homosexual marriage

[Syriusly]

Jet airplanes brought Ebola to the United States.

What President are you imagining- the President [from] Liberia?

Kenya... he's from Kenya.


ROFLMNAO! Jet airliners were infected with Ebola and brought it to the US?

ROFLMNAO! So Jet airliners are sentient beings with an acute sense of survival, wherein they recognize that they're chances of survival with an infection of Ebola in Africa are nil and decided to risk the lives of an entire nation to save his own sorry ass?

Huh... I guess that explains your feelings that 'GUNS KILL PEOPLE!'

Oh well at least you're consistent. (ly foolish.)

Folks, keep in mind this is the genius that demanded that NO CULTURE HAS EVER GONE EXTINCT!

LOL! That still cracks me up!

You keep making it more and more clear- no competing- or discussing with bat guano crazy.

You think the "left' intentionally brought Ebola to the U.S.
You want the "People' to kill off folks like me.
You keep lying about what I have said.

I think I will let you argue with the voices in your head.

And leave it to just pointing out 'bat guano crazy' in your posts.

 

[Syriusly]

Jet airplanes brought Ebola to the United States.

What President are you imagining- the President [from] Liberia?

Kenya... he's from Kenya.
!

The President of Kenya is responsible for bringing Ebola to the United States?

FROM KENYA! Sally... 'FROM" Kenya.

You think the President of Kenya is named Sally?

And he brought Ebola to the U.S.?

Do you think he did this on his magic unicorn?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Jet airplanes brought Ebola to the United States.

What President are you imagining- the President [from] Liberia?

Kenya... he's from Kenya.
!

The President of Kenya is responsible for bringing Ebola to the United States?

FROM KENYA! Sally... 'FROM" Kenya.

You think the President of Kenya is named Sally?

And he brought Ebola to the U.S.?

Do you think he did this on his magic unicorn?

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Syriusly]

Jet airplanes brought Ebola to the United States.

What President are you imagining- the President [from] Liberia?

Kenya... he's from Kenya.
!

The President of Kenya is responsible for bringing Ebola to the United States?

FROM KENYA! Sally... 'FROM" Kenya.

You think the President of Kenya is named Sally?

And he brought Ebola to the U.S.?

Do you think he did this on his magic unicorn?

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

No less a bat guano claim than any of the others you have made.

 

[Derideo_Te]

[ And now, that same stupidity is in power, dismissing E-FRICKEN-BOLA~ .

Threatening the lives of MILLIONS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE, who's only crime is that they haven't taken to the streets, dragging you people from your homes and annihilating you where you're found. .

So now you are advocating the murder of anyone on the Left.

And using Ebola as the excuse.

Not a surprise.

Murder is the morally unjustified taking of a human life... I've never advocated for any such thing, as I have no right to advocate through speech, that which is not a right.

For instance, there is no right to engage in sex with a person of one's own gender... therefore there is no right to publicly advocate for such.

The Ideological Left has intentionally imported Ebola into the US. In a few months, it will be in full blown epidemic mode and within a year, the US Economy will be dead as a door-nail... with millions sick and dying.

All of the crowing by you people that "THE REPUBLICANS DID IT" is not going to save ya.

This is your greatest and it will be you last miscalculation. With it, will not only go political power, in every town across the nation, through to the Federal government, but the means to admit one is homosexual... as to BE Homosexual will be, as it is now tantamount to being one of the people that called for and created THE CHANGE that brought us EBOLA!

It's all over but the cryin'. Best get anything ya feel strongly about done... as time is short.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Nature didn't 'bring' Ebola here. Nature created Ebola... Desperate Africans brought it here... and a desperate African president ALLOWED IT TO COME HERE.

No big surprise to discover that the delusional homophobic bigot is also a delusional racist bigot.

 

[Seawytch]

I know many infertile couples and elderly opposite gender couples who have had children.

There have never been any truly infertile couples who have had biological children together.
There have never been any couples who have married in the 80's who have produced children together after they have married.

And none of that has anything to do with homosexual marriage.

Oh reallllllyyyyyyy

Tell these guys K?

