Homosexual Agenda Is Greatest Threat To Liberty

[PaintMyHouse]

Who is forcing you to refer to a man as a woman?

His boss in this case, who has every right to do so only this little idiot doesn't understand that. He thinks that just because someone is paying him he still gets to do whatever the **** he wants to.

 

[Syriusly]

Many gay men have a range of attractions already that includes teenage boys...or even younger. It's one of the deep, dark secrets that doesn't come up at the annual LGBT action conference because nobody wants to admit that the seeds of pederasty have already been sown, and cultivated in this morally corrupt culture, will eventually sprout.

Right now gays are saying "consenting adults only!" But honestly.....how long will that charade last?

And that is different from 'heterosexual men' how?

Heterosexual men already are attracted to teenage girls- teenage girls are glorified as sex objects in our culture. Hardly a deep dark secret. You call it pederasty because of your obsession with gay male rape- but of course the reality is far darker.

Most child sexual molestation is done by men who identify themselves as heterosexual- whether they prey on underage girls or boys. Between 69% to 90% of all child molestation is done to girls- not boys.

Where is your concern for the female victims of child molestation?

As the father of a daughter- your faux concern about pederasty just sickens me. I see this with homophobes all the time- either implying or saying directly that homosexuals are pedophiles expressing fake concern for children.

But I as an informed father know that my daughter is between 2-10 times more likely to be sexually assaulted than a boy is.

And homophobes ONLY ever bring up 'boys being assaulted by men'- just to attack homosexuals.

Homophobes don't give a damn about children. IF they did they would be commenting about the attackers of girls at least twice as often as they discuss the attackers of boys.

All children deserve protection from sexual assault- and from child molesters.

Pointing at homosexuals and saying 'they are the child molesters' just leaves openly heterosexual monsters like Jerry Sandusky free to molest little boys because the boy's parents had nothing to worry about - since Sandusky was a good married father.

Again- as a father of a daughter- I say piss on your false concerns and piss on your homophobia.

You want to have discussion about protecting children from sexual assault- I will believe it when it goes beyond just attacking homosexuals

 

[Syriusly]

Who is forcing you to refer to a man as a woman?

His boss in this case, who has every right to do so only this little idiot doesn't understand that. He thinks that just because someone is paying him he still gets to do whatever the **** he wants to.

Hmmm so if he felt obligated to call African American's n*ggers, and his boss oddly enough found that objectionable- he would feel that he was being forced not to call them 'n*ggers' by his boss?

What about his freedom of speech? LOL....

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Welcome to keep your ***-hating thoughts in the closet, where they belong.

If you put him on ignore, that's where they stay. If you reply, then I can see the ignorant drivel he posts.

You simply can't take seriously someone who continually equates gays to pedophiles. He and Silhouette are cut from the same cloth...and equally deserving of being ignored.

Many gay men do have a range of attraction that includes teenage boys, aka pederasty. Why is this not up for discussion?

Oh it goes WELL beyond that. The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality BEGAN in the US with the Eugenics movement wherein 'studies' were done on THOUSANDS of male infants and toddlers for a decade (1930s), to 'test' their means to achieve sexual orgasm... .

These studies were conducted by a homosexual; a founding member NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association)... One Dr. Alfred Kinsey.

These studies produced as a result THOUSANDS of homosexuals... by imprinting on those infants and toddlers the base information that sexual gratification comes from people of Dr. Kinsey's gender; the man who first initiated or 'triggered' the flood of hormones common to sexual cravings.

Sadly, none of THAT made it into "Dr." Kinsey's research...

Beside NAMBLA, Dr. Kinsey is the Founder of "The Kinsey Institute" which also just happens to be where a large percentage of those sitting on the APA board are, or have been employed. And the APA is the 'scientific body' which determined that 'Homosexuality is perfectly normal...', and not by any actual SCIENCE... but by a popular vote.

Conspiracy?

LOL! Dam' straight it is... and its goal is the legalization of the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification.

Even that man's name makes my blood boil. I did some extensive research into how many children Alfred Kinsey molested under the guise of "research". People like that should convince anyone of the existence of hell.

 

[Skylar]

That's a good point, and one I've voiced before. There really is no such thing as "gay marriage".

Sure there is. Just go to the 36 of 50 States where they are performed every day.

They can go through the motions and they can play make believe, but true marriage is a spiritual union that can only occur between a man and a woman.

