Homosexual Agenda Is Greatest Threat To Liberty

[PaintMyHouse]

The Constitution never ever mentions sexuality anywhere. Not Sadism, pedophilia, homosexuality, bestiality, none of that. Does it? It's kind of a silent issue that heterosexuals make children and that's why all civilization exists. We all know that, gays don't make the world go 'round. Straights do, and we make the laws and that is just common sense, we don't let blind people tell us traffic laws, now, do we? We draw the line because of common sense. Period.

Straights makes gays. That will never change Gibson Girl. And here we apply the laws equally unless we can find a compelling reason, which for denying gay marriage the courts no longer can, so, that war is over. What group would you like to keep down next?

 

[hipeter924]

The Constitution never ever mentions sexuality anywhere. Not Sadism, pedophilia, homosexuality, bestiality, none of that. Does it? It's kind of a silent issue that heterosexuals make children and that's why all civilization exists. We all know that, gays don't make the world go 'round. Straights do, and we make the laws and that is just common sense, we don't let blind people tell us traffic laws, now, do we? We draw the line because of common sense. Period.

Straights makes gays. That will never change Gibson Girl. And here we apply the laws equally unless we can find a compelling reason, which for denying gay marriage the courts no longer can, so, that war is over. What group would you like to keep down next?

There always been a scapegoat in society, and when one stops being relevant, a new one magically appears. Within the next few decades homosexuality will become less and less of an issue, as something like 61% of young Republicans favor same sex marriage, and an even higher number either approve of civil unions or are ambivalent on the issue.

 

[Syriusly]

Where are the "we"...

Oh... We're the "Americans".

We're people who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles that define America.

You aren't likely to actually know any of us.

I have seen nothing to even hint that you do anything other than hate Americans.

 

[Syriusly]

Nope. Gay marriage is irrelevant, don't you think? Do we really need it? Why?

We don't 'need' marriage at all.

But if we are going to have marriage- then I think we should have marriage equally for all Americans.

If we are going to have marriage- then I think that a same gender couple- or a mixed race couple- should be treated exactly the same legally as my wife and I.

This is America- not Russia. Not Saudi Arabia.

 

[Syriusly]

ROFLMNAO!

Adorable...

Notice you can't actually refute anything I've said. Now that's adorable.

What's to refute?

An Advocate of the normalization of sexual abnormality trots out a load of pro-homo sarcasm and you run to catch it.

As I said... it was ADORABLE.

Just more bat shit crazy Keyes crap.

 

[Syriusly]

SHH, Don't tell anyone. Homosexulaity may just be a mental illnes

Queers need to recognize they have the same rights as the rest of us. I know it's hard to get over. They have the SAME rights. No more, no less. Marriage is about procreation, not sexual equality.

If marriage is about procreation, why doesn't any state in the union require procreation or the ability to procreate as a prerequisite for a valid marriage? What of all the infertile people getting married or remaining married? What of all the childless couples?

If your standard did exist, there are millions upon millions of exceptions. Meaning there's clearly room for a few more with gays and lesbians.

And your standard doesn't exist. No one is required to have kids or be able to have them in order to have a valid marriage. Why then would we invent a standard that doesn't exist, exempt all straights, and then apply it only to gay people for the sole purpose of keeping them out of marriage?

There is no reason.

If you can make a baby, marriage is for you. It's that simple.

All the infertile folks getting married say otherwise. All the old people getting married or staying married say otherwise. And the complete lack of any such requirement for anyone in the law says otherwise.

It's kinda given, kiddo. We expect people that want to be parents 90 % of them might be biologically capable of producing children theoretically..

Yet as pointed out- States not only do not care whether my wife and I have any children- they don't care whether we want to have them or can have them. States even require first cousins to prove that they cannot reproduce before they allow them to marry- well as long as they aren't gay.

The problem with the homophobes procreation argument is that it was only invented after same gender couples wanted to get married.

And state law doesn't care about 'the potential of procreation' for straight people- but claims to for gay people.

And that is pretty clear cut case of a failure of Equal Treatment under the law.

 

[Syriusly]

....

There's literally no such thing as 'homophobia'.

Oh but there is, and we see it in your kind day after day. Don't worry, there's a six feet under solution that will find you eventually and your phobia will be resolved.

You bet there is...and it encompasses so much. It could mean the individual who wants to discriminate against gays or it could be the individual that fears the gay in themselves. Such a versatile word.

No... "Homophobia" is a ruse, a complete and utter fabrication.

Homophobia is just a short way of describing every post you make.

You write out 200 words of raving bigotry against homosexuals- and the easiest way to describe it- other than bat shit crazy- is homophobia- the gay analog to racist, the gay analog to anti-semite.

 

[Syriusly]

Queers need to recognize they have the same rights as the rest of us. I know it's hard to get over. They have the SAME rights. No more, no less.

In 35 states now they do. Only 15 more to go and then your statement will be true.

I look forward to you supporting the equal rights for 'queers' in the rest of the United States.