Fertility Treatments for Females

Is elderly now 80?

Here's a clue

The elderly many many many times have had children within there lifetimes, even many many many gay ones.

Now, name a single child ever produced by a same sex coupling

Just one

Shouldn't be that difficult.

LOL- here is a clue- infertile means infertile.

An infertile couple will have no more natural children than an infertile couple that happens to be infertile and same gender.

Why you keep asking for a child produced by same sex coupling I have no idea.

Just as two 80 year olds are not having children together, just as an infertile couple are not having children together, a same gender couple will not be having natural children together.

And so what?

Wisconsin will not even allow some couples to marry unless they prove that they are unable to procreate.

And so what?

And here's your silly argument in a nutshell

Your bicycle is exactly the same as my motorcycle because some motorcycles have blown engines and still others are old, rusty and can no longer run. Therefor, your bicycle must be the same.

Preposterous

It shows how delusional you are

Get this, 50 years ago those "infertile" couples could never hope to create a child. Now many can

No (that is an absolute and not debate able) same sex coupling has ever or will ever produce a child.

Claim your bike the equal to my motorcycle all you want. Crying and stomping your feet will not make it so no matter how many enablers you might convince.

Sorry, facts is facts.

so you can't tell the differences between motorcycles and people?

LOL- here is a clue- infertile means infertile.

An infertile couple will have no more natural children than an infertile couple that happens to be infertile and same gender.

Why you keep asking for a child produced by same sex coupling I have no idea.

Just as two 80 year olds are not having children together, just as an infertile couple are not having children together, a same gender couple will not be having natural children together.

And so what?

Wisconsin will not even allow some couples to marry unless they prove that they are unable to procreate.

And so what?

Syriusly, you can't reason with an anti gay bigot.

 

[bodecea]

[ And now, that same stupidity is in power, dismissing E-FRICKEN-BOLA~ .

Threatening the lives of MILLIONS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE, who's only crime is that they haven't taken to the streets, dragging you people from your homes and annihilating you where you're found. .

So now you are advocating the murder of anyone on the Left.

And using Ebola as the excuse.

Not a surprise.

Murder is the morally unjustified taking of a human life... I've never advocated for any such thing, as I have no right to advocate through speech, that which is not a right.

For instance, there is no right to engage in sex with a person of one's own gender... therefore there is no right to publicly advocate for such.

The Ideological Left has intentionally imported Ebola into the US. In a few months, it will be in full blown epidemic mode and within a year, the US Economy will be dead as a door-nail... with millions sick and dying.

All of the crowing by you people that "THE REPUBLICANS DID IT" is not going to save ya.

This is your greatest and it will be you last miscalculation. With it, will not only go political power, in every town across the nation, through to the Federal government, but the means to admit one is homosexual... as to BE Homosexual will be, as it is now tantamount to being one of the people that called for and created THE CHANGE that brought us EBOLA!

It's all over but the cryin'. Best get anything ya feel strongly about done... as time is short.

How many Americans have died of Ebola so far this week?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nature didn't 'bring' Ebola here. Nature created Ebola... Desperate Africans brought it here... and a desperate African president ALLOWED IT TO COME HERE.

No big surprise to discover that the delusional homophobic bigot is also a delusional racist bigot.

ROFLMNAO! I SO adore the sweeter ironies.

(Shhh... they have absolutely NO MEANS to even understand it. Give them some time to struggle... its more fun like this.)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

There have never been any truly infertile couples who have had biological children together.
There have never been any couples who have married in the 80's who have produced children together after they have married.

And none of that has anything to do with homosexual marriage.

Oh reallllllyyyyyyy

Tell these guys K?

Fertility Treatments for Females

Is elderly now 80?

Here's a clue

The elderly many many many times have had children within there lifetimes, even many many many gay ones.

Now, name a single child ever produced by a same sex coupling

Just one

Shouldn't be that difficult.

LOL- here is a clue- infertile means infertile.

An infertile couple will have no more natural children than an infertile couple that happens to be infertile and same gender.