And you are more than welcome to whatever subjective interpretation of marriage you wish. No one really cares. What gays and lesbians are interested in is legal recognition for their marriage.

And in the majority of the nation, they have it.

Congratulations!

Oh wait, you didn't actually win the people over to the idea, you had hack Leftist judges find rights that don't exist in the Constitution to overturn popularly passed state laws.

Actually a pretty firm majority (55%) support gay marriage. With gay marriage support out pacing gay marriage opposition by between 12 to 19 points. So there's clearly a leader in 'winning the people over'.

Second, rights aren't something that are subject to a vote. You can't strip someone of their rights with a 50% plus 1 majority. That's what the founders referred to as the 'tyranny of the majority'. And one of the reasons that democracy was so poorly regarded in the era of the founders. Rights trump State powers. If a state enacts a law that abrogates the rights of its citizens, that law is invalid. As the States don't possess such powers as of the ratification of the 14th amendment.

Your assessment of a 'hack leftist judge' is anyone who doesn't agree with you. And agreement with you is neither a standard of legality nor reason. The weight of rulings is leans toward gay marriage to an almost ludicrous degree, with Reagan appointed judges finding the same truck sized holes in the reasoning of gay marriage opponents as those appointed by Clinton or Bush.

Its the logic of opposition to gay marriage that doesn't work. And you are a superb example as to why.

Your opposition to homosexuality is based in your religious conviction. But your belief that 'God said it' isn't a legal standard or legal evidence. Which puts your ilk at a rather stark disadvantage. As generally speaking its either religion or a rampant hatred of gays that primarily motivates your crowd (with you seemingly in the former category). And neither are admissible as evidence in any court.

So what you're left with are a series of shitty second tier arguments that just don't work. As demonstrated by your rather spectacular failure to produce any rational or logical reason to oppose homosexuality or gay marriage outside your own religious beliefs. You couldn't produce one. Neither can most of your ilk. As there really isn't any.

And in the law, reason and logic are far more credible that religious beliefs or irrational enmity.

Kind of a hollow victory. It's almost like when the communists violently took over in Russia and China and then claimed they had the popular support of the people. You couldn't win by convincing people, so you used force.

The 12 to 19 point lead that supporters of gay marriage have over non-supporters says otherwise. Gay marriage enjoys rather broad support. And if you move outside the conservative crowd to measure support among youth, independants, moderates and liberals (a.k.a. the overwhelming majority of the electorate), support shoots up to the 60 to 70% range.

And then there is that sweet, sweet legal recognition. The rights. The protections. The benefits. In 36 of 50 States, gays and lesbians enjoy them directly, as there is no longer 'gay' and 'straight' marriage. There's just marriage. With same sex couples enjoying it with as much legal recognition and validity as the straights.

As it should be.

But....and this is the fun part: gay marriage is already legally across the country. As States lack the authority to deny the contracts and binding agreements recognized by another State. Reciprocity of contracts is part of the constitution. So if a same sex couple gets married in say, San Francisco....and then moves to Austin Texas.....the State of Texas has to recognize the legal validity of their marriage and protect it as they would that of any straight. Extending them the same legal rights and benefits.

Ain't 'equal protection in the law' grand?

That's not quite the American way, but whatever it takes for you to have gay butt sex, right?

That's explicitly the American way. Look at Richard and Mildred Loving who ran afoul of unconstitutional interracial marriage laws in Virginia. The courts stepped in and struck down such laws as violating their rights. And rightfully invalidated all such laws around the country.

Despite the fact that the public overwhelmingly supported such bans by absurd margins. With such bans retaining popular support well into the 1990s. See, rights aren't subject to a vote. Your problem is that you don't quite get what right are. You think of them as something that can be stripped from anyone with a majority vote. They aren't. Our democratic republic puts rights above powers. Any State lacks the authority to strip any citizen of any federally recognized right.

As the federal courts are once again demonstrating to your ilk.

 

[Syriusly]

Nearly all marriages are predicated on the desire to have children eventually, so much so as to render negligible those few marriages forged in an agreement to forgo children.

Say who?

Look right at the marriage license- nothing about that there. Certainly wasn't in my wife and my wedding vows- certainly we are glad to have had children, and certainly I would want our child to have married parents- but we could have had children without marriage and we could have been married without children.

We allow 80 year old couples to marry- we even require some couples to prove that they can't reproduce before we allow them to marry.