 

[Syriusly]

Gays, IE: Homosexuals: Probably the most fictitious group since the illuminati. Phony. False . Imaginary.

Wow- so Conservatives who spend all of their time ranting about homosexuals are just like the ones ranting about the Illuminati?

Maybe you are onto something there.

 

[Syriusly]

The majority doesn't matter a ******* damn either way. How long before you get that?

Until the Constitution is rewritten to include sexual behavior lifestyles as equivalent to race. So far, American law is based on local communities being able to regulate human behaviors. Not so with race. Of which "gays" are not.

So discrimination is OK with you until it's listed in the constitution? Got it.

Discrimination? It's a fundamental instinct which is crucial to the survival of the individual, thus by extension, the species.

Are you saying that you're against people discriminating?

Do you realize that such a position can only and has only EVER resulted on pain, death and destruction?

Because discriminating against rotten food and dirty water is EXACTLY the same as discriminating against blacks, women and Hispanics. Is that what you are saying?

So, you feel that one should never discriminate against blacks, hispanics and women?

What keys said:
So, you feel that one should never discriminate against blacks, hispanics and women?

Not for being black.

Not for being hispanic

Not for being women.

Not for being gay.

So- you feel that sometimes it is appropriate to fire someone just because they are black?

Sometimes okay to refuse to rent a room to woman just because she is a woman? Sometimes okay to refuse to promote someone just because they are hispanic?

Sometimes okay to beat someone up just because you think that they are gay?

 

[Syriusly]

.

Outside of the theory that I'll lose my house & car if gay marriage is allowed, I'm not seeing many substantive reasons why I should care if the guys across the street get hitched.

.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. So there's that...
.. .

In most of the United States, marriage is the joining of a couple- one man, one woman, one man and one man, one woman and one woman.

So theres that.

 

[lutraphile]

I love how using language that directly contradicts your stance is supposed to preclude arguments about that stance. How not restricting a legal definition prevents "liberty" in any way is beyond me. But the religious right really loves doublespeak (see: all "Freedom of religion" arguments)

 

[Syriusly]

Until the day I see actual examples of heterosexuals being threatened with arrest and jail time for daring to be publicly heterosexual, I will laugh at any and all whining about how homosexuals are 'threatening' anyone's liberty.

Allowing homosexuals to marry the one they love threatens no ones liberty.

 

[hipeter924]

Nope. Gay marriage is irrelevant, don't you think? Do we really need it? Why?

We don't 'need' marriage at all.

But if we are going to have marriage- then I think we should have marriage equally for all Americans.

If we are going to have marriage- then I think that a same gender couple- or a mixed race couple- should be treated exactly the same legally as my wife and I.

This is America- not Russia. Not Saudi Arabia.

Some people think you can have a society that values the rights of individuals, yet quashes rights for minorities. There has to been equality in rights given to people by the state, or it isn't a free society.

Russia effectively is a tyranny of the majority, which discriminates against 2% of the population, as well as anyone who publicly opposes Russian government policy i.e. whether it is Ukraine, LGBT rights, or human rights.

These are people who could otherwise be contributing economically to the country, but instead are pushed out of jobs and education. It is their loss, as west gains educated or wealthy Russians in a big brain drain: Spike in well-off Russian professionals leaving the country as President Putin started third term Daily Mail Online

The number of people abandoning Russia has shot up to its highest level in 15 years.

More than 200,000 Russians emigrated in the first eight months of this year - continuing a 'brain drain' which has been apparent since Vladimir Putin was re-elected as President in 2012.

It has caused shockwaves among analysts because until then, the number of people leaving Russia had been declining for 20 years following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Saudi Arabia is even more restrictive, and ultimately the Middle East in general has a brain drain of Arabs leaving to the west, as there is a lack of jobs in the Middle East, and they are sick of having the same tyrannical and corrupt governments: http://english.alarabiya.net/en/vie...oung-Arabs-want-to-leave-their-countries.html

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

There's literally no such thing as 'homophobia'.

Oh but there is, and we see it in your kind day after day. Don't worry, there's a six feet under solution that will find you eventually and your phobia will be resolved.

As crass a description as that is, its sadly true. There's only so far you can bring some folks of a generation in terms of the abandonment of pointless bigotry. My grandfather is a great man. Yet still drops the n bomb on occasion and refers to the Japanese as 'them Japs'.

He is a product of his age. The generation that came after him can go farther, and the generation that came after them, farther still.

With the attrition of age taking with it much of the sharper edges of irrational bigotry.

What's wrong with Japs?

 

[lutraphile]

There's literally no such thing as 'homophobia'.

Oh but there is, and we see it in your kind day after day. Don't worry, there's a six feet under solution that will find you eventually and your phobia will be resolved.

As crass a description as that is, its sadly true. There's only so far you can bring some folks of a generation in terms of the abandonment of pointless bigotry. My grandfather is a great man. Yet still drops the n bomb on occasion and refers to the Japanese as 'them Japs'.