Why you keep asking for a child produced by same sex coupling I have no idea.

Just as two 80 year olds are not having children together, just as an infertile couple are not having children together, a same gender couple will not be having natural children together.

And so what?

Wisconsin will not even allow some couples to marry unless they prove that they are unable to procreate.

And so what?

And here's your silly argument in a nutshell

Your bicycle is exactly the same as my motorcycle because some motorcycles have blown engines and still others are old, rusty and can no longer run. Therefor, your bicycle must be the same.

Preposterous

It shows how delusional you are

Get this, 50 years ago those "infertile" couples could never hope to create a child. Now many can

No (that is an absolute and not debate able) same sex coupling has ever or will ever produce a child.

Claim your bike the equal to my motorcycle all you want. Crying and stomping your feet will not make it so no matter how many enablers you might convince.

Sorry, facts is facts.

so you can't tell the differences between motorcycles and people?

LOL- here is a clue- infertile means infertile.

An infertile couple will have no more natural children than an infertile couple that happens to be infertile and same gender.

Why you keep asking for a child produced by same sex coupling I have no idea.

Just as two 80 year olds are not having children together, just as an infertile couple are not having children together, a same gender couple will not be having natural children together.

And so what?

Wisconsin will not even allow some couples to marry unless they prove that they are unable to procreate.

And so what?

Syriusly, you can't reason with an anti gay bigot.

There's no such thing as an Anti-Advocacy for Normalization of Sexual Abnormality Bigot.

To wit:

Bigotry: the irrational intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself, particularly where those differing opinions are rooted in sound reasoning.

Opposing the cultural normalization of harbingers is founded in the sound rationale that to do so, subjects the culture to the predictable, catastrophic consequences, common to such.

It's akin to normalizing the warning sirens of an impending tsunami. It seems like a fair way to go, right up until one is crushed by a wall of high speed, debris laden water.

But its perfectly understandable, given your bigoted perspective.

You're a relativist. Which means that you've little means to reason objectively. Therefore your every instinct is set around the template of YOU and what "FEEL" YOU NEED!

It's the classic template of the female psyche. And as such represents the traits of all female endeavors.

In politics, it's typically socialism and I know.. you prefer "Progressive" today, but that's only because you've convinced sufficient people that socialism is bad, so you've changed the name AGAIN, to avoid being held accountable for the otherwise inevitable consequences of such. No biggy, I get it.

So... as a relativist, incapable of objectivity, you lack the means to discern truth... which explains your trust issues... (Explain this to Daddy... it might help heal that long festering wound). It's also why you reject America's intrinsic, foundational principles, which provide for it's soundly reasoned morality and why, without exception, your cult, inclusive of both females and it's feminized males... reject the notion that the only legitimate purpose of Law, is to serve justice. (Here's a link to a classic example of that: #391)

It's why you only publicly object to the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification on issues of legality and not morality.

It's YOU! You're a relativist... OKA: a sociopath.

Pretty cool, huh?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Murder is the morally unjustified taking of a human life...

See... "The irrational intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself, particularly where those differing opinions are rooted in sound reasoning." (Bigotry) ON PARADE!

 

[Syriusly]

Oh reallllllyyyyyyy

Tell these guys K?

Fertility Treatments for Females

Is elderly now 80?

Here's a clue

The elderly many many many times have had children within there lifetimes, even many many many gay ones.

Now, name a single child ever produced by a same sex coupling

Just one

Shouldn't be that difficult.

LOL- here is a clue- infertile means infertile.

An infertile couple will have no more natural children than an infertile couple that happens to be infertile and same gender.

Why you keep asking for a child produced by same sex coupling I have no idea.

Just as two 80 year olds are not having children together, just as an infertile couple are not having children together, a same gender couple will not be having natural children together.

And so what?

Wisconsin will not even allow some couples to marry unless they prove that they are unable to procreate.

And so what?

And here's your silly argument in a nutshell

Your bicycle is exactly the same as my motorcycle because some motorcycles have blown engines and still others are old, rusty and can no longer run. Therefor, your bicycle must be the same.