You just don't apply the same standards to homosexuals that you do to heterosexuals.

Do you allow Pigs and Dogs to marry - They're harmless swine and canine . I grudgingly admit that homosexuals are are degenerate members of the Human Race that should be held to higher standards than the pig that wallows in shit - It does me or anyone else little harm for Pigs to have mock marriages - and it also does no harm to allow perverts to have faux marriages as well - just get out of sane peoples faces if that's how you insist on living your twisted little lives.

That's a good point, and one I've voiced before. There really is no such thing as "gay marriage". They can go through the motions and they can play make believe, but true marriage is a spiritual union that can only occur between a man and a woman. The materialist Left disregards the spiritual aspect or that marriage involves a 3rd party, that is God. They go for surface appearances and think they've achieved parity with the real thing.

You're right that there is no gay marriage, but not for the reasons you believe. There is only marriage. In more than half the states, marriage means that same sex loving partners can also civilly marry. Your belief about what constitutes a "real" marriage is irrelevant. We still get issued the same exact marriage license as those you believe have a "real" marriage and we still get all the same rights, benefits and privileges that are associated with a civil marriage license.

Two fags being married will never be the same as my real marriage no matter how badly they get their panties in a wad about it.

Probably will be superior to your marriage. Certainly my marriage is superior to yours because my marriage is not threatened by two people of the same gender getting married.

I welcome couples in love getting married- and wish them all the best.

 

[Silhouette]

LGBT Cultees can do as they please, but just like polygamists and minors, they cannot get married.

A state has no interest in incentivizing the formative environment for raising children to be missing one of the complimentary genders and one blood parent 100% of the time. That is not in the best interest of children at all. All these other arrangments that children unfortunately find themselves in are not marriages. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Apples cannot demand that rubber tires include them as "things that roll a car down the road".

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Welcome to keep your ***-hating thoughts in the closet, where they belong.

If you put him on ignore, that's where they stay. If you reply, then I can see the ignorant drivel he posts.

You simply can't take seriously someone who continually equates gays to pedophiles. He and Silhouette are cut from the same cloth...and equally deserving of being ignored.

Many gay men do have a range of attraction that includes teenage boys, aka pederasty. Why is this not up for discussion?

Disproportionately higher percentages of Gay Men have a disposition for pederasty or its more popular accolade pedophilia - Gay men are responsible for about 33/100 of all child molestation cases yet comprise on 3/100 [about 3%] of the general population. That's 1/3 of child molestation cases perpetrated by Gays -

And yet we see a familiar old pattern here. Sexual molestation of children occurs because people are not willing to acknowledge there's a problem. This crime is always shrouded in secrecy, in moist dark enclaves of secretive families, religions, or organizations. Penn State, the Catholic Church, and Jehovah Witnesses are examples of what happens when this seclusion becomes systemic in larger communities, where the system which should protect children instead is perversely co opted to protect the predator and allow the perpetuation, of the abuse of children. It all begins by people refusing to admit the deep, hideous secret.

And here we have the gay movement fitting this pattern succinctly.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Not any more little dummy. You lost, and rightly so.

 

[Seawytch]

I think this is the most up to date...I'd say the "agenda" is working.

It's much better than that: National Maps - MEUSA

It's moving so quickly...it's a new state every week practically. I do know it's well over 60% of the country now.

Wow, it's like a popular movement, right?

Only it isn't a popular movement, is it? Because you're not winning hearts and minds, you're using hack ideologue judges to overturn popularly passed laws.

So you're just making it seem like a popular wave of support for queer marriage even though you secretly know it isn't. Right?

We already have the "hearts and minds" thing down, thanks. Polls show a solid majority in favor of marriage equality...In fact, there is much more support for gays being able to marry the non familial consenting adult of their choice than there was for interracial marriage when the SCOTUS ruled on Loving v Virginia. Do you know what the approval rating, nationwide, was for interracial marriage in 1967? Would you even care to venture a guess?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage is a fundamental right.

Great! And every fundamental right comes with fundamental responsibilities... not the least of which is that wher one exercises their right, they do not usurp the means of another to exercise their own rights... and part of THE RIGHT TO JOIN AN ENTITY is adhering to the standards that are established to defend the entity you seek to join.

So given that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman, where on seeks to be accepted for Marriage, one applies with a single individual of the distinct gender.