He is a product of his age. The generation that came after him can go farther, and the generation that came after them, farther still.

With the attrition of age taking with it much of the sharper edges of irrational bigotry.

What's wrong with Japs?

It's a derogatory term used a lot in ww2 era, my grandfather also uses it.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

There's literally no such thing as 'homophobia'.

Oh but there is, and we see it in your kind day after day. Don't worry, there's a six feet under solution that will find you eventually and your phobia will be resolved.

As crass a description as that is, its sadly true. There's only so far you can bring some folks of a generation in terms of the abandonment of pointless bigotry. My grandfather is a great man. Yet still drops the n bomb on occasion and refers to the Japanese as 'them Japs'.

He is a product of his age. The generation that came after him can go farther, and the generation that came after them, farther still.

With the attrition of age taking with it much of the sharper edges of irrational bigotry.

What's wrong with Japs?

It's a derogatory term used a lot in ww2 era, my grandfather also uses it.

Yeah, everyone's grandparents use it. Are we so sure THEY'RE the ones who are wrong? Seems unlikely.

 

[Seawytch]

There's literally no such thing as 'homophobia'.

Oh but there is, and we see it in your kind day after day. Don't worry, there's a six feet under solution that will find you eventually and your phobia will be resolved.

As crass a description as that is, its sadly true. There's only so far you can bring some folks of a generation in terms of the abandonment of pointless bigotry. My grandfather is a great man. Yet still drops the n bomb on occasion and refers to the Japanese as 'them Japs'.

He is a product of his age. The generation that came after him can go farther, and the generation that came after them, farther still.

With the attrition of age taking with it much of the sharper edges of irrational bigotry.

What's wrong with Japs?

It's a derogatory term used a lot in ww2 era, my grandfather also uses it.

Yeah, everyone's grandparents use it. Are we so sure THEY'RE the ones who are wrong? Seems unlikely.

Really? You're going with "everyone did it, it must have been okay"? "Everyone" used the N word not that long ago. Does that mean it's an "okay" word to use?

 

[boilermaker55]

Act stupid it fits you well.
As if you and your cohorts add anything substantial to the discussion.
You have a very typical closed-minded ignorant attitude. Which deserves what the picture denotes.
Thank for advocating your stupidity.

And here you are again with your pompous and condescending attitude like you are a scholar.
You are so , partly , entertaining if it were not for the fact that you really believe all your own bullshit.

The Judicial Branch] may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments. — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78

Hamilton you say? Federalist Paper 78 you say? Why lets dig in.

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Alexander Hamilton
Federalist Paper 78

Huh. Its almost as if you never read Federalist Paper 78, have no idea what's in it, and have never once fact checked your claims.

See, Mike, that's the difference between us. You copy and paste lists. I actually do research and read the sources.

Incorrect as usual, and I'm sure you're just as much a "constitutional scholar" as the poop stain in the White House.

Alexander Hamilton argued for a Supreme Court that was confirmed by the Senate and not the House of Representatives saying:

A body so fluctuating and at the same time so numerous, can never be deemed proper for the exercise of that power. Its unfitness will appear manifest to all, when it is recollected that in half a century it may consist of three or four hundred persons. All the advantages of the stability, both of the Executive and of the Senate, would be defeated by this union, and infinite delays and embarrassments would be occasioned.

In retrospect, Hamilton could only have been arguing for input from the States on judiciary appointments since at the time, Senators were appointed by state legislators, not by popular vote. Hamilton pointedly warned of the danger of judges being appointed by popular winds, saying:

the necessity of their [the Senate’s] concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.

One can only guess that Hamilton might have had a different view of Senate confirmations if the 17th Amendment were already passed. It might also be noted that the Constitution would never have been ratified to begin with had it been written in such way as to give the States no representation whatsoever in Washington D.C.

What, pray tell is that image supposed to be - are you picking your nose and flinging your boogers ? because it's obvious you have nothing of any value to add -regards booger finger.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Oh but there is, and we see it in your kind day after day. Don't worry, there's a six feet under solution that will find you eventually and your phobia will be resolved.

As crass a description as that is, its sadly true. There's only so far you can bring some folks of a generation in terms of the abandonment of pointless bigotry. My grandfather is a great man. Yet still drops the n bomb on occasion and refers to the Japanese as 'them Japs'.

He is a product of his age. The generation that came after him can go farther, and the generation that came after them, farther still.

With the attrition of age taking with it much of the sharper edges of irrational bigotry.

What's wrong with Japs?

It's a derogatory term used a lot in ww2 era, my grandfather also uses it.

Yeah, everyone's grandparents use it. Are we so sure THEY'RE the ones who are wrong? Seems unlikely.

Really? You're going with "everyone did it, it must have been okay"? "Everyone" used the N word not that long ago. Does that mean it's an "okay" word to use?

No, everyone DIDNT use the N word. But everyone did say Japs. It wasn't a racial slur until the moronic Left made it one.