Preposterous

It shows how delusional you are

Get this, 50 years ago those "infertile" couples could never hope to create a child. Now many can

No (that is an absolute and not debate able) same sex coupling has ever or will ever produce a child.

Claim your bike the equal to my motorcycle all you want. Crying and stomping your feet will not make it so no matter how many enablers you might convince.

Sorry, facts is facts.

so you can't tell the differences between motorcycles and people?

LOL- here is a clue- infertile means infertile.

An infertile couple will have no more natural children than an infertile couple that happens to be infertile and same gender.

Why you keep asking for a child produced by same sex coupling I have no idea.

Just as two 80 year olds are not having children together, just as an infertile couple are not having children together, a same gender couple will not be having natural children together.

And so what?

Wisconsin will not even allow some couples to marry unless they prove that they are unable to procreate.

And so what?

Syriusly, you can't reason with an anti gay bigot.

There's no such thing as an Anti-Advocacy for Normalization of Sexual Abnormality Bigot.

To wit:

Bigotry: the irrational intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself, particularly where those differing opinions are rooted in sound reasoning.

Opposing the cultural normalization of harbingers is founded in the sound rationale that to do so, subjects the culture to the predictable, catastrophic consequences, common to such.

It's akin to normalizing the warning sirens of an impending tsunami. It seems like a fair way to go, right up until one is crushed by a wall of high speed, debris laden water.

But its perfectly understandable, given your bigoted perspective.

You're a relativist. Which means that you've little means to reason objectively. Therefore your every instinct is set around the template of YOU and what "FEEL" YOU NEED!

It's the classic template of the female psyche. And as such represents the traits of all female endeavors.

In politics, it's typically socialism and I know.. you prefer "Progressive" today, but that's only because you've convinced sufficient people that socialism is bad, so you've changed the name AGAIN, to avoid being held accountable for the otherwise inevitable consequences of such. No biggy, I get it.

So... as a relativist, incapable of objectivity, you lack the means to discern truth... which explains your trust issues... (Explain this to Daddy... it might help heal that long festering wound). It's also why you reject America's intrinsic, foundational principles, which provide for it's soundly reasoned morality and why, without exception, your cult, inclusive of both females and it's feminized males... reject the notion that the only legitimate purpose of Law, is to serve justice. (Here's a link to a classic example of that: #391)

It's why you only publicly object to the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification on issues of legality and not morality.

It's YOU! You're a relativist... OKA: a sociopath.

Pretty cool, huh?

More bat guano crazy..... a whole lot of bat guano crazy.....now calling those he disagrees with a sociopath.

 

[Seawytch]

Oh reallllllyyyyyyy

Tell these guys K?

Fertility Treatments for Females

Is elderly now 80?

Here's a clue

The elderly many many many times have had children within there lifetimes, even many many many gay ones.

Now, name a single child ever produced by a same sex coupling

Just one

Shouldn't be that difficult.

LOL- here is a clue- infertile means infertile.

An infertile couple will have no more natural children than an infertile couple that happens to be infertile and same gender.

Why you keep asking for a child produced by same sex coupling I have no idea.

Just as two 80 year olds are not having children together, just as an infertile couple are not having children together, a same gender couple will not be having natural children together.

And so what?

Wisconsin will not even allow some couples to marry unless they prove that they are unable to procreate.

And so what?

And here's your silly argument in a nutshell

Your bicycle is exactly the same as my motorcycle because some motorcycles have blown engines and still others are old, rusty and can no longer run. Therefor, your bicycle must be the same.

Preposterous

It shows how delusional you are

Get this, 50 years ago those "infertile" couples could never hope to create a child. Now many can

No (that is an absolute and not debate able) same sex coupling has ever or will ever produce a child.

Claim your bike the equal to my motorcycle all you want. Crying and stomping your feet will not make it so no matter how many enablers you might convince.

Sorry, facts is facts.

so you can't tell the differences between motorcycles and people?

LOL- here is a clue- infertile means infertile.

An infertile couple will have no more natural children than an infertile couple that happens to be infertile and same gender.