What you're asking for, rests in sociopathy, wherein you demand the right to reject the standards and be accepted despite your failing to adhere to the standards that DEFINE THAT WHICH YOU SEEK TO JOIN!

**** YOU!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Not any more little dummy. You lost, and rightly so.

Marriage is defined by human physiology... so, as hard as this might be to hear: Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. And that is all marriage CAN BE.

 

[Syriusly]

"Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids? - Why would we push anti-bullying programs or social studies classes that teach kids about the historical contributions of famous queers unless we wanted to deliberately educate children to accept queer sexuality as normal? ... We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it. Recruiting children? You bet we are ... I for one certainly want tons of school children to learn that it is OK to be gay.... And I would very much like for many of these young boys to grow up and start f**ing men." - Daniel Villarreal - Queerty.com

Not surprisingly- but a carefully edited quote. Lets go for more of the article- you know the parts you left out

Remember, Prop 8 passed along age lines with the very old voting largely in favor of it. The younger generation doesn’t fear homosexuality as much because they’re exposed to fags on TV, online, and at school. And I don’t know a single lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender person who wants that to stop. I for one certainly want tons of school children to learn that it’s OK to be gay, that people of the same sex should be allowed to legally marry each other, and that anyone can kiss a person of the same sex without feeling like a freak. And I would very much like for many of these young boys to grow up and start ******* men. I want lots of young ladies to develop into young women who voraciously munch box. I want this just as badly as many parents want their own kids to grow up and rub urinary tracts together to trade proteins and forcefully excrete a baby.

I and a lot of other people want to indoctrinate, recruit, teach, and expose children to queer sexuality AND THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. Hell, our opponents even do the same. Yes, they regularly appeal to parents, older adults, and “values voters” through their advertising but they also provide organizing materials so students so they can challenge queer acceptance on their own “Day of Dialogue.” The old Day of Dialogue website even contained a press kit so student organizers could alert the local media to come and cover their campaign. Anti-gay opponents are already unabashedly indoctrinating our children with the church and conservative politicians on their side and they make no bones about it.

Committed, loving relationships! Wedding vows! Until death do us part! We just wanna be able to say “I Do!” Forget the thousands of social benefits that regularly screw over queer people without marriage equality. Forget that marriage equality states have lower rates of queer youth and teen suicide. Forget that not educating our kids about queer issues makes them ignorant, hateful little morons. All that doesn’t matter just as long as Mary Jo Kennedy and Jo-Ann Shain can sit on a couch with matching glasses and haircuts and dispassionately discuss semantics.

How about this? How about we accept that we want kids to think better about queers and then create ads—with tons of verifiable supporting evidence—that just plainly state that denying marriage equality ruins people’s lives? That would at least be honest and a heck of a lot more compelling then this fearful mincing we’re doing to the tune and delight of our foes.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Marriage is a fundamental right.

Great! And every fundamental right comes with fundamental responsibilities... not the least of which is that wher one exercises their right, they do not usurp the means of another to exercise their own rights... and part of THE RIGHT TO JOIN AN ENTITY is adhering to the standards that are established to defend the entity you seek to join.

So given that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman, where on seeks to be accepted for Marriage, one applies with a single individual of the distinct gender.

What you're asking for, rests in sociopathy, wherein you demand the right to reject the standards and be accepted despite your failing to adhere to the standards that DEFINE THAT WHICH YOU SEEK TO JOIN!

**** YOU!

No little man, it is you that is FUCKED. Now be a man and deal with it.

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Not any more little dummy. You lost, and rightly so.

Hey little asshole, point me to the latest SCOTUS decision forcing gay marriage on unwilling states that post-dates Windsor's finding that state's on the specific question of gay marriage have a right to choose to allow it or not. (Hint, lower activist circuit judges are not = to SCOTUS)

 

[Seawytch]

What is being forced on you? What changes in YOUR belief system if you have to call her a her? Do you still disagree with her choices? Yes. That hasn't changed has it? You still get to be all oogied out by her, you just have to call her a her. Nothing about what you think or believe is changed by your having to call her a her is it? No.

Now you're just being stupid. Forcing people to profess something they don't believe is forcing your beliefs on them. This is how evil you people are, being guilty of the VERY CRIMES you insist everyone else is guilty of. You don't want tolerance, you demand unmitigated acquiescence to your agenda. You people are bigots and assholes, and with your circular logic, you perpetuate on others what you claimed they perpetuated on you. Blind and depraved! How will you escape eternal judgement?

