents as sexual deviancy.

You see you demand that such is true, where such is literally and inarguably false.

Where you are able to convince someone else of that drivel, you take the injury to yourself... and transmit it to another, proving that such is destructive.

Where such is transmitted to sufficient members of the culture, this makes it entirely unlikely that the culture will be capable of sustaining itself, and this by virtue of the culture's collective inability to discern the distinction between right and wrong. Thus their collective decisions, are likely to be flawed and where one strings together sufficient numbers of flawed decisions, one destroys their viability.

Such is as true for individuals as it is for the sum of individuals, OKA: The Culture, Society, Civilization.

Homosexual acts between consenting adults are constitutionally protected.

Are they now?

Are they more "protected" than those rights enumerated in the 1st amendment?