Why you keep asking for a child produced by same sex coupling I have no idea.

Just as two 80 year olds are not having children together, just as an infertile couple are not having children together, a same gender couple will not be having natural children together.

And so what?

Wisconsin will not even allow some couples to marry unless they prove that they are unable to procreate.

And so what?

Syriusly, you can't reason with an anti gay bigot.

There's no such thing as an Anti-Advocacy for Normalization of Sexual Abnormality Bigot.

To wit:

Bigotry: the irrational intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself, particularly where those differing opinions are rooted in sound reasoning.

Opposing the cultural normalization of harbingers is founded in the sound rationale that to do so, subjects the culture to the predictable, catastrophic consequences, common to such.

It's akin to normalizing the warning sirens of an impending tsunami. It seems like a fair way to go, right up until one is crushed by a wall of high speed, debris laden water.

But its perfectly understandable, given your bigoted perspective.

You're a relativist. Which means that you've little means to reason objectively. Therefore your every instinct is set around the template of YOU and what "FEEL" YOU NEED!

It's the classic template of the female psyche. And as such represents the traits of all female endeavors.

In politics, it's typically socialism and I know.. you prefer "Progressive" today, but that's only because you've convinced sufficient people that socialism is bad, so you've changed the name AGAIN, to avoid being held accountable for the otherwise inevitable consequences of such. No biggy, I get it.

So... as a relativist, incapable of objectivity, you lack the means to discern truth... which explains your trust issues... (Explain this to Daddy... it might help heal that long festering wound). It's also why you reject America's intrinsic, foundational principles, which provide for it's soundly reasoned morality and why, without exception, your cult, inclusive of both females and it's feminized males... reject the notion that the only legitimate purpose of Law, is to serve justice. (Here's a link to a classic example of that: #391)

It's why you only publicly object to the adult pursuit of children for sexual gratification on issues of legality and not morality.

It's YOU! You're a relativist... OKA: a sociopath.

Pretty cool, huh?

And the crazy gets even crazier....proving my statement.

 

[Pop23]

There have never been any truly infertile couples who have had biological children together.
There have never been any couples who have married in the 80's who have produced children together after they have married.

And none of that has anything to do with homosexual marriage.

Oh reallllllyyyyyyy

Tell these guys K?

Fertility Treatments for Females

Is elderly now 80?

Here's a clue

The elderly many many many times have had children within there lifetimes, even many many many gay ones.

Now, name a single child ever produced by a same sex coupling

Just one

Shouldn't be that difficult.

LOL- here is a clue- infertile means infertile.

An infertile couple will have no more natural children than an infertile couple that happens to be infertile and same gender.

Why you keep asking for a child produced by same sex coupling I have no idea.

Just as two 80 year olds are not having children together, just as an infertile couple are not having children together, a same gender couple will not be having natural children together.

And so what?

Wisconsin will not even allow some couples to marry unless they prove that they are unable to procreate.

And so what?

And here's your silly argument in a nutshell

Your bicycle is exactly the same as my motorcycle because some motorcycles have blown engines and still others are old, rusty and can no longer run. Therefor, your bicycle must be the same.

Preposterous

It shows how delusional you are

Get this, 50 years ago those "infertile" couples could never hope to create a child. Now many can

No (that is an absolute and not debate able) same sex coupling has ever or will ever produce a child.

Claim your bike the equal to my motorcycle all you want. Crying and stomping your feet will not make it so no matter how many enablers you might convince.

Sorry, facts is facts.

so you can't tell the differences between motorcycles and people?

LOL- here is a clue- infertile means infertile.

An infertile couple will have no more natural children than an infertile couple that happens to be infertile and same gender.

Why you keep asking for a child produced by same sex coupling I have no idea.

Just as two 80 year olds are not having children together, just as an infertile couple are not having children together, a same gender couple will not be having natural children together.

And so what?

Wisconsin will not even allow some couples to marry unless they prove that they are unable to procreate.

And so what?

Syriusly, you can't reason with an anti gay bigot.

Let me fix it for ya

You can't argue when YOU have half a brain

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And the crazy gets even crazier....proving my statement.

