BS Filter
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2018
- 43,822
- 26,971
- 2,615
Interracial marriage isn't a religious issue. Nothing in the Bible forbids it.Ok, more recently, until 1967, an interracial couple could be jailed for who they love.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Interracial marriage isn't a religious issue. Nothing in the Bible forbids it.Ok, more recently, until 1967, an interracial couple could be jailed for who they love.
And another non-sequitur. What does that have to do with the RCC?
Exactly.You complained that I went back 1,000 years for an example. I provided one that was more recent. It had nothing to do with RCC.
Your BS filter is not qorking very well. In fact not at all. You are oozing excrementFalse narrative. No one is being sued for refusing to serve queers. Businesses are sued for refusing to believe in same-sex marriage. Try again.
You're out of bullets. Poor baby.Your BS filter is not qorking very well. In fact not at all. You are oozing excrement
I read your post. You were replying to a thread about gay marriage. Of course yu were referring too gay sex. Now you are trying to sound like you are not a bigot by including everything that you consider unnatural sex? What disasters are you referring to? What do you consider "natural sex" and wht do you get to define it for othersIf you reread my post, I said doing unnatural sexual acts leads to disaster, whether it be gay sex or illicit sex by unmarrieds. I didn't tie it to gay marriage. You did.
How would you know and what business is it of yours,? Don't bother to pretend that yu care about AIDSGay sexual relationships were not afforded legitimacy, nor should they be. They are immoral. Gays have more sex partners than heteros, with or without gay 'marriage'.
WHAT?? Immoral rights?? Gays still experience discrimination in many ways. Your ignorance is obviousGays can already fully participate in society. They want extra immoral "rights".
Please explain how EXACT:TIllicit sex (any act outside hetero marriage) harms all of society.
I agree. The badly-decided Obergefell will fall just like Roe v Wade did. Even liberal John Roberts dissented.
I read studies that said so. I do care about AIDS and the effect it has on the entire population.How would you know and what business is it of yours,? Don't bother to pretend that yu care about AIDS
If you knowingly give AIDS to another person through sexual intercourse or a blood donation (pretty much a death sentence) California law considers it just a misdemeanor.Intelligent people understand that this thread is about the continued opposition to same sex marriage and the myriad of ways that the GOP is trying to undermine gay rights.
If you are trying to make a case against gay marriage by citing AIDS, it is a desperate use of a logical fallacy, specifically a false cause fallacy, not to mention just plain stupid. People are going to have sex as they please with or without marriage. I will also point out that heterosexuals also engage in some of those same sexual practices
Intelligent people understand that the AIDS epidemic sprung from a time when gay men were marginalized had few options other than having anonymous sex in bath houses and dark theaters. Their relationships were not afforded any legitimacy and therefore unstable and ripe for promiscuity. Now, it has been found that gay men who are married or otherwise in a committed relationship are far less likely to transmit diseases.
Intelligent people understand that anyone who expresses concern about AIDS but does not support laws and policies that allow gays to fully participate in society by the light of day are hypocrites and just plain full of shit
Roe v Wade has always been fatally flawed. Laws are to be created by state and Federal Legislators. Not by Judges. I have nothing at all against Judges who stick to judging. Legislation can often take many years. So a Judge does not take many years, the Judge sentences in several days. We have convicts in prisons today who appeal to judges who turn them down, even if the case contains proof the convict is not guilty at all. still the Judge follows rules they say that keeps convicts who are innocent, locked up in prison for extreme long terms. The woman who is the subject of Roe V Wade appeared in court to plead the case she wanted the case dropped.Just as they have been working to water down Roe v. Wade , with restrictions on abortion, they continue to concern themselves with another, more recent decision, Obergfelle v Hodges which made same sex marriage the law of the land.
They are obsessed with people private lives and social issues, while purporting to be the party of freedom and individual responsibility.
While the country is facing numerous threats and problems both foreign and domestic, they can’t keep their noses out of people’s bedrooms. While they are hell bent on allowing Wall Street to run amok, and letting corporations pollute the planet, women, gays and other who they disapprove of must be tightly controlled.
While they are not actively seeking to overturn Obergefell- that know that even with a conservative SCOTUS- it would be a long road to hoe. So as with Roe, they are finding ways to water down the gains that have been made with respect to choice, privacy, and equality. Consider:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-signorile-georgia-adoption_us_5a9c23e7e4b0a0ba4ad45681
Adoption is only one of several fronts on which they are attacking:
I
Is that what God would want? These issues, along wth the myriad of so call "bathroom bills " aimed at trans people make it clear that the GOP is hell bent on making life as difficult as possible for LGBT people in order to appease the religious right.