You think yourself a Christian right? I don't believe you are. Do you think I have the right to walk around the workplace and say you aren't a Christian even though you believe you are?

I might hold the belief that you aren't a Christian, but I certainly can't walk around work and say it. I can say it to people outside of work (but I might not want to post it on my Facebook...employers have been know to look there) but it is not appropriate behavior for the workplace is it?

I might hold all kinds of "beliefs" about the people I work with, but saying them out loud can get me fired. Why? Because you don't have an absolute right to that job. You follow the rules of the workplace. It is not the government forcing anything on you.

Oh, good, then you believe that the workplace should be laisses-faire and people should be allowed to express what they believe and not be forced to express something they don't believe.

Oh, that's NOT what you're saying?

What are you saying then.....only YOU should have that right?

No, you seem to think only you have that right. I'm saying that if I were to walk around the workplace proclaiming that despite you thinking you're a Christian, you aren't a "real" one, that I would get a talking to from HR. Do you agree that would be the case? That's exactly what you want to do with the transgendered individual. She believes she is a woman just as much as you believe you are a Christian, yes? How come I can't go around calling you not a Christian, but you want to be able to walk around and say she's not a woman?

Now we're deviating from the hypothetical I proposed (even though it really happened). I'm not talking about being belligerent, nor am I talking about pointedly going up to Joe and telling him he's not a woman. No chip on my shoulder, no ax to grind, no going on the offense. I'm talking about not going along with the charade that Joe turned magically into a woman when it comes up in conversation and continuing to refer to Joe in male pronouns when he is discussed incidentally.

If you're trying to pick a fight, you should be hauled before HR, but what about somebody who isn't, who just wants to be left alone to believe what his conscience and faith dictate?

Do you get it now?

No, we're making a direct analogy you don't like. Your refusing to call her a her is a chip. Your belief system is not changed in any way by calling her a her. Nothing is "forced" on you.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Not any more little dummy. You lost, and rightly so.

Marriage is defined by human physiology...

No, it's isn't dumbass. It's a legal contract in this country, period. So you're fucked. Grow up and deal with it.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage is a fundamental right.

Great! And every fundamental right comes with fundamental responsibilities... not the least of which is that wher one exercises their right, they do not usurp the means of another to exercise their own rights... and part of THE RIGHT TO JOIN AN ENTITY is adhering to the standards that are established to defend the entity you seek to join.

So given that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman, where on seeks to be accepted for Marriage, one applies with a single individual of the distinct gender.

What you're asking for, rests in sociopathy, wherein you demand the right to reject the standards and be accepted despite your failing to adhere to the standards that DEFINE THAT WHICH YOU SEEK TO JOIN!

**** YOU!

While generally your quote is just as bat shit crazy as all the rest of yours- this one is even bat shit crazier.

I don't know why you decided to express your desire to have sex with Skylar here on the board.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Good thing support for his ignorant opinion is dying along with the ignorant people in the older generations that agree with him.

Wrong. What is dying is America.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Not any more little dummy. You lost, and rightly so.

Hey little asshole, point me to the latest SCOTUS decision forcing gay marriage on unwilling states that post-dates Windsor's finding that state's on the specific question of gay marriage have a right to choose to allow it or not. (Hint, lower activist circuit judges are not = to SCOTUS)

Hey ****, you've lost at every step but one, and you are about to lose again where this becomes legal in all 50 states. Count on it, it's in the bag.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Polls show a solid majority in favor of marriage equality...

No... the only polls that count are the polls taken in the respective legislators of the respective states... and THOSE polls consistently show that THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE ELECTED A MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS WHO VOTED IN A MAJORITY OF THE STATES TO PROTECT THE NATURAL STANDARDS OF MARRIAGE IN LAW...

DEFINING IN LAW: MARRIAGE IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.

So what you're doing is you're taking a INFINITESIMAL MINORITY OF LITERALLY ... LESS THAN A DOZEN PEOPLE, Subjective Jurists and claiming that THOSE "VOTES"... OVERTURNING THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE and CLAIMING THAT AS POPULAR SUPPORT.

It's a lie... a Deceit, FRAUDULENTLY advanced as a means to influence the Ignorant.

Which follows given that you're a Leftist and "Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance are te three fundamental elements of Left-think.