Now here is my favorite thing to do in these little 'discussions'.

What you see in Seawytch's profession above, is what is OKA: a baseless implication.

This is a device which the relativist uses, as a means to imply 'truth', where there is in reality, nothing even remotely affiliated with the truth.

She's telling us, the reader, that my statement, to which she replied above, is a demonstration of some unstated psychosis; meaning she is claiming, through the implication, that she thinks I'm crazy and my statement proved it.

The reason she does this, is she NEEDS for her position to be true. (Understand, it doesn't matter if in reality, the facts actually prove it to be true, she simply NEEDS it to be true and for her... as long as someone else also 'feels' that it's true, then it is. That's what relativism is... the truth is whatever one's relative circumstances require it to be. Capiche? )

So, knowing this... all it takes to prove it, is to simply ask the subject to state their reasoning through which they felt the authorization to advance the profession. When they fail to do so, ya know that they're either lying, in an intentional attempt to deceive you, or they're clinically ill, delusional, believing that which has no bearing on reality, is real and true. Doesn't matter which, because the net effect is the same for our purposes here, which is that such demonstrates that the member is unworthy of trust.... which is again... a key trait of relativism and why it is the height of lunacy to allow such people anywhere near a voting booth, let alone sufficient freedom to form a political faction, which hold significant influence over one of your two political parties.

So... here we go!

Seabiscuitch, you've implied that you have evidence to believe that I, your opposition in this here discussion is mentally ill. And further than the statement to which you replied above, provided specific evidence of that psychosis. What is the evidence to which you referred you possessed prior to the statement to which you replied above, was made and what specific evidence was there in the relevant statement which 'proved your statement right'?

Now folks, please sit back and enjoy the silence, as Seabiscuitch fails to offer any sustaining facts or any viable reasoning which in ANYWAY supports a dam' thing she's said.

Enjoy...

(OH! And enjoy the looming effort to pretend this never happened and, where such is otherwise unavoidable, that the entire affair rests in sarcasm, which naturally, I am simply not bright enough to detect... or any of a host of deflections designed to avoid her being held accountable for her irrational and all too differing opinions with which I've so little tolerance, as indicated by my opposition to such.)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

LOL! Proven right, indeed!

 

[Syriusly]

She's telling us, the reader, that my statement, to which she replied above, is a demonstration of some unstated psychosis; meaning she is claiming, through the implication, that she thinks I'm crazy and my statement proved it.

The irony is thick in your post.

Since this was your claim about Sea

It's YOU! You're a relativist... OKA: a sociopath.

Since you have stated you think that she is crazy.....rather ironic to whine about her pointing out your craziness.

 

[hazlnut]

A magistrate in the state I live in refused to marry a gay couple even though homosexual marriage was just declared legal by the courts. So a couple of questions.
1 If a gay couple ask a conservative preacher to marry them can he site his religious beliefs and say no?
2 If the answer to question 1 is yes should a magistrate be able to say no because of his beliefs?
My only fear now that it is legal is that preachers are going to be forced into marrying them even though it is against his beliefs.

Catholic Priests won't marry non-Catholics or Catholics that have been divorced.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Murder is the morally unjustified taking of a human life...

See... "The irrational intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself, particularly where those differing opinions are rooted in sound reasoning." (Bigotry) ON PARADE!

Pointing out the fact that you're lying and making insane, unfounded statements is not being 'intolerant.'

It's pointing out the fact that you're lying and making insane, unfounded statements.

 

[Pop23]

Murder is the morally unjustified taking of a human life...

See... "The irrational intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself, particularly where those differing opinions are rooted in sound reasoning." (Bigotry) ON PARADE!

Pointing out the fact that you're lying and making insane, unfounded statements is not being 'intolerant.'

It's pointing out the fact that you're lying and making insane, unfounded statements.

My lord, do you even understand that, that is exactly what you do?

I'll return to the point that your argument, in a nutshell is that a bicycle is just as good as a motorcycle because some motorcycles have blown motors and others are old, rusty and unable to start.

What delusions y'all have