What law is on the books about AIDS? Would you want judges to rule those who have AIDS amount to killers and should be executed? Or would you prefer this issue is for the states and federal lawmakers, the legislators?How would you know and what business is it of yours,? Don't bother to pretend that yu care about AIDS
Intellect plays no role. It has to be an education called Law. This is what Legislators use. They do not use the term you used.Intelligent people understand that this thread is about the continued opposition to same sex marriage and the myriad of ways that the GOP is trying to undermine gay rights.
If you are trying to make a case against gay marriage by citing AIDS, it is a desperate use of a logical fallacy, specifically a false cause fallacy, not to mention just plain stupid. People are going to have sex as they please with or without marriage. I will also point out that heterosexuals also engage in some of those same sexual practices
Intelligent people understand that the AIDS epidemic sprung from a time when gay men were marginalized had few options other than having anonymous sex in bath houses and dark theaters. Their relationships were not afforded any legitimacy and therefore unstable and ripe for promiscuity. Now, it has been found that gay men who are married or otherwise in a committed relationship are far less likely to transmit diseases.
Intelligent people understand that anyone who expresses concern about AIDS but does not support laws and policies that allow gays to fully participate in society by the light of day are hypocrites and just plain full of shit
You read studies ? What studies? Some garbage from the Heritage Foundation? Studies from when? Pre Stonewall, or before Lawrence V. Texas when gays were relegated to the margins of society and found it virtually impossible to maintain a stable relationship ? And now, in the same breath you are basically saying that is the era that you want to go back to while at the same time claiming to care about AIDS . There appears to be something seriously wrong with youI read studies that said so. I do care about AIDS and the effect it has on the entire population.
I previously tried to school you on the issue of civil unions just days a go on another thread but apparently you don't learn to well Here it is again:We handed the homosexuals what they wanted on a gold platter. We called it the Civil Union. Why did homosexuals hate the word Civil Union? We in CA even had the blessing of our Supreme court who approved the legal term Civil Union. So some who lived in the East went to the Federal Supreme court and now the problem still exists. We know it by comments made above. So homosexuals turned down the best solution they had. Even today they whine about it.
Holy shit!! What a boatload of bizarre Gish Gallop! Can you possibly find anymore excrement to throw at the wall in order to avoid and honest and rational discussion of gay marriage? Here you digress into the use of the tern “gay” then blather about covid 19 Reagan , China, Trump and of course AIDS Previously on another thread, you suggested that because I am “pro Homosexual” (your words) I want 4 year olds to marry . Amazingly stupid!!Intellect plays no role. It has to be an education called Law. This is what Legislators use. They do not use the term you used.
I urge homosexuals to use the correct term. It is not gay. Gay is an english word used for eons as happy. Very happy in many cases. Homosexuals persist on posting in extremely unlawful displays. They can't be happy if they keep this going.
Homosexuals got AIDs as patients got CV19. It originated elsewhere and was imported to the USA. And homosexuals did not accept the blame, they blamed President Reagan. Reagan had never heard of it. Why he got blamed has always been a mystery. Reagan also was no legislator or Doctor. Even CV came from China yet Democrats blamed only Trump who did nothing at all to be blamed for. And Trump went to war against CV19 and managed to get vaccines for it to the public.
I lived in CA when I voted to help homosexuals. Marriage I explained to them was the wrong word. It invited those who do not like homosexuals to have a reason to not help homosexuals. I and millions of CA voters voted for more than court ruling, we voted for the law to change. We in fact put it into the State constitution. We handed the homosexuals what they wanted on a gold platter. We called it the Civil Union. Why did homosexuals hate the word Civil Union? We in CA even had the blessing of our Supreme court who approved the legal term Civil Union. So some who lived in the East went to the Federal Supreme court and now the problem still exists. We know it by comments made above. So homosexuals turned down the best solution they had. Even today they whine about it.
I was very calm. You on the other hand blew a fuse. Who will tolerate you blowing fuses?Holy shit!! What a boatload of bizarre Gish Gallop! Can you possibly find anymore excrement to throw at the wall in order to avoid and honest and rational discussion of gay marriage? Here you digress into the use of the tern “gay” then blather about covid 19 Reagan , China, Trump and of course AIDS Previously on another thread, you suggested that because I am “pro Homosexual” (your words) I want 4 year olds to marry . Amazingly stupid!!
Then you seem to have deluded yourself into believing that you tried to help "homosexuals" by offering then civil unions while ignoring the fact that civil unions are wofully inadequate, Clearly you are impervious to rational thought and reason
I am clearly seeing a disturbing pattern here with you that indicates to me that you are becoming increasingly unhinged. I have a background in mental health and I my assessment of you is that you are decompensating. I am seriously considering no longer engaging you on this topic since I do not want to be responsible for you further deterioration
I was very calm. You on the other hand blew a fuse. Who will tolerate you blowing fuses?